Slashdot Mirror


A Closer Look at Star Wars on Film and Off

mclove writes "Revenge of the Sith comes out on DVD today, and there's an interesting article on Slate dissecting the now-complete trilogy as the avant-garde, intellectual sort of film that Lucas keeps saying it is."` Relatedly inkslinger77 writes "ILM model maker, Brian Gernand, speaks about what it is like to work with George Lucas and why he thinks Star Wars attracts such a huge following, particularly among the IT community. He also gives some information about the technology that is used behind the scenes. "

59 of 315 comments (clear)

  1. "The Now Complete Trilogy" by rookworm · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Don't count on it...

    --
    The toad can't burp - and for some reason can't fart either, so it swells up and eventually explodes. --Anonymous Coward
    1. Re:"The Now Complete Trilogy" by Golias · · Score: 5, Funny

      and there's an interesting article on Slate dissecting the now-complete trilogy as the avant-garde, intellectual sort of film that Lucas keeps saying it is.

      First Movie: "Yipeeeeeee!"
      Second Movie: "I hate sand."
      Third Movie: "Noooooooooooo!"

      --

      Information wants to be anthropomorphized.

    2. Re:"The Now Complete Trilogy" by trentblase · · Score: 4, Funny
      Third Movie: "Noooooooooooo!"

      Or, as in the brilliant double translation: Meee nooo wantt!!!!

  2. That's no trilogy... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ...It's a cash machine.

    1. Re:That's no trilogy... by crimperman · · Score: 5, Insightful
      That's true, but people wouldn't go to see these movies unless they liked them in some way. People like to tell themselves they don't like them because they're so kitch, but then they go to see them anyway.

      A little paradoxical don't you think? How can you go and see a film because you like it when you haven't seen it yet?

      I - like many others I suspect - went to see Phantom Menace on the basis that it was the frst new Star Wars film for a couple of decades. I went to see Attack of the Clones in the hope that it would be better than Phantom - it was but not much. I went to see Revenge of the Sith because I had seen all the others at the cinema and wanted to catch this one on the big screen too.

      I think I didn't like them - compared with the original trilogy - because I knew the ending and the whole thing felt like they were shoe horning a story I basically already knew into three long films. The sense of mystery - in not knowing where the story was going - was lost in these films compared with the original one.

      As for the trilogy being a cash machine/cow. It is but then it was always going to be and in the end I think we kidded ourselves if - at this stage - we thought it would be a lot more than that.
    2. Re:That's no trilogy... by Mayhem178 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I agree. It's easy to bash on George Lucas for his efforts to "exploit" us as an audience, but if you stop and think about it, was Lucas "exploiting" the audience back in 1977? No, of course not...there wasn't an audience back then. He had to create that audience. What was the price of creating that audience? Every drop of profit from Episode IV being put into Episode V, then the same from Episode V into Episode VI. Oh yeah, Lucas is a real evil man, taking all the money and funding the risky creation of a never-before-attempting space genre out of his own pocket. Real greedy and evil, that.

      Ever since 1977, people have been demanding to know the story behind Darth Vader. Now he's given it to his established audience as a true storyteller would, and there are people calling him greedy and an "exploiter" because of it.

      At least I can agree on matters like Jar Jar being a flop, hell, even Lucas admitted it. And yes, I do wish he'd stuck with more traditional methods of filmmaking rather than putting so much trust in CGI. Sure, he made some mistakes along the way. God forbid Lucas actually be human like the rest of us. I, for one, wouldn't dare accuse him of "exploiting" the audience. The audience constantly demands more, and he has given up 20 painstaking years of his life to provide it to us.

      --

      "You will pay for your lack of vision..." - Emperor Palpatine to Ray Charles

    3. Re:That's no trilogy... by drsquare · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I saw the Phantom Menace and didn't like it. Not because of what the plot was about, I haven't seen much of the original Star Wars and I'm not a fanboy.

      It was just a really bad film.

      Poor acting, poor script, poor pacing, no interesting characters or situations, no tension, no drama, nothing worth watching at all. It was like a filmed-version of some crappy anime. I'm sure that if the Star Wars name wasn't on the film no-one would have bothered seeing it, it would be another Final Fantasy.

      The special effects were poor as well. Yes they were technically good, but it looked like a cartoon. 2001 A Space Odyssey had more realistic looking space scenes, and that was just models. All the computers in the world can't make up for subtlety and artistic ability.

      But then Kubrick was a genius, and Lucas is a hack.

    4. Re:That's no trilogy... by rho · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Star Wars was lucky, but fun. Empire was good, and fun but in a sad way. Jedi was the beginning of the road to Suckland. Except for the first movie, which was lucky, the more Lucas got involved, the further down the road to Suckland the franchise went.

      --
      Potato chips are a by-yourself food.
  3. Is it serious or a joke? by elronxenu · · Score: 5, Funny

    As always, any sufficiently insightful deconstruction is indistinguishable from satire.

    1. Re:Is it serious or a joke? by ThatWeasel · · Score: 3, Insightful
      This is definitely serious. Extreme insight and deconstruction went into that article and you have to at least start to see it the author's way.

      As for me, the newest three episodes have been horrible but this author definitely casts new light on the whole masterpiece.

      --

      TW
      Television is dead. Long live That Weasel Television

    2. Re:Is it serious or a joke? by MrAnnoyanceToYou · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I hope it's satire. It's either satire or criticism written by a lovesick puppy with an English degree. Either way, it's not really that founded or interesting. Star Wars' second trilogy reminds me of the 'thousand elephants' of the Last Tycoon.... A good show, but nothing to do with good art.

      I wish Lucas had lost his shirt on them instead of stacking up another couple billion.

    3. Re:Is it serious or a joke? by TheoGB · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I think it's a very interesting read and it is serious.

