The Definitive Evisceration of The Phantom Menace *NSFW*

cowmix writes "When TPM came out ten years ago, its utter crappiness shocked me to the core and wounded a entire generation of geeks. My inner child had been abused and betrayed. I moped around, talking to no one, for almost two weeks. I couldn't bring myself to see #2 or #3, whatever they were called. Now, a decade later, comes Star Wars: The Phantom Menace Review, the ultimate, seven-part, seventy minute analysis of this mother of all train wrecks. Not only does it nail how the film blows, but tells us why. Time, apparently, does not heal all wounds." Or, if you prefer all 7 parts embedded in one page, you can check out slashfilm's aggregation.

Comments

Why a decade later

[sopssa]

It probably took 10 years to do all of this.

I didn't think The Phantom Menace was all that bad then, but now he's pointed out all the flaws in humorous manner.

Re:Why a decade later

[Philip K Dickhead]

Time wounds all heels.

Re:Why a decade later

[jellomizer]

The Phantom Menace could have been fixed by 3 things...

Older Skywalker (Lets get him in his late teens)
No JarJar and/or no C3PO and R2D2 (way to many comedy characters)
No Pod-Racing... 20 minutes about 1/3 of the movie about nothing.

Re:Why a decade later

[jgtg32a]

I think JarJar could have been cool if he wasn't a complete klutz and was able to fight with capoeira, he could have kept his annoying traits and been a badass, and then everyone would have just thought well he's an alien.

Re:Why a decade later

[gnick]

Those three points violate rule #1 of sci-fi action for kids - Marketability outweighs quality.

Older Skywalker (Lets get him in his late teens)

Younger kids identify more and are responsible (indirectly) for many more toy sales.

No JarJar and/or no C3PO and R2D2 (way to many comedy characters)

Action figures.

No Pod-Racing... 20 minutes about 1/3 of the movie about nothing.

Video games.

Re:Why a decade later

[Anonymous Coward]

Why even post this shit? Some guy tries to be funny and relevant on YouTube, a bunch of /. nerds start jacking off to his 70-minute rant and now the guy is all over the Internet in under a day. At the very least, this shit belongs on idle, not the main page...

Re:Why a decade later

[Talderas]

God damnit Crichton. Aeryn let you out again?

Re:Why a decade later

[Anonymous Coward]

I know it's old, old news by now, but if you haven't already check out The Phantom Edit. It made some great headway in making TPM watchable, boosting it from unwatchably atrocious to plain old Vanilla Bad. It doesn't address all of your issues, but did a great job in rectifying the biggies.

Re:Why a decade later

[mobby_6kl]

Q: So what is it that you do here?

A: Merchandising!

Re:Why a decade later

[Rary]

I think the one thing it needed that would've made it a thousand times better would be a single likeable character.

I don't know about you, but for me the star of the original trilogy was Han Solo. I'm not sure who the star of the prequel trilogy was, but there was not a single Han Solo-esque character in it.

Re:Why a decade later

[Ben Newman]

The comparing of the opening shots of The Phantom Menace and A New Hope was a great piece of film design analysis. The scene of the blockade runner getting blasted by the star destroyer set up everything; there was a conflict going on, the rebels were weak and ill equipped and the empire was big, scary and not afraid to use force. The Jedis approaching the trade federation ships in The Phantom Menace told you nothing about either side, and that sort of weakly defined sense of design pervades the entire movie. The battle droids were never intimidating, they looked like they were designed purely to stand around waiting to be light-sabered in half. I mean storm troopers were a joke in an actual fight but at least they looked bad assed. Darth Maul had some scary design going on but he was out doing his own thing. Vader not only looked like a bad guy but he was also the fist on the long arm of the empire which added to his menace. Epic fantasy (yes, Star Wars has more in common with the Lord of the Rings then 2001) needs its clearly defined villains and heros, and some trade dispute is just not the right kind of conflict for this kind of movie.

Re:Why a decade later

[altoz]

Really? Just those three things? Let me point out why the movie really sucked.

