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."
But the thing about the original films was that they had a believeable flow. There was an empire and giant evil machine with drones to do their bidding. There were the remnants of the Jedi, calmly biding their time until the events allowed Luke to be brought into his own and hopefuly push forward and bring them back from near extinction. There were the Rebels, a small on the run group constantly trying to stay one step ahead of the empire. Hit and run attacks, going for weak points instead of all out brute force. And then there was the rest of the world. They didn't like the control they were under, but they didn't have a lot of say, so they just lived on. The worlds had believeability, the machines had believeability. The big energy guns had big cables, the ships and switches and dials and buttons, not just lights on a pannel. The problem with the new star wars movies is things aren't believeable, there are no motives, just actions.
T Money
World Domination with a plastic spoon since 1984
"The only new crime of the new trilogy is the over-reliance on CGI. "
Not true. The original trilogy had character. Without a Han Solo'ish character, Jedi are quite boring.
Plot is nowhere near as important as the characters. Don't belive me? Ask people why they like Monsters Inc. 0 people will say "Because I think it's cool how Sully provided power to the Monster world without scaring children!"
"Derp de derp."
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.
Literary criticism can actually get more interesting as time goes on. What if anything does "Blade Runner" have to say now that we have cloning? Does "Seven Samurai" or "Magnificent Seven" inform the debate on terrorism today? How does a character like Charles Foster Kane illustrate what we now see in people like Rupert Murdoch or, for that matter, Bill Clinton?
Every generation gets to reintrepret stories, whether those stories are Star Wars movies, Shakespeare's plays, or the epics of the Greeks & Romans. The first generation gets a first crack at such review, but really it takes time for the first wave of interesting stuff to fall out, and the revisionism that later generations can bring can be even more interesting, even if it makes purists wince. Compared to that slower, more thoughtful criticism, the puff pieces you get to see right when the movie/book/etc comes out are for the most part pretty boring & useless.
DO NOT LEAVE IT IS NOT REAL
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