Slashdot Mirror
David Brin on "Attack of the Clones"
dpt writes "Science fiction author and scientist David Brin caused quite a stir at the time with his article on The Phantom Menace, and now here are his thoughts on Episode II. Not being as harsh, it hasn't received much attention, but it's an interesting read anyway."
... with the new star wars films is nostalgia. We look back on the original three films with rose-tinted glasses, when really the dialogue sucked, the plots were generic, and acting not up to scratch. :-)
The only new crime of the new trilogy is the over-reliance on CGI.
PS this isnt a troll I actually love Star Wars
<fnord>OBEY</fnord>
I mean, shouldnt a critique of the movie be out, say, within a month or two of the movie being released??
He has analyzed this movie way too much. Jesus, just enjoy it. Quit over analyzing it.
So what? Brin is most definitely not in the "can't do" category. He's a fantastic author who's won a stack of awards for his Science Fiction writing. I'll admit that the one movie made from one of his books was awful, but the blame for that lies clearly on Kevin Costner's shoulders, not Brin's.
There's no point in questioning authority if you aren't going to listen to the answers.
Absolutely true. If you look at the prequels critically, as films and not as special-effects demonstrations, you see glaring holes in logic, motivation, purpose, etc. Brin ties all the problems up in three paragraphs. Absolutely astounding.
And we all remember how rivetting 2001 was (Monolith, snore, Monolith on Moon, snore, Monolith in Jupiter orbit, snore, etc...)
Hey, Star Wars is a space soap opera (sorta like Flash Gordon or Buck Rogers). 2001 is hard-core science fiction. Two distinct genres.
Please don't place a burden on something that doesn't deserve it.
Political correctness is the newest form of slavery.
I thought this article was an interesting read, and he made some really good points. The fact that I neither love or hate star wars makes this it a little easier to look at this objectively.
The one thing that I couldn't agree with was when he said getting angry can turn you evil is a down right lie. He then brings up an obligatory Hitler reference. A better example would be if, say a military group attacked you, and you decided to completely annihliate everyone who is from their country. You fighting the group is not evil, but you going overboard and killing everyone is! Of course you would have had no reason to fight them at all, but you were mad at what they did to you.
Hope that makes sense!
There are many who will take offense at Brin's comments. But as a fan of Sci Fi it is Brin's duty to question Lucas and call him on his mistakes.
If more people step up and speak the truth about how much of a "let down" both of the "new" Star Wars films have been, maybe George will spend a little more time writing the third and less time worrying about the CGI.
Exactly.
:)
Reading this guy's article, I was amazed at how seriously he took SWII. Taking entire paragraphs to point out plot inconsistencies, complaining about the simplistic notion of Jedi thoughts on anger, Anakin's mother, etc., etc. makes me wonder if he doesn't realize that for George Lucas, this whole Star Wars thing is pure escapism - a giddy, whimsical throwback to B-grade kiddie serial flicks from another time. Of course there's no Spielbergian display of 'inner conflict of the human hero' - that's how the genre works. The Lone Ranger would have been out of place in Saving Private Ryan but he'd be in familiar company in a Star Wars flick. Even special moments of angst (Luke looking at setting twin suns, Han contemplating a return to attack the original Death Star) are stock B-movie cheesy moments. It's What Makes Star Wars Fun.
Don't get me wrong - the guy's allowed to take Star Wars seriously. But this whole 'disgruntled fan-boy' criticism just seems like a waste of time, kind of like posting about it on Slashdot.
Hey, wait a minute...
But what does my opinion matter, I just vote here. It's not like I have any money or anything.
I don't have any problem with the bland nihlism that apparently irritates Mr. Brin so much, maybe because it appeals to me. I'm not bothered by the incredible plot inconsistencies or the general lack of good story telling. These are movies, not films. I suspend my disbelief, and magically, I'm entertained. Of course, I'm easily entertained, so maybe I'm a bad judge.
Oh, and I save my religous devotion for Star Trek and Vi.
That aside, I think the real problem is that we're quibbling over subplot and subtext in a place it doesn't belong. The original appeal of the space opera in New Hope was that the story arc - moronic, cheesy, and poorly constructed as it might be, IANA writer just an engineer - was epic (insert sound effect for listeners of the Tony Kornheiser show). Whats killed Eps I and II is that we have time to consider the finer, or not so fine, plot components because the story line is so darn boring. As much as it might be a subtle introduction into the making of an emperor, a story arc about a trade dispute pales in comparison to saving the universe from destruction.
Save the intellectualism for Trek and Battlestar Gallactica, and give me more epic space opera in my Ep III, and I'll be happy.
Outside of a dog, a book is a man's best friend. Inside a dog, its too dark to read.
So you think it's just coincidence, or lack of foresight or something, that LucasFilm is notorious for releasing not one, not two, not three, but *four or more* versions of each film to the home video market? The initial ones being downright crippled, then gradually getting better?