      However it doesn't change the fact that the prequels (and indeed Jedi) aren't particularly good movies, even if they have some good moments in them.

      I'm reminded of the defenders of the 2nd and 3rd Matrix movies who seemed convinced that the whole Danté allegory made the films better. Clearly it didn't. The two Matrix sequels are turds, no matter how hard their authors tried to be clever.

    4. Re:Is it serious or a joke? by tverbeek · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Basically, what the commentator is saying (whether he means to or not) is that Star Wars is a classically Bad movie. Plot developments are based on un-credible coincidence. The plotmaster's hand is an actual plot device. Et cetera. Post-modern deconstruction of an art form or genre is all about defying the conventions that make up a Good movie. The only question is whether Lucas is doing it on purpose (in which case it's avant-garde) or not (in which case these are just shortcomings).

      --
      http://alternatives.rzero.com/
    5. Re:Is it serious or a joke? by Shaper_pmp · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Funny thing, but part of the problem of deconstructionism is that it's almost impossible to distinguish between incidences of it that exhibit "extreme insight" and those that are merely "blithely reading what you want into it regardless of the author's intentions"... or just "furiously intellectually masturbating".

      I can (hell, we used to do it for fun with our English Literature undergrad friends) construct deconstructionist arguments that shows that half the kids shows on TV as anarcho-capitalist propaganda pieces, or tracts of leftie-pinko-liberal-communist ideology... often in the same program, and often using the same quotes and events.

      It's also very, very (really, I can't stress this enough) important to remember that

      Postmodern != Good

      Postmodern != Entertaining

      Postmodern != Coherent

      Just because something's "postmodern", it doesn't mean it's "worthy", interesting or any good at all. However, many lit-crit writers seem to make this mysterious assumption.

      This essay also uses a common postmodern lit-crit trick of setting up flawed axioms[1], frantically hand-waving to make sure nobody notices the basic problem, then (gasp!) proceeding to show how your flawed, biased axioms inevitably lead to your conclusion.

      Finally, when assessing any kind of field as logically flimsy and frequently intellectually self-pollenating as lit-crit, it's important to remember the differences between fields like it and the hard sciences and engineering:

      In science, you get points for being Right - producing theories that stand the test of time, and map 1:1 to reality. In Lit-Crit, you get points for being Clever - your position doesn't have to have any kind of basis in reality at all, as long as it's well-argued and persuasive. In fact, there's some evidence that interpretations that do actually map to reality are looked down on, since arguing in favour of those doesn't require much Cleverness.

      Oh yes, and you should really read "How to Deconstruct Almost anything". I once gave it to a English Lit undergrad girlfriend, and while she didn't like the implications one bit, she really couldn't fault a single argument.

      Footnotes:

      [1] Examples of flawed (or at least questionable) axioms that underpin the entire article:

      The force makes everything in the universe happen - Less some waffle about destiny or "prophesy", there's no evidence that I can remember that the Force makes everything happen according to some predefined plan. This would completely negate free will, which undermines Anakin's entire fall from grace.

      The light side of the force is all about feeling and passivity, the dark side is all about conscious control and order - Right, which is why (for example) Obi-Wan is always telling Anakin to reign in his emotions and be more calm and ordered, and the
      emperor is trying to get him to lose control and give in to his anger. Both individuals argue for both things, just in different contexts.

      "we are led to understand in Sith that it was Palpatine himself who set the entire plot in motion by manipulating the Force toward Anakin's virgin birth." - Now, maybe I haven't watched it enough, but I don't recall this implication anywhere, and it's a pretty important one, which changes the whole epic story. Did I miss something here?

      --
      Everything in moderation, including moderation itself
    6. Re:Is it serious or a joke? by ultranova · · Score: 2, Interesting

      "we are led to understand in Sith that it was Palpatine himself who set the entire plot in motion by manipulating the Force toward Anakin's virgin birth." - Now, maybe I haven't watched it enough, but I don't recall this implication anywhere, and it's a pretty important one, which changes the whole epic story. Did I miss something here?

      It was in the scene where Palpatine was talking about how Dark Side is a pathway to many abilities. He talked about Darth Plagueis, and how he supposedly learned how to create or preserve life, to convince Anakin that he must turn to the Dark Side to save Padme.

      Apparently, some people jumped from "Plagueis could create life" to "Plagueis created Anakin". Why would they think that Palpatine did, when he later said that he didn't actually learn those tricks himself, is unclear.

      Of course it's always possible that Anakins mother lied and Palpatine made Anakin the old-fashioned way...

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    7. Re:Is it serious or a joke? by CheshireCatCO · · Score: 3, Funny

      "Of course it's always possible that Anakins mother lied and Palpatine made Anakin the old-fashioned way..."

      Then the best explanation for Anakin then is that his father was the post powerful Jedi around. That's right... Yoda nailed Shmi. Although we might imagine that a step-stool might have been required at times.

      Sorry, but I just love watching everyone going looking for mental bleach to remove the mental images. Of course, we can take this joke further, but I'll leave that for everyone to do in the privacy of his or her own mind.

    8. Re:Is it serious or a joke? by boxer · · Score: 2, Interesting

      While you present some interesting and valid criticisms, I think you're missing one of the cornerstones of PoMo criticism, namely:

      Authorial intent is unknowable.

      On the first point: how can anyone (excepting, of course, the author) KNOW (in the savoir sense, not the connaitre sense) what the author's intent really was? And once you've rationalized that, I invite you to explain the effect that the editor and (in some cases) translator have on it. The book that you see on the shelf is NEVER the exact words that the author wrote. It's not possible. On top of that, how do you then account for translations? Is One Hundred Years of Solitude in the original Spanish be the exact same text as One Hundred Years of Solitude in English? No, it can't be. Living languages do not directly map to each other - just run a random document through Babelfish if you want proof. Therefore, the translator has just as much stake in "authorial intent" as the original author, seeing as he becomes the arbiter of idomatic speech and nuance.