In IV - VI, we find the story of a character who's very evil who finds redemption. We also find out that he used to be good.

That should have been the heart of the story. Why and how did Darth Vader become so evil? How did he get seduced to the dark side? The films hand-waved through the most important question that everyone had. He thought his wife was going to die and started killing children or something.

The flaws weren't that there were too many characters. The flaw was that there just wasn't a coherant story.

Re:Why a decade later

[Gilmoure]

Damn nerds are taking over Slashdot.

Re:Why a decade later

[Megahard]

Here is a better review.

Re:Why a decade later

[ajs]

Flaws?! OK, I'll grant that TPM had flaws... lots of em. But I'm not sure that I heard any of them described in part one of this excruciating mess (and no, I refuse to suffer through parts 2-7) other than a vaguely sidewise slap at Jar-Jar (as easy targets go, that one was an elephant at 3 foot range, and he still only got in a glancing blow).

Points he broughtup:

No one can describe QGJ without using his character's profession or wardrobe as descriptors. OK, let's try that one:

A mentor archetype whose quite reserve conveys the inner peace to which his order aspire. Often lacking in praise, but always supportive. Older-brotherly.

The people he got to comment could only come up with "stern." Really?!

The other one was Queen Amidala. Now to be fair, that's a trick question, since most of the film you spend watching a stand-in for the Queen and interacting with the real Amidala as "Padme". So the question should have been about Padme or the stand-in Queen Amidala. Still, let's assume they mean Padme.

An outwardly sure of herself leader whose independence covers a sense that her world is not entirely in her control. A woman trapped within the role that she feels she has to play, both literally and figuratively.

That's as far as I can go, since Amidala's character is best described in terms of her relationship to her wardrobe, which is a constantly shifting front intended to obscure her from the public eye while highlighting the significance of her role. That can't be said within the strictures that he set up, though and what I did manage to cover does seem to cover more than the idiots he interviewed who don't seem to remember who she was.

Also, what's with the editing? It looks like he added his voice to video-from-still images and then edited them for time, chopping himself off in several mid-syllable lines. If he's having trouble working any of the free movie-making tools out there, perhaps he shouldn't be doing a video review. Podcasts work just fine.

Re:Why a decade later

[Anonymous Coward]

You want... substance? You... WANT... SUBSTANCE...??!!!!??

Security!

Re:Why a decade later

[PopeRatzo]

I think JarJar could have been cool if he wasn't a complete klutz and was able to fight with capoeira

And if he wore tight shorts and had big boobs.

Yes, if JarJar had only been a little more like Lara Croft,. it might not have been so bad.

Re:Why a decade later

[fermion]

In Star Wars, the book, we learn, or at least it is much more fully alluded to, that Luke is a much more accomplished driver. One of the problems with Star wars is that this is not established, yet Luke magically knows how to fly a fighter. Admitadly there are differences between two and three dimension navigation, but at least we would have some experience.

In the phantom menace, most things could have solved by making Anikin a little older. I think some of the pod-racing was good, as it established the family as skilled in the trade. Developmentally putting a kid that young into a pod racer just seemed too fake, so the establishment seemed forced.

It is arguable that R2D2 had some knowledge of Anikin and the kids, as well as where Obi was hiding. This allowed him to deliver the message from Princess Leia. It seemed to be quite silly to have CP3O built by Anikin, and did go too far on the comic relief. The urge was likely to have some overlap between the movies, but this as a plot device failed.

An overall critic of the critics. I think many fans did not like the world painted by the second trilogy. It seemed too different. I found it was the one think that world. The empire of Anikin was the high point of civilization about to fall apart, but still visually perfect. The world of Luke was broken, not in the over the top manner of Road Warrior, but in a very natural manner where things are simply old and not much creation is going on.

Re:Why a decade later

[Quiet_Desperation]

Huh. The pod race was the only bit I liked. At least it was conceptually interesting: what sort of "bread and circuses" entertainment would some backwater mishmash culture with access to supertechnology come up with? It almost had a *-punk flavor. I thought it ranked right up there with Ben Hur's chariot race as an action set piece.

