Slashdot Mirror
Roger Ebert Answers Star Wars Questions
pamri writes "Roger Ebert, in his weekly answer-man column, answers Star War related questions, chief among them being, why he gave the "Revenge of the Sith" 3.5 stars despite his criticism of the acting and whether George Lucas be faulted for violating his own work?"
The dangers of knowledge trigger emotional distress in human beings.
The 3.5 for ROTS , it had really great action scenes and the plot was all together rather better than the previous two , unfortunatly the acting was kind of poor ,, but compared to the last two star wars films it really shines.
The only things certain in war are Propaganda and Death. You can never be sure which is which though
This guy has a great sense of humor. If you scroll to the bottom of his questions/answers section:
/
o m/
Q. I greatly enjoy your reviews and the thoughtful observations they contain. However, I get a little worried about the strength of your argument in your review of "Unleashed," when you make the case for women being able to stir a man's humanity by using Ann Coulter as your example. That is the same person who claimed women should bear arms but not be able to vote.
C. Perla, Miami
A. Wouldn't you sleep more soundly at night knowing Ann Coulter was in the Army and not in a voting booth?
If you like laughing at Ann Coulter, please don't miss these stories:
http://ifuckedanncoulterintheasshard.blogspot.com
http://backinanncoultersasssaddleagain.blogspot.c
(bye karma...)
But does he know when eps 7-9 will be out ? ;-)
Star Wars miscasted another character. Remember in RotSith....near the end of the movie...there was a shot of Anakin rushing up the stairs.
He was in a hurry to find Padme. And it was like a high class ball gathering scene. Lots of people and there was this chick going up the stairs that had like huge freaking Hooters that was obviously fake boobs and she barely had anything to cover those babies up. I find it pretty awkward that she was casted in this and did not fit in the Star Wars world.
So where is she now huh ebert?
Have you ever picked something apart, found all it's little imperfections and maybe a couple of glaring errors, but in the end walked away with an overall good feeling about it? You know when you sit down and feel that fat wallet lifting you up an extra quarter inch? That warm fuzzy sastifation. Mmmmm..
-= I can't think of anything witty, creative, or insightful for my sig, so deal with this. =-
What he did was pass the question on to a major apologist for the auteur theory rather than answer it. I don't want to get the answer from a person that I will know the answer and the reasoning behind the answer before asking, that is uninteresting. I take that as akin to asking a leading Democrat which canidate should have won the 2004 presidential election.
Q. Is George Lucas a knowing Economic Terrorist? Lucas KNEW that by releasing the last "Star Wars" movie what effect it would have on the United States Economy. The movie was released on a working day. Lucas could have well waited to release his movie on Saturday or even Sunday. The effect was a $627 million loss in American Productivity.
The box-office take was $158.5 million. That leaves a $468.5 cost to the U.S. Economy. But that's not the end of the loss. Each day, Lucas is losing $1.5 million to pirates -- a capital cost to his investors of $6 million in four days and climbing. The loss could and should have been avoided by release on a Saturday or Sunday, and Simultaneous Distribution to Television, Sales and Rentals. The question becomes, would George Lucas really damage the economy to make a point of his hate for the Republican Party and President George Bush?
D.L. Graham, San Diego
Sigs are like bumper stickers.
Hmm. That seemed more like "Roger Ebert Mocks Star Wars Questions."
Do not read this sig.
Q. There is a pants/no-pants continuity error in Padme's maternity getup when she arrives on the lava planet. How do such errors creep into movies made with such budgets and so many eyes checking and approving things?
Mark Suszko, Springfield, Ill.
A. I cannot recall this detail, but as you describe it, it certainly sounds like the kind of detail that should be noticed.
Gee, thanks Roger... you really put your advanced film knowledge to good use there.
Random rants about technology: http://technorants.blogspot.com
There seems to be a disconnect between critics and just about everyone I've talked to about the movie. Just about every review has overlooked the awful dialog, bad editing, and crappy sructure/pacing and praised the movie as one of the best, I'm sorry but in a post-B5, Firefly world, my Sci-Fi (or Sci-Fantasy, if you prefer) requires MUCH better dialog than 14 characters commenting on how much STRESS Annakin is under. F-in STRESS! As though the Republic could have been saved if the Jedi had had a better insurance program that had covered counciling!