      But wait, there's more:
      Reading is an active, not passive, activity. When you read you are, in effect, translating. While language does frame our thought patterns, pure thought is far more expansive that words (Kant calls it the notion of the Sublime). Therefore, when reading you are actively translating the words on the page into the larger meta-language of your own personal experience. So you too are doing your part to obscure authorial intent just be reading. Fun little paradox, no?

      Ergo, authorial intent is a sham.

      And since it's a sham, why not play games with the text and see what turns up? There are any number of equally valid "truths" contained within a text depending on which way you choose to look at it. The value of PoMo criticism is in exposing yourself to alternate interpretations and viewpoints - you know, broadening your horizons. You don't have to agree with them, but an interesting argument you don't believe in can be one of the best ways to uncover what you really do believe.

      *whew*

      That said, anyone who attempts to sell ANY piece of literary criticism as "capital T" Truth is full of crap.

      End of rant.

  4. I stopped reading... by flinxmeister · · Score: 3, Insightful

    ...when the author commented that R2 and 3P0 landing on tatooine was a coincidence.

    I'm not that big of a SW geek, but even I know that there is a reason they ended up back in the same place.

    The slate article seems more interested in the academic thought than the actual subject matter. They should at least be related.

    1. Re:I stopped reading... by earthbound+kid · · Score: 2

      If you had kept reading, you would have read where the author explained why the droids stopping on Tatooine wasn't really a coincidence within the series because of the Force, aka the Thing That Drives Plot. Thus, all the weird coincidences in the movie are instantly papered over with an all purpose plot unifier. The author finds that interesting.

    2. Re:I stopped reading... by icybee · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Is it possible that the Rebel ship at the beginning of Episode IV was at Tatooine because they were going to contact Obi-Wan? Leia seems to know who he is and that he lives there. Why else would it have come out of hyperspace there instead of Alderaan?

      The droids meeting up with Luke isn't neccessarily a coincidence either. R2D2's memory WASN'T WIPED!!! This is the big revelation at the end of Episode III that changes the way Episode IV is viewed. R2D2 knew he needed to get to Obi-Wan, knew he would live near Luke & knew where Luke lived - why else would he be so insistent on going in that direction?

    3. Re:I stopped reading... by JudgeFurious · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Exactly.

        That was her friggin mission for crying out loud. She knew exactly where the ship was and Leia probably instructed the captain to come out of light speed as close to the planet as possible in order to facilitate the escape of the droid she gave the plans to. Hell she probably gave R2 the information he needed to put the escape pod down in the correct region of the planet to find Obi Wan.
        The moment the author of this piece said "What are the odds" I wrote him off completely. Yes there were coincidences that the story relied upon. This wasn't one of them.
        He's not knowledgable enough about the subject matter to speak (or rather "write") intelligently about it.

      --
      Appended to the end of comments you post. 120 chars.
  5. The Force is Lucas by Neo-Rio-101 · · Score: 3, Funny

    So what this guy is saying, is that "The Force" is actually George Lucas, and when they say "The Force be with you", they are basically saying "Pray that Lucas doesn't get you killed in the next scene"

    Now it all makes sense!

    --
    READY.
    PRINT ""+-0
  6. Why IT people like Star Wars... by bypedd · · Score: 4, Funny

    Cubicle light saber duel, anyone?

    1. Re:Why IT people like Star Wars... by UncleFluffy · · Score: 4, Funny

      waa-aa-ay too much access to the big red 'special effects' button.

      As a friend of mine put it after watching EP3 : "Industrial Light and Magic: the greatest turd polishers ever."

      --

      What would Lemmy do?

    2. Re:Why IT people like Star Wars... by Spacejock · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Agreed. What I meant was that something like 70-80% of the LOTR footage was recoloured afterwards and they did all sorts of amazing things with lighting. (I enjoyed the docos on the DVDs as much as or more than the films themselves ;-) If any films could claim to be heavy with special effects it's the LOTR trilogy. Everything was tweaked, tweaked, tweaked until it was just so, but the end effect is such a fantastic blend of real and imaginary that you're completely absorbed. Overuse wasn't the right word - 'heavy use of' is more appropriate.

      The only thing absorbing about Eps 1 & 2 was the official SW toilet paper. I can't say anything about Ep3 because I haven't seen it and don't plan to.

  7. I'm not buying the Slate article by mrgeometry · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I love Slate and I read it every day, but this article is not convincing for me. His main point is that George Lucas got all meta about plot; the Force represents Plot; the Emperor represents the author's attempt to control the plot, and Jar Jar represents the inventive whimsy of the characters. Sounds to me like "Moby Dick is actually the Republic of Ireland". Sorry.

    1. Re:I'm not buying the Slate article by Spacejock · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Jar Jar represents the inventive whimsy of the characters.

      Heh. Jar Jar represents the desire to sell a shitload of action figures to young kids via fast food outlets. If ever a character was invented purely to suck another age group into the maw of the Merchandise Machine...

      Still, lesson learnt eh? Thy characters may be good or evil, funny, sick, demented or violent, but thou shalt never again employ irritating characters.

  8. postmodern art film? by nmoog · · Score: 5, Funny

    Never attribute to post-modernism that which can adequately be explained by stupidity!

  9. Star Wars? by grumpygrodyguy · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Revenge of the Sith comes out on DVD today, and there's an interesting article on Slate dissecting the now-complete trilogy

    All I can say is that I'm very grateful to have episodes IV, V, and VI in their original untouched format. IMO they are the only films deserving to be called the 'Star Wars Trilogy'.

    The others films are an embarrassment at best.