Re:Why a decade later

[Deanalator]

I think the real problem is that all the kids that watched star wars when they were little grew up to be cynical assholes. Yes, every movie sucks, except the ones you watched when you were a kid, I get it.

If you look at it with fresh eyes, the original three had a weaker plot line, worse acting, worse special effects, and significantly worse choreography. C3PO and R2D2 were still there, as the robotic comic relief (to sell toys), and they were still annoying as hell. Maybe it's cool that Lucas originally did so much with such a small budget, and you somehow expect quality to scale linearly as budget increases, but it didn't turn out that way, and saying a movie is better because it is older and had a smaller budget is a pretty weak argument.

Keep in mind that every star wars movie was a kids movie. Kids were the target audience. If you were a kid when you watch one of the movies, you probably liked it, if you were not a kid, it was probably boring and predictable.

Re:Why a decade later

[Darinbob]

Have to have C3PO and R2D2. That was the original concept way back when Star Wars was just a single movie with no thoughts of it being a trilogy or more. A huge galactic conflict seen through the eyes of the two droids. A theme borrowed from The Hidden Fortress that is a major influence on Lucas, where the viewpoint from two peasants drives the movie. When it was a trilogy and Lucas had grand ideas about a series of 9 movies, Lucas said he wanted the droids to be the common thread between them all.

As is was The Phantom Menace seems heavily designed to be a marketing vehicle. This is quite the opposite of the original Star Wars (not going to call it A New Hope as that was never the original title). No one knew Star Wars was going to be a hit, it was just going to be a stand alone story, an homage to older space operas. The major merchandise tie ins to movies didn't exist. The concept of a blockbuster didn't exist either. It succeeds on its own merits.

Flash forward to The Phantom Menace. Merchandising is now a huge concern. So are demographics; like many lousy movies, you either start with a kids movie and sneak in some adult jokes, or you start with a more mature movie and stick some bratty kid in to attract the kids to the theaters too (it's a sci-fi movie with explosions, the kids should have been a built-in audience without the brat). Then you toss in a comedy character so the kids keep watching and don't start whining that it's too long. The big problem with The Phantom Menace is that it was created with a formula. That may work for a Syfy movie of the week, but not a major theatrical release when your professional reputation is already starting to slip.

Re:Why a decade later

[M0b1u5]

I thought it was horrific, and his explanation as to why I felt that way is fantastic. I love his work! I watched the whole 7 parts 2 days ago when posted at Reddit - and couldn't stop until the end.

I saw Star Wars 12 times at the movies in 1978, and I am a fan of the series.

But I have to be honest - I enjoyed watching this review more than I enjoyed the movie itself - which isn't hard, I admit.

Re:Why a decade later

[zenjah]

We didn't need a cute kid, an annoying clown, and an extended fictional sporting event to convince us to buy a gazillion toys based on the original movies. When Lucas made movies as a young man he made them to suit his own tastes. And as a kid, I liked them far more than any show that was written specifically for children. How did the original trilogy capture the attention of so many kids, and sell so much merchandise, without Jar Jar?

Re:Why a decade later

[jitterman]

The first movies didn't suck like the last three, and Luke was in his late teens/very early 20's, yet *they* were incredibly successful from a marketing/toy/etc. perspective.

Re:Why a decade later

[Anonymous Coward]

Quit telling me to get off your lawn while I'm trying to get these damn kids off MY lawn, old man!

Re:Why a decade later

[ravenshrike]

WORSE acting? Yeah, the acting was bad, but I'm pretty sure it was quite a bit better.

Re:Why a decade later

[RyuuzakiTetsuya]

Please. Pod raing? George Lucas has had an extraordinary career paying homage to everyone else. This time, it was movies like Gran Prix and Le Mans. The thing about Lucas is, when he goes for it, he makes the mark. Spectacular crashes, nip and tuck racing scenes, and generally well executed action sequences. If you can't understand why the pod racing scene was supposed to be fun, whether or not you agree, if you at least identify why it's in there, maybe you shouldn't be a Star Wars fan. The Expanded Universe ruined everything for hardcore fans who expected more EU style story telling than the original star wars experience.