Someone needs to stand up and hit Lucas with a rolled up newspaper, hopefully it'll be #2 this weekend and some lesson will be learned (though they'll probably blame it on poor elitetorrents and their crappy workprint).
Tell me, did Greedo shoot first?
This sig does not contain any SCO code.
Junior high play terrible. We thought Mark Hamill was bad, but this kid made his "acting" scenes painful to watch. Face it the kid was out acted by the animated characters of Dooku and Yoda.
I actually thought the little kid in SW1 was a better actor.
An odd observation - I have seen all the SW movies their first weekend out with the exception of ANH, which I saw about a month or so after it opened, though it was still a *packed* house just as the opening weekends of the others. I remember at the end of each movie, people cheered, clapped, went nuts, and were generally really, really positive (even with Empire, which ended on a down note).
With thRevenge of the Sith, people filed out of the packed theater *without a sound.* It was like leaving a funeral. Completely different from the others, it was strangely depressing. Anyone else see this?
Thanks Yoda. You have cured me.
The Starwars Kid! (SWK)
Y'know...stilted dialogue can almost be tolerated if it actually propels a story forward. Instead, the action in Revenge of the Sith came to a screeching halt to discuss, yes, Anakin's stress, Anakin's love, Anakin's anger, Anakin's navel...over and over and over and.. 'Cause audiences need a sledgehammer, right? Bleh.
Buffy - "I really thought that you were a nice, normal guy."
Riley - "I am a nice, normal guy."
Buffy - "Maybe by this town's standards, but I'm not grading on a curve."
- Buffy The Vampire Slayer
Like Buffy's love life, movie reviews should be on an absolute scale, not comparing a film to previous films of the same series. Because, quite frankly, I'm sure ROTS is f**king brilliant compared to the previous two. That doesn't make it a good movie, it makes it "less sucky".
Freedom: "I won't!"
I beleive his commentary for Dark City is actually based on a lecture for a graduate level film course. It was a bit puzzling that he rated Dark City as the Best Movie of '98, though. I think he's often focussed on cinematography over plot and story, but then again, if he wasn't, he'd probably be a book critic instead of a movie critic
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signature_bloc
Natalie Portman was involved in a "no-pants continuity error"? I'm surprised this wasn't on the front page as its own article.
Freedom: "I won't!"
should be
Roger Ebert Dodges Star Wars Questions
Howevever, many people (including Ebert) has overlooked a major inconsistency. It pertains to C3PO. In SW V, an imperial stormtrooper uses his phaser to blast C3PO on the city in the sky. His head is detached, and the power is off. Apparently, the power source (possibly the batteries) is located in the torso. Later, Chewbacca re-attaches the head, and it turns back on. Of course, C3PO continues his comedic monologue.
Now, in SW II, we see that C3PO loses his head again when an assembly tool knocks it off in the droid factory. However, the head continues to be powered and keeps talking.
Then, in the ensuing battle, R2D2 detaches the head from the droid to which it was accidentally attached. The head continues to be powered and to talk.
As an aside, there is also an annoying difference between C3PO's voice in the new trilogy and the voice in the original trilogy. The 2 voices are very similar, but they are sufficiently different that I can notice the difference. It is annoying because in my mind, I am trying to convince myself that they are the same. I want so much for the new trilogy to be in continuity with the original trilogy, but Lucas has so departed from the original themes (e.g. "the Force" being something that is available to anyone, not only folks with certain midichlorian) that I am somewhat disappointed.
After Lucas passes away (due to old age) and surrenders ownership of "Star Wars", let's petition the new owners to redo SW I & II. They are annoyingly stupid.
First, Lucas rapes my adulthood with Episode I. Then, he purposely released Episode III on a Thursday to spite the White House. See you in hell Lucas.
I loved Episode III, by the way.
How about Begbie and a broken off beer bottle against Vader? We'll just say that Begbie is strong in the Dark Side and doesn't know it to head off pre-emptive trachea crushings. Myself, I think if Darth doesn't watch it then Begbie'll stick that Saber right up his mechanical ass.
Sure there was some loos in productivity.
But to offset that only by ticket sales misses the big picture. What about related food sales alone from people going to see the movie? And to some extent, even related toy sales which are of course monstrous. That's keeping a lot of people employed, I'd say a lot more than the ecenomic loss generated from people taking an afternoon off to see a movie.