How about the fact that they had to scale back the number of merchandising tie-ins for AotC because there was so much press about how TPM was basically a 2 hour vehicle for cross-promotions of toys, ties, and KFC
His lifestyle, which you point out, actually argues my point: when people are greedy, they often *don't* have mansions, yachts, harems, etc, because it isn't about enjoying wealth, but rather accumulating it.
George Lucas definitely had some potential, but speaking in present tense, he's about as much of an "artist" as Brittney Spears -- he may be in complete technical control of movies, but he is absolutely a slave to public opinion when it comes to what to make, because he's greedy and the primary interest is in maximizing revenue, not producing quality movies. Sometimes it works in our favor (everyone hates Jar-Jar, we get less Jar-Jar), sometimes it works against us (must include a cheesy romance to capture the female demographic). That's par for the course in Hollywood, I know, but my point is that he's no exception... and that, with customer-abusive attitudes in video release and merchandising, he is actually one of the worst.
Cheers
-b
Chalk it up to movies 2001:A Space Odyssey.
We'd been conditioned to see space as an antiseptic place, full of glaring bright light, shiny technology, and alien experiences. The original thing about the first SW movie was the way it visually reimagined space to be grungy, bange-up, and lived-in, full of low life characters who were perfectly comprehensible even if they spoke some weird electronic lanuge and looked like a pile of congealed excrement. Star Wars opened up outer space to the great unwashed.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Right, but, Lucas seems to want folks to feel there _is_ a message in his films, claiming to be inspired by the work of Campbell (who definitely claimed that even 'escapist' cultural myths reveal the underlying philosophy of a culture).
So Brin is critiqeing from the view that Lucas does want to be taken seriously.
I happen to agree that Lucas just wants to make a bunch of money and play with some cool new digital toys & that he is using Campbellian patterns in his stories because they are recepies for popularity, not because he actually wants or expects his stories to teach or shape the culture.
But a central theme to Campbell's work was that popular myths _do_ shape and teach...
In fact, I was really hoping/expecting that he'd be killed at the end, and his dying words would be, "You've just destroyed the only force in the galaxy that could have stopped the Sith...."
I love the idea of Palpatine manipulating his enemies into destroying eachother so that he could seize control. Kind of nihilistic, I know, but it lays a far richer foundation for Episode 3.
Do you realize that in nowadays' political atmosphere, the Rebels would be seen as terrorists and the evil Empire would look more like ... well.
Brin makes some interesting points in these anti-Lucas screeds of his, but the strongest feeling I get from them is one of bitter resentment. I think Brin has a particular idea of what constitutes "real" SF, and Lucas's success with his paltry "pseudo-SF" is grating. That, I can understand, but it does Brin no good to come up with spurious logic and silly accusations to try and denigrate Lucas... to what purpose, I can't tell.
For example, Brin is fond of pointing out how unhealthy it is to repress your emotions -- something he claims the Jedi faith is based on. The problem is that the Jedi have no problems with the existence of negative emotions -- merely with acting on them. Controlling yourself to the point where you don't even have any negative emotions is nigh-impossible; but recognizing when you are having those emotions, and waiting until you are calm before you act, is where the wisdom lies.
Brin also makes the odd assumption that just because Lucas shows a character doing something in a movie, means that Lucas thinks that real people should act that way in real life. His quote from Orwell is almost apropos, except that a movie is different enough from a gas chamber that the comparison is silly. I'm not saying Brin has to like Lucas's beliefs or philosophy, but to claim that there's some crime being perpetrated against humanity because of the entirely fictional things that happen in a movie, is just dumb. Criticizing a movie for bad writing, bad direction, and bad acting is certainly fine, but why does Brin see such a threat against real adult morality from these films?
"Destroy science and religion. Science would re-emerge exactly the same; but not religion." - Penn Jillette, paraphrased
What Lucas is good at is production-value overload. In Episode I, there's a new major set every 90 seconds. That's really what keeps people from being bothered by the bad dialogue and inept action.
Yes, it makes money, but so does Pokemon.
Anakin acted like a 19 year old who was in lust and confusing it with love. That is because he was portraing a 19 year old who was having a great deal of trouble getting his hormones under control. BTW, I am the parent of a 19 year old. I've seen some awfull sappy scenes, and heard some terroribly corny dialoge, comparable to the worst in AotC, not from a movie, but from my sons room.
You make an interesting point, were that I hadn't posted already and could mod you up.
I think part of the real irony of people bashing the romance between Anakin and Padme is that they are holding these characters up to a higher level than what the characters should be at in real life. Anakin is late teens, Padme is early/mid 20's. They play the romance exactly as it would be in real life. You have Anakin who has never loved before all of a sudden getting this rush of feelings (remember your first HS crush? compare...). Add Padme, a 20-something who doesn't take this kid seriously and attempts to brush off his advances. Mind you that she has never loved before either since her life has been spent in the political spotlight. Two first loves in the later part of their life? Come on, you can't tell me that half the 20-something computer geek virgins wouldn't have a romance dialogue similar or WORSE than what AOTC had.
--trb