Re:Why a decade later

[Anonymous Coward]

I think JarJar could have been cool if he ...

was murdered by Anakin within seconds of encountering Anakin and Qui-gon Jin.

Qui-gon: "Anakin! What the fuck did you do that for?"
Anakin: "Master? Didn't you feel it? He was totally dark side."

Re:Why a decade later

[calmofthestorm]

I thought Episode III was good for precisely this reason: it's about a good person who turns evil for the right reasons. I and II I agree were just...eh. It's actually my favorite episode of the whole series, possibly second to the empire strikes back.

In all honesty though, all six of the Star Wars episodes (not to mention the extended mythos) is tacky science fiction with aliens being guys with masks on and a very black-and-white simplistic morality, and I chalk up most of the hate I-III get to when-I-was-your-age-movies-were-good nostalgia. That said, i didn't like them either;)

Re:Why a decade later

[Zalbik]

No Pod-Racing... 20 minutes about 1/3 of the movie about nothing.

Video games.

Ahhh...that's why there are no video games based on any of the other star wars movies...lack of pod racing!

Re:Why a decade later

[mrdoogee]

Even better in my opinion is the "Magnoliafan edit"

Some of my favorite things it corrects:

* Trade federation blockade is over slavery, not taxes

* Pretty much all the non-humans speak "alienese"

* The Battle droids are much more no-nonsense (i.e. no "roger roger" BS).

* Jar Jar is a butthole to everybody

* Anakin is kept to a bare minimum, every bit of nonessential dialog of his is cut.

There's a lot of other stuff that was improved too, but its been a year or two since I've seen it so those are the most memorable examples. I highly recommend downloading it. You can find it as a torrent pretty easily.

Re:Why a decade later

[bill_mcgonigle]

and a very black-and-white simplistic morality,

Stormtroopers wore white and Jedi Luke Skywalker wore black. ;)

Re:Why a decade later

[truthsearch]

God willing we'll all meet again in Spaceballs II: The Search For More Money

Re:Why a decade later

[Anonymous Coward]

The empire of Anikin was the high point of civilization about to fall apart, but still visually perfect.

It was still a Republic at that point. The Empire didn't start until the Great Jedi Purge really (to follow the mythology).

Re:Why a decade later

[LordArgon]

I think you're totally on the right track, although I would disagree that there wasn't a coherent story. It just sucked and wasn't entirely believable.

The key, IMO, is that Anakin was a whiny bitch. Darth Vader was anything BUT a whiny bitch. Given how much I loved 4-6, I expected to see a noble character who was gradually, tragically led to the dark side. Instead, we see an emo prima donna who whines about everything. How did this guy become the most dignified and feared person in the galaxy? It just doesn't add up.

At the end of of the prequels, I wasn't mourning the loss of Anakin Skywalker; I was just glad that whiny kid was going to finally STFU.

Re:Why a decade later

[calmofthestorm]

Oh yeah? Well from my perspective, the Jedi are evil!

Re:Why a decade later

[Joe Tie.]

Younger kids identify more and are responsible (indirectly) for many more toy sales.

I'm not sure who said it first, but I think there's a lot of truth in the statement that no kid wants to be robin, they all want to be batman. As a kid, I recall always hating the "kid character". I never identified with him. Or, if I did, that was a bad thing. I didn't watch transformers, for example, to understanding of the young male viewpoint in a world with giant robots. I just wanted to be a giant robot who could shoot lazers. Or be a part of gi joe, not the dumbass kids they saved.

Re:Why a decade later

[Anonymous Coward]

Lucas gets off on tech, and the prequels are his porn. Dialog, acting, plot? Hah! Get to the CGI environment and computer generated actors already!

What Lucas stumbled onto and forgot was that A New Hope was never about space and technology. Light saber battles were not about who had greater skill or power, it was a battle of ideologies: "strike me down and I will become more powerful than you can possibly imagine". Good was more powerful than evil.