    --
    The government has a defect: it's potentially democratic. Corporations have no defect: they're pure tyrannies. -Chomsky
    1. Re:Star Wars? by MoonChildCY · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I apologize beforehand for the rant but...

      What do you people have against Star Wars? Most people here think Star Wars (IV, V, VI) is cool because all the older geeks they live up to thought it was cool. Now everyone that watched the newer episodes (or even heard about them) and their grandmothers think they suck. Well you know what? If they did truly suck, people wouldn't go like crazy to watch them (don't forget, Episode I is 5th on the All Time Box Office for the USA) all.

      Can anyone give me a precise reason why they think Star Wars I, II or III were horrible movies? Was it Jar Jar? If yes, how would you do it to make it suck less, stick to the original story and ensure IV, V and VI don't have to change? Remember, you still need a gullible character that can be trusted by the Jedis, loyal, possible elected to be a representative in the Senate at a future time and easily manipulated in the future. Any character you make like that (even making Harrison Ford play the character, since so many love him) would still make you hate him. It is the exact purpose of the character. And it is also the ingredient the movie needs to evolve.

      The movie as a whole is truly amazing, and if people cannot tolerate a movie that provides them with the foundation of their "greatest movie of all time", then maybe they should reconsider their opinions. It is indeed a work of art. People should watch "The power of myth" with Joseph Campbell and George Lucas (filmed in '88) to understand what George Lucas was actually trying to do with Star Wars. If you got it wrong the first time, don't blame the director/author. Blame someone else.

      And to save you some trouble... Slate's analysis is close to what George Lucas was trying to do in the first place.

    2. Re:Star Wars? by wombert · · Score: 2

      I liked Episodes IV - VI because I enjoyed watching them, not because someone else thought they were cool. There could be a bit of a nostalgia/childhood infatuation factor here, but I can still watch the old Star Wars trilogy more often then a Disney cartoon.

      Why was Episode I the 5th highest all time box office winner? Because people liked the original trilogy a lot and their fascination with it lasted a good 20 years.

      Why didn't Episode III have the 5th (or 4th, or 1st) highest box office take? Maybe because Episode I didn't live up to expectations, and it didn't rekindle the fascination with the series. (If anything, it rekindled it in anticipation of the Episode I release, only to have it fade away on the disappointment after seeing the film.)

      --
      Did I say overlords? I meant protectors.
    3. Re:Star Wars? by superiority · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I'm no movie aficionado, but I think it has just a leeeetle to do with the wooden acting, bad directing, contrived (Forced?) plot and the non-stop (to paraphrase a cousin post) grabbing of one's balls and screaming of, "Look! Special Effects!"

    4. Re:Star Wars? by Golias · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Can anyone give me a precise reason why they think Star Wars I, II or III were horrible movies?

      1. It was badly written. The dialog was really awful at every turn.

      2. It was poorly directed. These three films sported some of the very best acting talents in motion pictures today. Most of the major players have proven to be outstanding performers in other movies, yet you would never even think they could act at all if the Star Wars prequels were the only place you saw them.

      3. It was not well made. The composition of shots, with a few exceptions, was completely dreadful, especially in the scenes in Attack of the Clones, in which the GCI backgrounds were so baroque and ugly, one could hardly notice that there were actors somewhere in the shot as well.

      4. George Lucas didn't really base his original Star Wars story on anything Campbell wrote... he just said so after the fact. Star Wars was a simple homage to the Saturday Morning Matinee, and he never should have been ashamed of that fact.

      5. Everything Joseph Campbell wrote was pretty much bullshit anyway.

      --

      Information wants to be anthropomorphized.

    5. Re:Star Wars? by ForumTroll · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I couldn't agree more with all of your points. I just watched III (for the first and last time) with some friends and by about half way through the movie we just couldn't wait for it to end. The plot has so many holes in it and the dialogue is atrocious at best. The scenes with Anakin and Padme are quite possibly the worst written scenes in motion picture history. I'm amazed that they had a concept with so much potential and ended up making a movie with such an utterly horrific dialogue. Some of the acting throughout the file was also just horrible. This is honestly one of the worst movies I've seen in a long time.

      Perhaps the most laughable part of the movie was how utterly easy it was to pull Anakin to the dark side. They really should have spread this out more effectively through episode I and II to make it at least slightly more believable.

      Palpatine: Learn to embrace the dark side of the force.
      Anakin: No.
      Palpatine: Do it.
      Anakin: Ok.

      It doesn't get much worse than this.....

      --
      "A Lisp programmer knows the value of everything, but the cost of nothing." - Alan Perlis
    6. Re:Star Wars? by theStorminMormon · · Score: 2, Interesting

      You cleary have either 0 artistic taste (and probably keep wondering why those annoying butt-heads in Mystery Science Theater keep ruining good movies by talking during them) or are simply, hopelessly, desperately in denial. That's OK. I was once as you are now.

      I found out about the new movies when I was in middle school. Back in 1995. I had heard rumors, but that was when I found out they were going to be made for sure. I can still remember the day I found out, how excited I was, trying to figure out how I could ever wait 4 years.

      When Phantom Menace rolled around I was ready. I got my parents to drop me off at the theater at 11am the day before tickets went on sale. I was #5 in line. I spent a fun night there, plotting to throw soda cans at the car that kept driving by yelling at the fans, winning two out of two games of Star Wars Trivial Pursuit, and strolling down the line that by nightfall went all the way from the entrance of the theater to the rear wall. By the time the tickets went on sale the next day - the line wrapped around the entire theater.

      Two weeks later the movie actually came out and I was there hours early, waiting in a "line" that was in fact a densely-packed mob that was worse then any crowded show I've ever been too. But I managed to stake out an entire row in the theater for me and mine.