The original question was obviiously meant to be funny but to me it just seemed overly simplistic.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
First, you ask yourself "Was this film made for movie critics?" - in other words, lots of "character development" (i.e. pointless talking that does not REALLY develop the character), lots of "stunning camera work" (e.g. artsy shots of rotting fruit), and so on. If yes, then you blither on about the film, and how it is a shame that nobody in "the mainstream" will "get it" - thus assuring your street cred with other movie critics. The people who make your column pay (the common man) won't care. Next movie.
Failing that, you ask yourself "Is this film likely to be a popular success?" - such as a Terminator movie, or Back to the Future. If so, you give it a good review, so that the people who actually make your column a success won't stop reading you. It won't hurt your movie critic street cred: the other movie critics will understand - they will be doing the same thing. Next movie.
Lastly, if there is some question as to whether the movie will be a success, you do one of two things: You either give it
- a glowing write-up but a poor numerical rating, or
- a high numerical rating but a poor write-up.
That way, you are covered no matter what: if the movie is a success, you point to your glowing review (or high rating), and say "See! I told you this was a good movie!". If it is a total flop at the box office, you point to your poor rating (or bad review), and say "See! I told you this was going to be a flop!" Either way, you conveniently ignore the part of your review that was incorrect.So, Ebert just did the third option: he knows the movie will be a box office success, but he doesn't know what the fans will say after they've seen the movie, especially a few months afterwards, when the blush is off the rose. So, he gives the movie a good numerical rating, but then gives it a poor review. So, right now, when the movie is popular, he can point to the high rating and say "See! I know what I am talking about - you want to read ALL my reviews, and my web site, and my books, and....". Months from now, when rationality rears its unwelcome head and people start saying "Yes, the visuals were stunning, but I've heard more convincing delivery of dialog in pornos" he can point to his text reviews and say "See! I know what I am talking about - you want to read ALL my reviews, and my web site, and my books, and....".
www.eFax.com are spammers
They're always spot on.
Once I was a four stone apology. Now I am two separate gorillas.
3 stars is for an all around solid movie. An above average movie that is well worth your time.
2 stars is for something that's "ok" or average. Not great, but has some elements that make it good enough as to be worth seeing.
1 star is a failure.
Half-stars, in my mind, are cop-out ratings. Stick to solid numbers.
For SITH to score 3.5 stars is completely unwarrented. It's a 2 star picture at best -- which is not that bad.
Sam
For sake of karma I shouldn't post this, but ... what the heck ...
"There were heroes on both sides. Evil was everywhere".
WTF!!?! Sounds like something Lucas thumbtyped on his Blackberry when some assisstant reminded him that they needed some yellow pseudo 3D words for the start.
That set the scene for the rest of the 'dialogue', if they just took 1million from the SE budget and gave it to a 1/2 way competant writer, my it would have been a decent movie.
I mean, the dialogue was Power Rangers bad, I can't fault the actors, IMO they mostly did a great job of not looking totally disgusted with the dreck they were forced to babble between action scenes.
Ok, there was one memorable line, but Lucas stole that one.
O and the initial battle scene wasn't anywhere near as well done as First Contact's.
Since when is putting some scenes in a row sufficient to be a plot? It has no structure or pacing whatsoever. And the action was 99,99% CGI and you can see that. Give me CGI I can't tell from real stuff and I will be impressed.
Aha, not a troll then so much as a genuine idiot. I wonder if he could afford some swamp land.
I'm still standing here, you know.
The dangers of knowledge trigger emotional distress in human beings.
"The 3.5 for ROTS , it had really great action scenes and the plot was all together rather better than the previous two , "unfortunatly the acting was kind of poor" ,, but compared to the last two star wars films it really shines."
I agree that this 3rd ep. is an interesting one, but the dialogues between padme and anakin are weak. It does not show any of their intimacies, such as love in a way the audience can understand that anakin tries to change the prophecy of Padme's death in his dream. I find that there are some disconnectings between these two main characters from the beginning to the ending, and that the movie can only deserve 3.5 stars.
No, I am really sure it doesn't work as a movie. And I am sure if hadn't Vader and Chewie in it, that you would hate it. In fact the prequels made me look at the OT with different eyes and these days I think that ROTJ was already shit. In fact I had that feeling when I left the cinema that night in 1983. Then i was thinking if we just saw a remake of ep IV, with it starting on Tattoine. Again. And ending with the destruction of a Death Star. Again.