And when Obi wan looked upon the young Luke Skywalker, he saw the hope and the future of that good. It is a sacred scene of sacrifice. In that saber "battle", maybe 10 strikes were exchanged over many minutes. Yet in Menace, 10 strikes are exchanged in a mere 5 seconds. There is no battle of ideologies. Its just a martial arts demo of how many flips and fancy twirls you can do.

Its disappointing that Lucas, after all these years, still doesn't understand the basic movie making concept that story is most important. And ironically, in achieving artistic freedom and independence from the studios, Lucas produced movies exactly on par with those studios: spectacularly vapid, guaranteed money making hits.

Re:Why a decade later

[BobMcD]

The flaws weren't that there were too many characters. The flaw was that there just wasn't a coherant story..

The flaw wasn't that the dish had way too much salt, it was that the chef didn't follow the recipe.

Sorry, but there's not much of a difference there. It kind of goes without saying, and was explicitly stated in the first of these video clips, that the more characters you have the stronger your story will need to be. The author gives Luke as an example of someone simple we can relate to to help guide us through the story. You might watch it, its pretty good.

Re:Why a decade later

[farble1670]

he became evil because he was seeing visions of the eventual death of his wife, and was told by sidius that only the dark side can change her fate ... as opposed to the jedi, who would forbid such a connection in the first place. there was also the part where palpatine was playing to anakin's ego to turn him against the jedi.

that part of the plot was progressing throughout the whole movie from the first we saw anakin speaking to palpatine.

Re:Why a decade later

[BobMcD]

Ah, but the closer Luke gets to evil, the darker his outfit becomes.

Re:Why a decade later

[Hurricane78]

Why and how did Darth Vader become so evil?

I agree. You can ask any professional creative writer: That gotta be one of the best roots to build a story upon ever!
All the convolutions and twists, all the depth one could show, the ideas are just flowing like a fountain!
It also gotta be one of the most wasted roots to build a story upon.

Then again, as I said in another comment: What did you expect from a story written by a child, for himself and his dream world?
You can’t rewrite that to what the fans want, no matter how hard you try.
It should have been two separate trilogies for I-III: One, close to the original, made for children, with the same target group as Harry Potter but with sci-fi.
And another, completely new story, that would not even try to be close to the original stories I-III, but fit right into IV-VI and a grown-up, philosophical mindset. (Assuming it would have been well-written. Otherwise everything else wouldn’t matter anyway.)

Re:Why a decade later

[Anonymous Coward]

Imagine the horror if the editors started posting news just for them.

Re:Why a decade later

[Hurricane78]

A non-geeek? On my Slashdot??
.
.
.
GET HIM!!! *starts running*

Re:Why a decade later

[Idiomatick]

I thought it was 'Spaceballs III: The Search for Spaceballs II'. Honestly though I think we'll have to wait another 10 years, then it'll be a classic remake/reimagining rather than a real sequel... I think there is some kind of rule on how long has passed since the last movie before you can't have sequels (star wars doesn't count).

Re:Why a decade later

[Dan667]

sad part is a great movie would still be earning a lot more than they are now on all of those. They are still out selling episode 1 with all the original star wars films merchandising so I don't see your logic.

Re:Why a decade later

[Anonymous Coward]

This is the funniest post about this subject that I've read yet - although the humor is entirely unintentional.

Re:Why a decade later

[optimus2861]

Keep in mind that every star wars movie was a kids movie. Kids were the target audience.

No, they weren't. You don't have Han Solo shooting Greedo first in a kids movie. You don't have Darth Vader torturing Han Solo and cutting off Luke's hand in a kids movie, or Lando betraying Han. I don't even think you have the Rebels getting their asses kicked from one end of Empire to the other in a kids movie.

The original trilogy were all-ages movies. The kids could enjoy them, the adults could enjoy them, and they (until Return) didn't insult anybody's intelligence.

This "they were only ever kids movies" is pure Lucas bullshit intended to paper over just how bad the prequels really are.