      To be succinct: the movie sucked. The "Duel of the Fates" scene was awesome. Well, the music was anyway. The music was so good I felt like I was watching Star Wars. But the rest sucked.

      And yet I watched it. Not just then, but SIX MORE TIMES. Why? Beccause I had waited for Star Wars since 1995. It was an essential part of my childhood. I grew up on Star Wars, I loved Star Wars, I read the novels (until they started sucking too) and I just could not give up on Lucas - I kept willing the movies to somehow, miraculously, stop sucking.

      So there are your three reasons for the movie being a blockbuster even though it sucked.

      1. People are so desperate for Star Wars that they go no matter how much the movie sucks. It still has lightsabers, Jedi, spaceships and Yoda. It's awful, but it lets them back into the Star Wars universe.

      2. People have invested so much in the movie - emotionally - that they can not bear to admit what they realized deep-down the first time they saw the movie: it sucks.

      3. The same star wars freaks who probably thought the Halo novelization was good, and keep buying assinine Star Wars novels, are the same dweebs who just have no sense of taste or style whatsoever. They simply don't know that the movie sucked anymore than they understand the basic need to take a shower every now and then. Don't mean to offend people. I'm sure there are some perfectly hygenic Star Wars fans out there who just simply CAN NOT see that the movies sucked. That's OK. As long as they're happy.

      Now to your other question: why did the movie suck?

      Well, you can't really quantify the "goodness" of a movie. It's subjective, so you can always argue any side of the issue. But some movies are just so universally AWFUL that a general consensus emerges. So, what are the reasons that Star Wars sucked? Here's just a brief, off-the-top-of-my-head list:

      1. Jar-Jar.

      2. All the rest of the gun-gedins (or however you spell it). I mean really, throwing purple blobs at droids? The Ewoks with their sticks and stones were less unabashedly stupid.

      3. Mitocholorions. Or however you spell it. So awful that, like Jar-Jar, they got more or less dropped after the 1st movie. Talk about killing the magic. "The force is not strong with you? Try new mito-booster! It'll send your mito-count through the roof in no time! You too can have super-jedi powers..." Give me a break, I'm surprised Lucas didn't really try to market a beverage based on it. Admit it - you'd buy it.

      4. The Dialogue. This is #4 on the list, but it's really the #1 reason the movie sucked. George apparently simply can not write dialogue. I mean

      --
      The Southern Baptist Convention has creationism. On Slashdot, we have porn.
    7. Re:Star Wars? by cabazorro · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Here's why:
      Like all artistic endeavours, whenever you do something great eventually the artist faces the excruitiating disjuntive: I created something great, should I keep producing more versions of it or try something different?

      By following the latter you risk to turn your creation into something trivial, trite, obfuscated, mundane and unimaginative; killing the unique quality of the original. Examples are a-plenty:
      The Simpsons.
      Rocky.
      Jaws.
      Alien.
      Mad Max.
      and of course: Star Wars.

      Star Wars could have been a mystic sci-fi like Blade Runner or Brazil but instead became
      a regurgitated product that pops out of nowhere every holiday season..Like the Chia Pet!
      That's why I know hate Star Wars.

      --
      - these are not the droids you are looking for -
    8. Re:Star Wars? by theStorminMormon · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Hey, you're entitled to your opinion. I'm not going to pelt you with anything. But I have to wonder - when you have an opinion that the "Lord of the Rings" novel is crap - and yet that novel was pretty consistently voted the best book of the 21st century, do you ever - in the dead of night - suspect that you just might be missing something?

      I think you're wrong about the original Star Wars movies and about the LoTR movies - but I see your point. There's a lot to crticize in both. Star Wars was cheesey, and Frodo only had two expressions in the movie: "oh sam!" (the silly grin) and "ugghhhh" (the hobbit pushing out a man-size turd grimace).

      But the LoTR? I mean, in high school I thought a lot of the books I was told to read sucked. I still have papers I turned in ridiculing Kafka's "Metamorphis", Hesse's "Siddhartha" and pretty much every other book I had to read. But to me the only thing that looks ridiculous now is how self-assured I was at age 14 that I was smarter than all the novelist, critics, and readers who had read the books for years, decades, or centuries before I was born. It took me a few years to realize that even when I really disliked a "classic" novel (I hate Moby Dick) the only thing I achieved by stating categorically that the works "sucked" was to make myself look like an utter idiot.

      It's not that I've learned to bow before the group consensus - I still really disllike "Siddhartha" for example, and for a lot of the same reasons I had when I first read it. But I would be hesitant to call widely acclaimed books that have stood the test of time "a bunch of pretentious garbage". Instead, it's better to be conversand on WHY they books are lauded in the first place - and to respond to that ongoing discussion. It's not like the "classics" are all universally hailed by English professors everywher either.

      But hey, I guess you're just way more perceptive than all the millions of people, some of whom have devoted their lives to words, novels, and literature, who love Tolkien's works. Maybe you should consider becoming conversant with the external context of a work before you display your unabashedly uninformed categorical opinions on it. I wouldn't say for every Coke commercial you see on TV you need to exercise this degree of care - and hey, you don't HAVE to do it at all. But when you come across a work of truly significant stature you can either converse, or you can whine. It's your pick.

      You're welcome to your opinion, whatever it may be, but some opinions cast you in a worse light then you could ever cast the object of the opinion in.

      -stormin

      --
      The Southern Baptist Convention has creationism. On Slashdot, we have porn.
  10. Summary of the article by dirtsurfer · · Score: 5, Funny

    The Force is the ultimate plot device, and it's such an obvious plot device that even the characters themselves realize that their actions are being controlled by this plot device, so it becomes a post-modern plot device.

    Cue fanfare and applause.