Really it has all come down to the art of sucking less. People just really don't try as hard anymore. An aquaintance of mine put it like this: is 77, Lucas was hungry. He wasn't trying to make a box office hit, he was trying to make a fun movie. He wasn't looking for high art, he was looking for entertainment.
I think one of the pitfalls that film makers fall into is that they try to DO too much. They can't make something entertaining and it winds up being stupid. Or they try to make something artistic and it turns out astonishingly bland. I'm not going to point any fingers at when it happened or why it happened, that just seems to be how things have turned out.
A movie CAN be interesting and entertaining and fun to watch without really doing anything new for the artform.
The trick is finding out what sucks.. and what doesn't suck... So far there's been little effort in actually doing that, and a lot of effort put into simply 'sucking less.'
Are you gay? Leave the boobs alone.
In 1996 I was working at a movie theater, it was the summer that Independance Day came out. Siskel and Ebert gave it 2 thumbs down, a few days later it went on to have the biggest opening in history.
The next week, they actually felt like they had to justify their negative rating on the show.
In retrospect the movie was only OK, but I couldn't care less for Ebert's opinion of any film.
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
That's a little unfair, and shows more than a little lack of understanding of what a good critic does.
A good critic has to understand not just that a movie is good or bad, but WHY. This means they need to understand the roles of director, writer, producer, editor, actor, costumer, etc... and the effect each has on the final product.
Unfortunately, when you understand those things significantly better than the average person, you start to appreciate them for their own sake instead of for their effective contribution to the final product. You can glow about the script, or the pretty costumes, or the great acting, while not remembering just how badly they failed to rescue a dismal movie.
A great critic can balance their appreciation of the details with how the whole production turned out. My favourite has to be Liz Braun of the Toronto Sun, who will quite clearly tell you that a movie sucks on multiple fronts, but you'll enjoy it despite its flaws.
But Ben is absolutely correct, he never owned R2D2. First R2 belonged to Amidala and was one of the droid compliment on her Nobian cruiser. Later he became Anakin's AstroMech Droid. Obi-Wan uses AstroMech droids like you would use a Toaster, he has no special attachment to them.
There are thousands and thousands of droids in the Star Wars universe, there are two protocol droids identical to C-3P0 (except for color) in Ep 3 greeting Chancellor Palpatine.
In Episode 1, a C-3P0 series protocol droid escorts Qui-Gon and Obi-Wan to the conference room to await the Nemodian Ambassador.
Penny Arcade are, as always, right on the money.
"I think it would be a good idea!"
Gandhi, about Internet Security
Roger: I liked episode 3.
Me: Well, YOU'RE A PLAGUE!
Ebert, Roeper, that guy waiting in line in a stormtrooper outfit...they're all missing the true point of this movie. It's not about an innocent man's decent into darkness. That's just a subplot, a minor detail if you will. No, this is George Lucas's attempt at a public service announcement about the importance of contraceptives. Because if Anakin hadn't knocked up Padme, he wouldn't have had visions of her dying in childbirth, he wouldn't have searched for the power to save her, and he wouldn't have sold his soul to Palpatine in a vain attempt to do so. Because even in a world as technologically advanced, like a few inches of impermeable rubber, that make the world go round.
4 stars is reserved for the best of the best movies in the history of cinema; Schindler's List, Saving Private Ryan, Raiders of the Lost Ark, and (I'd say) even the original Star Wars. The style of Raiders of the Lost Ark was similar to that of Star Wars in effects etc. Schindler's List and Saving Private Ryan came much later and managed to be groundbreaking movies using modern cinema techniques to portray their content; stories behind events in the history of the human race in the audience's parents' generation. Lucas could have taken these as a hint how to do recent history prequels. Imagine Episode I using the grainy old-style footage look of Schindler's list and emphasizing the growing evil by concentrating on the evil isolated in various parts of the galaxy. Imagine ROTS in Saving Private Ryan shaky-cam, right in the action war footage style. Order 66 was bad enough looking through the glaze of CG as it was presented, but imagine what it would have been like had Lucas given us less of a sylish and more of a sylised point of view. Whether he wanted good ratings or not, he could have manipulated ILM to produce far more cinematic emotion that he achieved. Had he, he'd not only be a billionaire, but a critically acclaimed one.
First, you ask yourself "Was this film made for movie critics?"
It's not for you.
