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 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
Dude, chill. Your sense of humor is undermined by real bitterness. You have obviously turned to the Dark Side! Ebert is not spreading "Jedi lies," your mind has been twisted by the Dark side of the Force!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signature_bloc
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
How about, "Using numbers to rate movies is subjective. That's part of the difficulty of this job." ?
Computers are useless. They can only give you answers.
-- Pablo Picasso
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
I watched some of the originals (originals, mind you -- VHS and everything) this weekend. Conclusion: I didn't enjoy them as much having seen the first 3. They were actually made worse by the prequels.
The backstory between Vader and Obi-wan was much, much more interesting to have to imagine yourself than Lucas' fluid, undulating, oscillating animation and flat story, characters and acting.
You know what? The special effects in the original, non-special edition Star Wars movies looks cheesy. You know what? It doesn't matter. I don't care that I can't see the ice creature on Hoth very well. Does the fact that we can't see Vader's ships landing on Hoth affect our enjoyment of the movie? No! You know what? HUMAN IMAGINATION IS BETTER THAN ANY CGI. If you can imply something, fine, sometimes it's actually as good as spending a cajillion dollars on the CGI.
What imagination needs is compelling, interesting characters. And story. If you can make the audience want to imagine the characters, they will. And that's as good, if not better, as rendering the same thing in CGI.
The prequels made the characters worse. Pah.
Someone needs to go back in time to 1986 QUICK and kill George Lucas. OR, for the faint of heart, convince him that it would be really cool if he made the prequels using ONLY 1978 technology. I guarantee that would have made a much more interesting movie.
How is that significant? It makes absolutely no difference to the story, it's just a petty quibble about a minor detail.
This space intentionally left blank.
While your assumption is interesting, it's not necessarily correct. The difference between being shot by a plasma weapon (that uses excited gasses... as opposed to a phaser, which is modulated light) is energy overload. Perhaps the blaster shorted 3p0's head, where an impact would not.
Statesmen serve to better the country and help the people.
Politicians serve to better themselves and help friends.
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
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
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.
Given the quality of writing in your post, you're clearly an expert in the English language. But I digress
Die hard was well written. It understood its medium and its audience, there were no painful moments of dialog where our hero broke into long winded speeches about man's inhumanity to man, no oddly placed iambic pentameter. It had a simple but classic plot, a NY cop trying to come to grips with his wife's success, goes through an ordeal where he learns how much he really loves his wife.
I've actually seen quite a bit of foreign cinema, and seen very little to make me non US movies are better written than our in general. Are you judging it based on the .05% of foreign films that make it to the US general release? The cream of teh cream of the crop? Or perhaps you are judging based on the fact that they follow different cultural norms? I was a bit shocked to watch a Japanese film whose moral lesson was "Its the kids fault, had he listened to his adoptive family and done what the state wanted hime to do he and his sister would be alive and happy to day. Conform or be miserable!" But I've also seen horrible French, Italian, Soviet, Polish, and Korean cinema.
Or perhaps you're refering to outside Hollywood projects such as "In the Bedroom", a dull, painfully slow moving work that rivals the infamous "Manos: Hands of Fate" for five minute riding in cars peering out the windows segements. Its bad when the high point of a movie is watch the toll bridge guy run around in circles again to move the bridge, punctuated by self-indulgent lines like "It comes in waves, and then nothing... like a rest in music - no sound, but so loud."
Is "Die Hard" superlative writing, like Shakespere's Saint Crispin's Day speech in Henry V? Heck no. It neither tries to be nor should it be.
You are in a maze of twisted little posts, all alike.