  11. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 3, Funny

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  12. Fan Films by ianmalcm · · Score: 2, Informative

    Star Wars is probably the best example of IT nerds meeting film geeks, and that pairing continues with all the fan films. Projects like http://www.impstherelentless.com/ bring the best of garage coders, animators, and home movie people together. And everyone wants to document their Star Wars fandom, from http://www.starwoids.com/ to http://www.starwait.com/ to the most recent project, http://www.lininguptv.com/.

    1. Re:Fan Films by grimJester · · Score: 2, Informative

      Although it's not a Star Wars fan film, Star Wreck is a good example of IT nerds meeting film geeks.

  13. It "needed" to happen by soul_hk · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Jar-Jar and the prequels "needed" to happen so that Toys'R'Us could squeeze that bit more Star Wars junk on the shelves.

    This article is a load of rubbish, unless of course if it is satire, in which case it is great.
    That's a big "if" ladies and gentlemen.

  14. A re-write of the new Trilogy. by actor_au · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Okay, its only the first two movies of the new trilogy, as I got burned out by the time I hit 11 pages and just needed to sleep.

    Basically if Lucas had wanted them to be artistic and not just popcorn it wouldn't have been difficult, he had a good story, just a poor execution, except for the end of the second movie and the end of the third movie, that bloody rocked.

    Anyway here it is its as if Frank Herbert wrote them and George Lucas didn't suck enough to ruin them.

    --
    Read Errant Story.
  15. A friend of mine had a good insight... by Dirtside · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I was talking to a friend about Episode III. He pointed out, his words, "It was the best of Star Wars, it was the worst of Star Wars." You'd have an incredibly great moment followed immediately by something soul-crushingly stupid. The POV shot of Vader's mask coming down over his face; Vader's first breaths. Chilling.

    Followed by Vader whining about where Padme is, and then, of course... "NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!"

    Lucas is great at molding basic story material, but he can't write dialogue or characters to save his life. He should have stuck to producing, which is what he's really good at.

    --
    "Destroy science and religion. Science would re-emerge exactly the same; but not religion." - Penn Jillette, paraphrased
  16. What is this? by Bo'Bob'O · · Score: 4, Insightful

    He's not impressing people with no interest in the arts. He's sure not fooling anyone who even casually takes this seriously. I guess is supposed to be a joke on both Star Wars fans and students of literature, but where is the Monty python foot next to the submission?

  17. That is the understandable part. by khasim · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The real questions are ...

    Why was Ben there?

    If the answer is to look after Luke, then why was Luke there?

    If the answer is because that's where his family is, then why put him with his family ... when his family is also related to Darth Vader?

    That just sounds stupid.

    But not as stupid as having those 'droids drop in on Ben ... with the son of the guy who built them ... and Ben not recognize them or say anything to the kid.

    Okay, so maybe putting the kid with Vader's kin wasn't a bad idea. I mean, Kid Vader didn't even bother to save his mommy from a life of slavery. So why expect Adult Vader to drop in and visit the family ... ever. I mean, just one twinge of middle age and the entire scheme is ruined.

    Rather ... look at it as Lucas trying to tie the new 3 with the original 3 to give the old fans something to "Hey! I recognize that from when I was a kid!" about and it all makes sense.

    Shame Lucas couldn't put together a better plot to tie his marketing gimickry together.

  18. I think the discussion is missing it. by earthbound+kid · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It looks like the slashdot audience is getting really hung up on the whole, "Is the Slate piece a satire or not?" thing. The thing is, as I commented before, "'satire' and 'non-satire' is a binary distinction that post-modernism transgresses proactively."

    What I mean, is that the author both is and isn't kidding. Also, I'm both kidding and not kidding when I say "transgresses binary distinctions." Here's a helpful analogy: Let's imagine you're writing a horror story. You write, "Start breathing harder. OK. Let your pupils dilate. Shake a little. Cower. Think about other scary stuff. Be worried that something might kill you soon!" How effective would this be as a horror story? The answer is not at damn all. The best way to make someone frightened isn't to say, "be frightened," it's to say a bunch of other stuff that inspires fear in them.

    Similarly, the content of the Slate piece isn't the point. The author almost certainly doesn't care whether Star War is "post-modern" or "avant garde." Instead, the author likes challenging his brain, and wants you to enjoy challenging your brain. So, he's given himself a task: come up with a post-modern meta-framing of Star Wars. Now, we the audience are supposed to allow our brains to quiver with joy as we connect the dots and think about whether and how the Force as a meta-explanation for plot coincidences in Star Wars can be called post-modern. The author is almost certainly serious in that this explanation is a valid one for Star Wars. The author is almost certainly joking in suggesting that Star Wars is High Art. The author is both serious and not, and that's the point.

    If the author had written, "let your brain light up with activity. Think about connections. Enjoy the tingling of neurons firing," it wouldn't be effective. Instead, we're supposed to accept what the piece gives us without trying to shoe horn it into the category of "joke" or "not a joke." We're supposed to be enjoying how the piece is and isn't a joke, not trying to make it fit what we think about the quality of the Star Wars movies.

  19. Remakes, anyone? by zenmojodaddy · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Now that we have all six films, we know that the main thrust of the story is Anakin Skywalker's fall and eventual redemption. The main story is good. The execution is patchy, to say the least. You can imagine Lucas sitting on a big pile of money at his ranch thinking "Now what this dark, tragic story really needs is an annoying rasta guppy fishman..'

    So, this might be heresy, but I'd like to see a bunch of remakes in twenty years time, where the story isn't made up on the hoof and the budget for hiring writers is slightly higher than cake budget. Imagine Joss Whedon writing the dialogue...

    Just as long as Han shoots first, natch.

  20. Re:All I want to know... by ObsessiveMathsFreak · · Score: 4, Funny

    Anyone care to enlighten me?

    You are too enraptured by the Star Wars mythos. To the Dark Side of the Fandom headed you are!