Please remove your hand from your crotch and understand that not everyone is afflicted by this endless fixation on women's breasts.
There is a whole subculture these days just for people who dislike movies because they have the potential to be popular, and this entire Slashdot thread seems like the embodiment of that.
When I went to see the movie, my entire experience was completely ruined by hecklers. People who went on opening night with the sole purpose of making fun of the movie. Laughing at Palpatine's makeup, booing when Anakin first appears, shouting "LOG!" whenever Padme shows up.
Everyone here is so quick to dismiss the movie on the simple things (like if Samuel delivered his lines well) or tries to focus on bad interpretations of the themes (oh yeah, G. Lucas hates women because Padme is ineffectual in the last movie) or claim that the movie was high-schoolish (erhem, this is Star Wars, what did you expect?). People who complain this movie is campy seem to forget that the Star Wars trilogy is part of what helped us define what campy meant. It wouldn't be true to its roots if it didn't sound campy!
I wish people could just accept movies for what they are, appreciate the hard work that went into them, and enjoy them. Given the cost of movie tickets today. If you aren't ready to enjoy the movie, why fork over your $10 for it in the first place?
Slashdot. It's Not For Common Sense
Anyhow, thats my rant... hope you all enjoyed it.
Actually, I thought it was crap. I hope you were drunk when you wrote it. Thanks for sharing, though.
... there was this chick going up the stairs that had like huge freaking Hooters that was obviously fake boobs ...
:-)
So in a society swarming with aliens it is plausible to see chicks with tentacles coming out of their heads but not with big boobs?
Yeah, I was waiting for that too...
Turns out the answer wasn't really worth waiting for. In the battle between Samuel Jackson jedi guy (can't remember char's name) and palpatine, palpatine was holding him back by using the lightning from his finger tips trick.
Then Sam started pushing closer and reflecting the lightning back at palpatine with his lightsaber. Palpy couldn't stop because Sam was coming at him and he had no other weapon. So he just sat there and got burnt up until Anakin cut Sam's arm off to make him stop.
I don't know why the lightning never burnt anyone before, maybe it was the duration.
#6495ED - cornflower blue
Perhaps Ebert is paid to write his reviews, and you are not, because, for instance, he could get the movie's MPAA rating right.
Just sayin'.
--grendel drago
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
Being a Slashdot nerd, or getting all worked up about Slashdot nerds? Does that make you a meta-nerd? I'm pretty sure using the term "meta-nerd" makes me one.
OR, for the faint of heart, convince him that it would be really cool if he made the prequels using ONLY 1978 technology.
Come on. Lucas invented most of the technologies used to make the original Star Wars. He founded companies to provide the sound and special effects that he wanted - and now you complain that he's too focused on the special effects?
Please. Star Wars was always about special effects and nothing else. I remember an entire issue of Time magazine discussing how Lucas had revolutionized the industry with his use of computer controlled models to automate the stop-motion techniques already in use. I remember articles discussing the chess game between Chewbacca and R2D2 and how Lucas created the effect and whether such a thing could actually exist.
Lucas took the state of the art, pushed it to it's utter limits and beyond. Stop judging them as an adult and watch them in the manner they were meant to be watched - with the eyes and heart of child.
Clear, Dark Skies
Hell, why can't Jedi fly? You say they can't manipulate flesh like they can manipulate plastic and metal? Well, why can't they make their goddamn shoes fly?
But yeah, the Yoda thing bugged me.
Yoda: Into exile, I must go.
Senator Organa: Dude, he's right back there. You were way ahead.
Yoda: No.
Senator Organa: You could totally kick his ass.
Yoda: To the starting line, we must get.
Senator Organa: Then why'd you fight him, if you were just going to run like a little green bitch?
Yoda: A flying muppet, the fans demand.
--grendel drago
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
You are correct that a good movie critic needs to understand the elements of movie making in order to better judge movies. I did not say otherwise.
However, when a movie critic starts to obsess over the elements of movie making over the entertainment value of a movie, that is when I have a problem.
Allow me the analogy of a food critic - yes, a good food critic must understand the elements of presentation, the use of contrasting flavors, the different preparation methods, and so on, in order to best judge the meal.
However, when such a person starts to overlook the simple concepts of "Does this taste good?", "Does this satisfy my hunger?", and "Was this worth the money?", and instead goes on about a meal composed of nothing but watercress and cucumbers, albeit artfully arranged on a pretty blue plate and fitted with a faux-French name, then that person is no longer a food critic. And when that person pans the food at a place like Lambert's solely because it "lacks presentation" and doesn't have a name only a food critic can love, then I rightfully call bullshit on them.
