Slashdot Mirror

> He did not lie when he said "I don't recall ever owning a droid" as far as we know.

Agreed. As we can tell, Obi-Wan often speaks in a way that his words can be interpreted to mean two different things. He said he didn't recall owning any droids, not, "I have no idea who these droids are." His statement was true, but it also mislead Luke to think that Obi Wan didn't know the droids at all. Obi-Wan also does this when he describes what happened to Luke's father.

Obi Wan's response is natural. He's been a hermit for 20 years after Darth Vader hunted down all the Jedi, and he's used to being coy about his identity. Advertising who he was was not in his best interest.

Personally, I thought this Slate article was a little silly. It seems almost to be a parody of film criticism. I believe that Episodes I-VI are good movies (with the exception of about half of VI), but not because they're "post modern". David Begor's article does a much better job of describing Lucas' three major themes: the circular nature of violence, duality of good/evil, and the nature of redemption.

While my cone has never been subpoena'd...

Oblio, is that you?

I don't dislike movies because they are popular or because I belong to some special "subculture". I dislike movies that waste my time and money with dumb dialog, wooden acting, predictable plots and irrelevant special effects.

"Dumb dialog" that fits right in line with all the Star Wars dialog. There was no radical departure. The romantic stuff might have been hard to swallow, but quite frankly it's in line with all three of the movies. Really, the only person who didn't talk in an outrageous fashion was Han Solo.

A bad movie is not just a $10 loss. It also costs time, more money, and lost expectations. I don't think it's unreasonable to expect to be entertained after setting aside a couple hours of your life, paying exorbitant ticket prices, battling traffic, paying the babysitter, etc.

First of all, no one is responsible for your expectations except you. You made this fantastic movie out of a cosmos of arbitrary expectations in your heard. They were not met. So, you feel like it's their fault?

After a lifetime of watching movie studios cater to the lowest common denominator because the test screening subjects "just didn't get it" I have become incredibly critical of bad movies. It's not MY fault.

Clearly, you are the victim here. I wish we inferior plebeians could arise to your enlightened expectations, that we might not bring wrinkles of frustration to your radiant complexion, Oh Lord!

Here's what puzzles me. You wasted your valuable time and money up to three times. You then claim your time is valuable and that it shouldn't have been wasted on this movie. But, complaining about this movie is an acceptable use of your time?

It's the fault of the studio execs who can't see past their spreadsheets or appreciate the fact that movies are an important part of many people's lives. Believe it or not, some people even appreciate them as the art form they SHOULD be, not just a way to waste some time and money.

Need I remind you that this is Star Wars. Everyone knew pretty much how this was going to go down. The target demographic children and people who liked the original movies. But keep in mind that even people who are experts at analyzing movies find something in this film.

I think people get so offended at the comedic elements of the prequels that they refused to look for the more significant elements.

How can I not help but feel ripped off when I am a quarter of the way into a movie and the entire plot becomes painfully obvious.

The plot was spelled out long before any movie was made. We knew what was going to happen, just not the details. If the general plot was not obvious to you, then you have a learning disability.

Is it too much to ask to be able to become emotionally involved in a movie? Dumb dialog and bad acting only serve to rip a viewer out of the fantasy of a movie and back into reality.

Your expectations did this long before any movie could. Ask yourself what you really expected. It sounds like you didn't actually want them to be Star Wars prequels. You wanted something else.

You are wrong in labeling this a subculture. You are right in recognizing that there are many dissatisfied movie fans.

Even if 90% of people feel exactly like you do, it's still a subculture. Please examine the definition.

As for the dissatisfied movie fans, I can't help but be reminded of the Matrix movies. People decided that the Matrix was going to be some kind of epiphany-inducing movie experience instead of an action movie with some interesting metaphysical background. As a result, the later movies "sucked."

http://www.brightlightsfilm.com/48/ai.htm

From the same site:
http://www.brightlightsfilm.com/16/meyer.html
Many fans are aware that Meyer collaborated with critic Roger Ebert on the script for the notorious sex 'n' sleaze epic Beyond the Valley of the Dolls. But according to Meyer, Ebert also helped write Supervixens, Beyond the Valley of the Ultravixens, and Up!
This man can't be completly bad.