    --
    May the Maths Be with you!
  21. It's FLASH GORDON with modern effects by nagora · · Score: 3, Interesting
    The title sequence is a big clue, folks.

    Lucas wanted to make a set of films which reminded him of the old-time matinee serials. Lots of adventure, light on plot, big on fun. Within that framework I think he succeeded pretty well 100%.

    Now, it may well be the case that some of us don't want that, and it pretty well explains such nonsense as Jar-Jar and "going through the core" etc, but it seems obvious to me that it was what George wanted and I suspect he's a happy man when he looks at what he did. And, on the way, he did manage to produce six films about the bad guy, which I think is a great idea.

    Chill out and repeat: "It's just Flash Gordon". You'll enjoy the films much more that way.

    TWW

    --
    "Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"
  22. Re:Movie fantasy leads to real world technology by Allison+Geode · · Score: 2, Insightful

    its so good because its a fancy sword made of light!

    but, going a step further and a tad geekier, consider that the blade itself, which can cut through anything except the beam of another saber, is incredibly light-weight. since light itself has no mass, the only weight of the thing is in the handle, so its incredibly easy to do quick shifts of position. add that to the jedi's ability to sense the world in a unique way, and not only is it a sword, its also a shield against incoming projectile attacks.

    compare that to the longsword of comparable size (when the saber is extended, anyway) that I bought at the renaissance festival, which weighs (probably) 20 pounds, which i can (awkwardly) lift with one hand but couldn't likely swing with any accuracy or force, and you'll understand why people like the concept of lightsabers so much. :-p

  23. Want a precise reason? Have a precise reason. by dzfoo · · Score: 5, Interesting

    >> Can anyone give me a precise reason why they think Star Wars I, II or III were horrible movies?

    Because they sucked. How much more precise can I be? You want me to list scene/chapter/verse? Why isn't the perception of overall suckiness enough for me to say that it was a horrible experience to watch the new "trilogy"?

    When The Matrix sequels came out, I had a hard time arguing with at least one fan-boy at the office who kept telling me that if I didn't like them it was most likely because I just "didn't get them". As if there was some secret deeper meaning behind them of which only an enlighted selected few were aware. As if I am not smart enough or rational enough to be able to form a valid opinion on something by sheer perception and experience.

    I liked the LotR movies a lot, but I accept the fact that there are people who found them slow, boring, and too distant from the original work to qualify as Tolkienesque. I can certainly see why, but more importantly, I respect their opinion.

    Now respect mine (and all those others who have a negative view of SW movies): I believe that Episodes I, II, and III were horrible. I believe that Episode II was (slightly) better than the first, and that Episode III was still even better than the previous two, but in my eyes that still means that Lucas finally reached mere mediocrity from the depth of incompetency and horridness. On the other side of the token, I believe that the original Star Wars (what you would call Episode IV) was the best of the series, with a very good follow up in The Empire Strikes Back (that's Episode V for you kiddies). I don't really care much for Return Of The Jedi (Episode VI if you're not following).

                -dZ.

    --
    Carol vs. Ghost
    ...Can you save Christmas?
  24. About the droids... by interactive_civilian · · Score: 3, Informative
    khasim said:
    But not as stupid as having those 'droids drop in on Ben ... with the son of the guy who built them ... and Ben not recognize them or say anything to the kid.
    Perhaps he was just being cautious. I think we can assume that Ben was on Tattooine looking over Luke, and probably not paying close attention to the rebellion (from the glimpses of his shack, he doesn't seem to have anything that indicated that he was well in touch with the rest of the galaxy). He has no reason to expect droids to show up nor know their purpose when they do.

    He did not lie when he said "I don't recall ever owning a droid" as far as we know. Also, he may not have much reason to recognize R2D2 as he never really did anything with R2...That was all Anakin, if you recall. Obi-Wan was using other droids in his ships. As for C3P0, well, as we saw in Cloud City (among other places), there are other droids with identical designs, so there is no reason to recognize 3P0 either...

    However, it seems (to me) quite clear that the droids were sent to Tattooine with Leia by her "father" (Senator Organa, right?). It was only after Leia's ship was attacked that their mission (well, R2's anyway) became to find Obi-Wan.

    To me, it seems to fit the plot rather well, with the only thing that seemed to happen by chance (or the will of the Force if you buy the article author's premise) was the droids coming to Luke first.

    IMHO. :-)

    --
    "Empathise with stupidity, and you're halfway to thinking like an idiot." - Iain M. Banks
    1. Re:About the droids... by ErroneousBee · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Dont forget Yoda is able to talk to Liam Neeson (Kim Yong Il, or whatever), and presumably has taught Obi-Wan the same trick, so has access to any info anywhere. Thats probably why Ben is able to rescue Luke at a critical moment, and why Yoda manages to arrive at Lukes crash site quite quickly. Its also why Obi-Wan lets Vader kill him, cos he wont really die, hence 'More powerful than you can possibly imagine".

      --
      **TODO** Steal someone elses sig.
    2. Re:About the droids... by sg3000 · · Score: 3, Informative

      > 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.

      --
      Insert simplistic political, ideological, or personal proselytization here.
  25. intellectual?? by akhomerun · · Score: 2, Interesting

    as the avant-garde, intellectual sort of film that Lucas keeps saying it is.

    jar-jar binks is most definatly not intellectual, and he wasted half the time in the first two prequel star wars movies. so i guess maybe you could argue that episode III was intellectual, but I and II vaporized my brain.