Likewise, too many movie critics obsess over the elements of movie making completely ignoring the most important question: was the movie entertaining? And those are the movie critics that most seem to follow the algorithm I presented.
Ebert *used* to be one of the good ones - he and Siskel were good about realizing that the most artfully filmed movie is still no good if it is not entertaining. However, over time Ebert has drifted away from that simple criteria, and has become more a review of movies for movie reviews.
Lastly, if he does not wish to assign a numerical value to a movie, then he should grow a pair and say to the papers "No, I will NOT assign a number to the movies. Deal with it."
www.eFax.com are spammers
... and Team America only 1? The man has an agenda and his reviews are getting more and more political.
In his TA review, he essentially tells Matt & Trey to "grow up". HTF is that any of his business? To go out and satirize everyone, and to basically tell everyone to get over themselves and get real? Sounds pretty damn grown-up to me, compared to the shrill echo chambers (including the one in Ebert's head, it seems) out there.
To not garner at least 2 stars for technical merit is really scandalous, given what the man gives Sith. But, he agrees with Lucas' political views, so the porno-bad dialog and acting should be ignored for solidarity with his Fellowe Travelers.
I'm tired of people complaining that such-and-such a movie isn't Shakespeare with lightsabers. Heck - these same people would probably complain that Shakespeare relies on too many cliches!
/Star Wars/ on down the line, are eye-candy for pre-teens. No more, no less. When I saw /Star Wars/ in the theater, I was blown away. I was also 11. The idea that Lucas should somehow write a movie that will appeal to ubergeeks while, at the same time, thrilling it's original audience is just unrealistic.
All these movies, from the original
Clear, Dark Skies
to get the same buzz from the movies again is to somehow erase all your memory of them, including your unrealistic expectations.
That's the only way you're going to feel the adrenaline in Star Wars or feel the shock and dismay of Empire.
Clear, Dark Skies
who need to revisit their childhood homes - just so they can feel the shock and realization of how small they look now compared to how big they seemed then.
That might give them the perspective they need to enjoy Ep3 for what it is instead of complaining that it doesn't measure up to something that actually never was.
Clear, Dark Skies
You're just frustrated because you didn't notice Padme was walking around without any pants on.
Clear, Dark Skies
I hear complaints about the acting so much, but I got news for you all: episodes 4,5,6 weren't exactly monuments in film-acting history either. It's star wars. It's cheesy. It's fun. Get used to it.
They makes movies so that you can enjoy them... So that you can get into whatever the movies gives you. They try to target an audience(usually as big as possible) so they can make as much money as possible. And they do that by entertaining you...
So why do so many people go to a movie to TRY to hate it... To try to point out all the problems then go home unhappy. That isn't the point of seeing a movie! And if you enjoy doing things to be unhappy, then you need to seek counciling.
You are personally supposed to enjoy what a movie is there to give you. If you do not, then that is your personal opinion. You are welcome to it your own opinion... But why listen to other peoples opinions? Why care about what Roger says? Its just his opinion. Big deal... Go see the movie to ENJOY it. And if you don't, then you know not to see star wars again...
The point is that people don't see movies to try to enjoy them anymore. This just doesn't make sense. People should really try harder to have a better time...
Lots of people live their lives in devotion to one or more heroes. Sometimes the heroes are totally fictional, e.g. Batman, Doctor Who, Han Solo, Buffy the Vampire Slayer, etc. Other times the heroes are loosely based on someone real. R. M. Stallman, B. Gates, L. Torvalds are all real people, but as soon as someone becomes a fan and starts doing the hero-worship thing, then that fan no longer sees the real person, but instead zie sees some fantasized, artificially perfect version of the person.
But, yeah, I gotta agree... it is kind of head-spinning to imagine someone idolizing that to R. Ebert. (no disrespect meant to Ebert, it's just... damn)
Furry cows moo and decompress.
You just God damn wait. He'll have Meow Skywalker by the close of the decade.
Don't use him. He was ALWAYS the industry patsy and after Roper died its been nothing but a one-sided show. Does he make money for being quoted on the movie boxes or something (aside from the extra exposure)?
Quack, quack.
I put my foot in my mouth.