> Translation: "My job is so easy

Ebert has always said that he hates the "star" ratings, but his newspaper makes him do it. Unfortunately, most readers just want to quickly glance at a rating rather than read a review and draw their conclusions.

Ebert has said before that the ratings are relative in that if the movie is intended to be a popcorn action movie, then he rates the movie compared to that. If it is expected to be art, he rates the movie against that.

Ebert is a very good reviewer, and he really knows his stuff about movies, although the wearing a sweater on TV and doing the thumbs up thing may mask that. I watched the DVD for "Dark City," and he did a commentary for it, and it was amazing what he drew out of it. Watching it and listening to it, I felt like I was sitting in a graduate level film class.

I think one problem is that Ebert is that he watches too many movies that he must review, and sometimes he glosses over a movie because he expects that he doesn't need to study it at a deeper level.

For example, Ebert's review of Episode II was very superficial (to the point that he even misquoted some key dialog in his review). However, on the whole he is probably correct that Episode II does not stand alone as a movie, and must be viewed in the context of the other movies, and his reviews rate movies based on how they stand alone.

In contrast, someone on Slashdot linked to another review of the movie by David Begor where he draws out the symbolism in the movie. The review is quite enlightening, and it changed the way I viewed the movies, as I could recognize the symbolism.

Personally, I place Moore in the same category as Nazi propagandist Leni Riefenstahl.

Most Obscure Example of Godwin's Law.

Leni Riefenstahl

There are actually a lot of interesting things Lucas does in the new films.... http://www.brightlightsfilm.com/38/clones1.htm

You're probably right that Lucas isn't worried about losing his fan base though. I can't see anyone who really cares about commercial success making a series of films so intensely intellectual.

I'd add two more:

(1) self-indulgence: structuring the entire film around the "nature vs. nurture" debate was insulting to the intelligence of the audience. Berman should either take a lesson from Lucas in how to make film symbolism complex and engaging, or avoid offering pat conclusions as deep philosophical insights.

(2) Deus ex Machina: No shields? Divert power to shields? No shields yet again? Divert more power to shields? Shields failing? Divert power to shields! If there are no consequences for anything, it is hard to engage the audience. I don't think it's surprising that what I consider the *best* of the films (II and IV) had dramatic conclusions that avoided conventional resolution.

Lucas is hardly counseling us to cheer for the Emperor and his death-like minions. Nor is Count Dooku's promise of "unlimited profits" to his supporters a paean to free markets, being instead a cautionary tale about the consequences of unfettered greed. For the Dark Side is always mired in the language of commerce, an association strengthened through its reliance on bounty hunters and smugglers, and reinforced more subtly through the use of casual references to "deals" and "bargains" that backfire continually on those who make them.

I grabbed this from a decent article on EII that appears here. It actually makes a relatively sophisticated argument about the continuity of the moral message in the saga - you might find it interesting.

Far from the embrace of authoritarianism that some otherwise perceptive reviewers including David Brin insist on reading into his work, Lucas actually offers a more nuanced claim: every democracy is part Republic and part Empire. As the Jedi and Sith represent the twin extremes of human nature, so do the Empire and Republic represent the twin extremes of social communities.

There's a decent article that just came out about the prequels in the latest edition of the Bright Lights Film Journal.

Reading it made me wonder if the film was actually better for having Lucas behind the camera.

Back to the issue of Mad Max, I doubt anything can go wrong as long as they haul back Tina Turner. She easily made the third film. :)

There's a decent article that just came out about the prequels in the latest edition of the Bright Lights Film Journal.

Reading it made me wonder if the film was actually better for having Lucas behind the camera.

Back to the issue of Mad Max, I doubt anything can go wrong as long as they haul back Tina Turner. She easily made the third film. :)

It's been done, but the other way around. The US version of Kubrick's last film, "Eyes Wide Shut", had a scene censored in the US, because the MPAA ratings board didn't like the way some characters "moved" while having sex. AFAIK, the US DVD release is censored, while the overseas version is not.

More information here, here, and here.

This is my real account. I don't post under anything else. My karma has taken more hits than your mom's pussy.