  26. Why Leia was going to Tatooine by Millard+Fillmore · · Score: 2, Interesting

    This raises a really interesting question about why Leia's ship was near Tatooine in the first place. According to the narrative in Episode IV, she had recieved the stolen plans from the Rebel spies, and was en route to Alderaan to deliver them to her father, Bail Organa, presumably the leader of the rebellion. I have always assumed, since we don't know where they started out from, and since it seems like a relatively short journey from Tatooine to Alderaan, that the ship was damaged and forced to seek shelter at the nearest available system (such as what happens to the Falcon in Episode V).

    But then this raises the question of how Princess Leia knows who Obi-Wan Kenobi is, or how she knows that he is located on Tatooine. The end of Episode III tells us that Bail Organa knows this information, and so we need to conclude that he told his daughter. But this raises a startling additional point: Organa also knew that Luke Skywalker was in residence on Tatooine. It coule be that Organa has decided, now that Luke will also be of age, to call in Obi-Wan and Luke to assist the Rebellion. Since none of this is given in the narrative, it isn't very likely that this is Lucas's intent. It is perhaps more likely that Leia has a letter from her dad on the ship that says "Open in case of being marooned on Tatooine - it happens more often than you might think." Or maybe she had an emergency call back home and said "I've blown a tire near Tatooine, who can help me nearby?" Nevertheless, it is interesting to speculate about the possible motives for sending Leia to Obi-Wan at this point in the history of the Rebellion.

  27. The problem with these kinds of analyses by hey! · · Score: 2

    The problem with these kinds of analyses is not that they are debasement of criticism, as some have suggested. It's that they create complex and appealing explanations where simpler ones fit better.

    While you can frame Lucas' triumphs and missteps in a kind of Dionysian/Apollonian dichotomy as the author does, I think the more economical explanation is this: Lucas is hampered by having too much money.

    For this analysis, it is more useful to consider the films in release order, not narrative order.

    Episode IV barely got made; Lucas had no idea whether his whole vision would ever come to fruition -- probably he doubted it. He also had limited budget; within that budget, his effects had to be as convincing as he could manage, and it probably wouldn't be wise to let people dwell on them (or the novice actors' performance) too much. Struggling against these limitations, he ended up trying to squeeze a barrel full of plot squashed into a thimble of time. The result is that the Episode IV unrolls at a pace that may never have been matched before or since, at least in a movie that had any narrative cohesiveness. The only reason it can be followed at all is that it's cobbled together out of familiar old stuff out of the common cultural attic. The result was a freshness and exhiliration that none of the subsequent movies could match.

    Episode V is widely regarded as the most satisfying of the series. The actors have hit their stride (helped along by a new director), the most onerous of the limitations have been lifted, but Lucas is not yet an all powerful, infinitely financed auter yet. The movie runs along at a slower but still brisk pace as Lucas the writer fills out the story from his Joseph Campbell crib sheet. Overall the best balanced of the entire series.

    Episode VI is remarkable for being the first unremarkable film in the series. The cast has hit it stride, but Lucas the movie maker and story teller is starting to fall apart. Like the once athlete who starts to succumb to middle age, he's succumbing to middle aged spread and is plodding perceptibly. He now has power; limitless resoruces and self-indulgence are starting to take their toll. But he still has a compelling story to finish, and he manages to make it over the finish line. In retrospect our disillusionment with this film is perhaps tinged by our over optimistic expectations.

    Episode I-II should be one film. That they are split into two is a sign of Lucas' complete independence, not only from financial constraint, but its accompanying artistic constraint. He made two movies out of one movie's worth of plot, for no other reason than he had a notion to. Add this to the limitless distraction iof digital effects on an unlimited budget, and these films do the unthinkable for fans of Episode IV: they drag on, and on. We're given plenty of time to ponder the imponderables as "WTF is the Trade Federation" or "How could Annakin go from ten years old to twenty without Padme going from twenty to thirty?"

    Episode III: Lucas return to mediocrity. There is story to tell; Episode I-II has to be bridged to Episode IV, and he only has one movie to do it in. So his tendency to ramble is reined in, which is a very good thing. He also has an interesting philosophical point to make, one that's familiar to thoughtful readers of Tolkien and CS Lewis, about the costs of trying to impose your personal narrative on the people around you and the inability to accept the impermanence of life. But the movie, while entertaining, is unsatisfying because it wants to be profound but fails. Lucas can't shoehorn a archetypal myth like the quest or rebirth into a script that will do what he needs to do in this movie. What he has to work with is collection of loose ends that he must tie up in a way that makes his point. What he needs to achieve his ambitions in this episode are the powers of a dramatist, which he lacks.

    In politics, power is the instrument. But power also corrupts. In art the struggle for freedo

    --
    Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
  28. 2 Points. . . by Fantastic+Lad · · Score: 2, Insightful
    1. Anakin could not have become Vader.

    Anakin was a loving, good-intentioned person with a conscience. The film's attempts to drive him to the Dark Side were staged and pushy and contrived and ultimately ridiculous. --You can frustrate a person and make him/her angry, but to become Vader, you have to scramble a person as a child. Anakin was already well past the point of such vulnerability; he had seen and learned love and friendship during his formative years. --His love and selfless good deeds were rewarded with the gratitude and returned love from solid, respectful friends, and thus his belief system and internal compass about how the world can and should be would have been set and anchored deeply. It would have taken a LOT more than a sly Palpatine whispering shit at him to screw up a 20-something year-old Anakin. Heck, even the flying junk-dealer from his childhood spoke of little Anakin with pride. --There are fatherless kids out there in the real world who would do anything for the kind of affection Anakin was shown in Phantom Menace. If you want to create a Vader, you have to start kicking him as a baby and never let up. Anakin should have been the second coming. Vader? No chance.

    2. I DID however like the illustration of how a republic can easily turn into a fascist state. We all can take a lesson from that and pack our bags and move to Canada, France or New Zealand. . .

    So Lucas gets half marks for insight. Politically, he's got a clue, but otherwise he's still learning. Evil is a tough problem.


    -FL