Quack, quack.
He always kissed-ass. Siskel did the reviews.
Quack, quack.
This won't be modded up enough to be visible to anyone, but I'd like to chip in and say that Ebert is pretty much accurate. The acting is dreadfully wooden in the non-action scenes, and this is probably due to the fact that the script isn't really very good.
I was sat with a group of five or six friends watching it, some of whom weren't really massive fans of the Star Wars series and hadn't seen Phantom Menace or Attack of the Clones, and I was actually embarassed by the quality of this movie.
It's let down by the script to some degree, but I think what really killed it was the direction. Actors never seem to know what they're doing, where they are, or what they're supposed to be feeling and this makes their delivery poor and wooden. When Anakin (Hayden Christensen) turns to the dark side, he's clearly been directed to be "mad, insane, confused, evil". And here he excels; it's easy to be mad and evil. However, in the more delicate scenes he's hopeless and swimming around without direction.
Excellent examples of awesome direction are the "SHE'S LOST THE WILL TO LIVE!" line announced by a med-bot. What sort of diagnosis is that? Rather convenient. It's as if whoever voiced that line had no idea that Anakin/Vader had actually killed her with the dark force. Another is the "Noooooooo!" that Vader screams when discovering this fact. No self respecting director would use such a dreadful cliché. He might as well have added "WHY, GOD? WHY!!!?" to the end of it. It's almost as bad a cliché as the "Oh no we are approaching a perilous waterfall of lava" bit. There's also the whole wordless ending segment where Luke's foster parents just get handed a child without question and look a bit bemused, then just gaze at the sun. What?
A few things are left unexplained too. The Death Star. Why? I was desperate to find out more about the Death Star but it's just presented as a matter of course. Slapped into the film like an afterthought. All in all, I left the theatre without the sensation of awe that I'd hoped for.
In summary: cut out a few of those massive "let's have a fight on a volcano planet" bits and wrap up the end of the film a little better.
The movie was a lot of popcorn mindnumbing fun. It was enjoyable and an adventure to be taken at face value. If Lucas DIDN'T make it, you would all be crying about it and now that he did make you are all still crying about it. I have yet to meet a person face to face that did not like the movie, yet when I go online all I see is a bunch of geeks whining about how all their stunted adolecense fantasies have been ruined forever. Get a life.
"Each day, Lucas is losing $1.5 million to pirates" - Roger Ebert
Good to know Ebert is on the case!
If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
Imagine if they had Peter Jackson (from LoTR) direct the film, and had Lucas write it. THAT would have been awesome.
But Lucas couldn't take the hit to his ego, so he killed the movie for himself. No special effects in the world could've helped him.
eTrade SUCKS
Hehehe... speak for yourself.
The original trilogy was a story that had historical backstory.
The prequels were all historical backstory. It was like reading a history book except the basics were wrong (elected queens, noise in space).
I agree with the poster that said the prequels diminished the original trilogy. Lucas should have continued the adventures of Luke Skywalker instead as the rebellions tries to rebuild against the regional governors and the remains of the imperial fleet.
I actually watched the show where he did his thumbs up or down thing for this movie.
Both gave it a thumbs up. Which is a neat device binary almost.
However he gave it a thumbs up because it did what it set out to do. Be a eye feast. He even points out the dialog is banal but that is not the point of ANY of the star wars movies. They are meant to be fun.
The WHOLE point of a review and reading one is 'should I spend my 5 bucks and go see this movie or not'? That is THE only reason you read a review. He knows it. He gave it a thumbs up and says yes it is worth your 5 bucks. In this same show he reviewed madagascar. Which he gave a thumbs down due to story and 'average' animation. As the fluffy piece tried to be funny about canabalism and couldnt pull it off. It did not set out what it intended to do... If you want to see a good review read the one on monster in law. Which I think is spot on.
I am of the mind a good review should rip the show to shreds and make it look like whoever gave the crew money should have their head examined.
The original Star Wars movie was a fairly ordinary space opera that any mediocre writer could have written. The acting, dialog, and story have always been appropriately criticized.
However, the original Star Wars had ground breaking special effects. The special effects were not only a cut above the state of art at the time, they were a flight of stairs above the state of the art at the time.
It took tremendous talent to pull that off and George Lucas had it. The movie blew people from all walks of life away. It made Lucas rich enough to complain about Bill Gates playing his stereo too loud and elements of Star Wars have become an enduring part of the culture.
No critic can take any of that away.
However all of that was nearly 30 years ago.
Once people become accustomed to a certain quality of special effects it is no longer enough to entertain them, to blow them away.
People remember being blown away by the original Star Wars, that is why they keep going to see the sequels. They are hoping for that same experience.
Most of the time mere mortals, if they get to make a huge splash, only get to do so once.
It is unlikely that George Lucas will make a movie again that will break ground in cinematic special effects with the same magnitude that the original Star Wars did.
It is also unlikely that at this stage in his life he will sprout new talent for writing an directing _stories_. It can happen, some writers, actors, directors etc have started late in life, but it is rare.
A slashdot article earlier this week suggested that someone other than Lucas might make another Star Wars movie.
That could be the most awesome thing that would happen. The special effects are here. If someone could attach that to the devastating writing, acting and directing talent that is out there we would have a film that could blow people totally away like the original Star Wars did all those years ago in the 1970s.
Lucas can almost direct. What he absolutely cannot do in any fashion other than "abominably" is write.
An Open Letter to Prequel Bashers:
t m
http://www.juicycerebellum.com/swprequelbashers.h
Where I was, a whole floor of people were not using sick or vacation days - we were just let off for the afternoon.
The loss is actually pretty hard to calculate, since it's really just however many people taht went out to see the movie that day (or Friday) balanced against how much work would have been done otherwise. I'll be in the balance the loss was not actually that great since if anything important were underway, people have a tendancy to work harder the next day or to (or stay later) to make up.
Still, there's something there.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Ack! You are right - I misread - I've done him wrong!
Sorry Mr. Ebert come back all is forgiven.
If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
Sig:Will slashdot ever drag itself into the year 2005 and provide the ability to edit posts?
Editing posts breaks continuity.
To confirm you're not a script, please piss in my ear.
Ebert liked the movie
I don't know a soul at work who didn't already have overtime on their clocks by Wednesday and also missed work to see the movie. Shoot, the employer PAID for a special screening in the AM for all employees. Lost productivity? That's like saying a coffee break (where you actually drink coffee) is unproductive. The alternative is zombie-state employees, falling asleep at their desks for lack of stimulation/motor activity. My personal theory on coffee breaks is if you never drank coffee in the first place, you wouldn't need it to wake up or stay awake.
the writing was every bit as brilliant as the f/x, I just was having some bad popcorn. It wasn't a throwaway line to fill up some space, right, and it was every bit up-to-par with 'back in the old days, in place it takes much longer to drive to than hoboken' and all that.
It's a good thing Lucas let me know that 'evil was everywhere', b/c I never would have seen that good old boy Sidious comin', if George hadn't spelled it out for me.
And did you notice how much stress Anakin was under? Its a good thing Lucas had the actors repeat this so often, I would have had a hard time figuring it out, otherwise.
No, we really needed a missle that turned into buzz saw bots to tell the story, we needed that alot more than some 'flowery' writing, that's fer sure!
Look at Chewbacca. He can only speak in unintelligible grunts, yet he is a complex character with conflicting traits whom we end up caring about by the end of of the movie.
Ummm... Given that nothing actually ever happens to Chewbacca in SWIV, what the heck are you talking about? The only time I cared about Chewbacca was when I wondered why he didn't get the same kind of medal Solo did, or why he had to stand on a lower step during the ceremony.
Clear, Dark Skies
I think you're dating yourself. My kids re-enacted the pod racing scenes over and over, and my daughter still refuses to accept that little Ani grows up to be Vader.
Clear, Dark Skies
you obvioulsy didn't get the parent comment (hint, it was about how it was said, not what was being said).
you were shown heroes on that side, but you decided not to view Grievous, Dooku and others as the heroes that the separatists saw them as.
... to rise again many years later.
Lucas never showed them being heroic, just nasty, sneaky, evil and dastardly.
PS:
And they overlaid the teaching of Ionia
And the Truth was choked at birth
Let us hope for the best.
And there were heroes on both sides.
Why would slashdot attract conservatives? Technology, science, and the general forward march of progress are liberal strongholds. Created by liberals, and attract the interest of other liberals.
I'm sure there are a few of the "i'm getting old, those damn whippersnappers, get off my lawn" computer geek conservatives. Not very many, "hi, I'm a lawyer" or wall street analyst conservatives.