Re:Why a decade later

[mdf356]

This sounds like the "director's redo" of Highlander 2, where the aliens became a time-travel plot. Or vice-versa, I can't remember which. The movie was better but still crap.

Re:Why a decade later

[Domint]

I believe any hopes for a Spaceballs sequel died with John Candy, unfortunately.

Re:Why a decade later

[Idiomatick]

Hey, R2D2 is fucking awesome. If you can't see that clearly you are some sort of sick pedophile satan worshiping terrorist, Fuck you.


Also, people can make it all the way to adulthood without watching star wars? That's kinda fascinating, do these people have a title like 'the forsaken ones' or something?

Otherwise I agree with you, try to sit through a full samurai pizza cats movie or ninja turtles. Ok spc is still ok but you have to be a bit stoned or something to appreciate it.

Re:Why a decade later

[ArcherB]

I think the real problem is that all the kids that watched star wars when they were little grew up to be cynical assholes. Yes, every movie sucks, except the ones you watched when you were a kid, I get it.

No. I have to agree with the critic in these films (and yes, I saw all 70 minutes). There were three light saber battles in the original three. Obi Wan vs Vader (Master and Apprentice as well as a rematch), Luke vs Vader (Father and son, yet we didn't know that at the time. Evil overlord vs farm boy hero trying to save his friends), and finally Luke vs. Vader, the rematch (Father vs. Son, good vs evil, finally, resistance, redemption and death). In the prequels, there was no emotion in the battles. Two Jedi fighting a Sith they didn't know existed 15 minutes ago, Two Jedi (and Yoda) fighting a Sith they used to know... sorta, and finally, a master and apprentice/good friends battle.

Of course, this is just the tip of the iceberg. The critic got into many of the enormous plot holes and crap that simply didn't make sense. (Why not just cut Wado in half or steal the part they needed. They were trying to cheat him out of it anyway. Are they seriously against killing a slave owner/trader in order to free a slave and her kid?!!?)

Re:Why a decade later

[Anonymous Coward]

Can I imagine a Beowulf cluster of editors posting?

Re:Why a decade later

[Stupid McStupidson]

I disagree, TPM could have been fixed by ONE thing. Lawrence Kasdan.

Re:Why a decade later

[jitterman]

Its disappointing that Lucas, after all these years, still doesn't understand the basic movie making concept that story is most important.

It's actually incredibly disappointing that, after all these years, Lucas NO LONGER understands these things. Watch "THX1138," "American Graffiti," and to an extent Episode 6. In his early years he used to say emphatically that the effects were absolutely secondary to a good story, and that without the story you couldn't do much worth a darn. He went so far as to point out that in "ANH," the fact that the Empire had significant advantages in technology but lacked a soul and were defeated was an analogy for this concept.

Re:Why a decade later

[BobMcD]

I think the real problem is that all the kids that watched star wars when they were little grew up to be cynical assholes.

Do you have a grasp of how many kids from that generation watched Star Wars when they were little? What kind of cynical asshole describes that volume of people as ALL being cynical assholes? Seriously? There's not one reasonable voice among them? Or do you have no flipping clue how huge Star Wars was back in the 80's?

If you look at it with fresh eyes, the original three had a weaker plot line, worse acting, worse special effects, and significantly worse choreography.

I'd give you some of these points without much of a fight. But even so, the effort in the film made it a better product, despite being made of poor ingredients. You can feel the collaborative effort behind the original material and can very much tell what's missing in the new three.

C3PO and R2D2 were still there, as the robotic comic relief (to sell toys), and they were still annoying as hell.

They're a direct lift from two peasants in a Japanese film after which the original script was modeled. They were not to sell toys, but to give the film perspective. As someone who owned many of these toys, I can tell you that the badass ones were the ships, Yoda, Boba Fett, etc. No one got all giddy about their C3PO figure, and the R2 one basically sucked.

...saying a movie is better because it is older and had a smaller budget is a pretty weak argument.

Strawman arguments generally are weak, yes. I think a better representation of the argument is the effort angle. Had the same level of care gone into the new three films, along with their numerous advantages, they genuinely could have made history. As the clips in TFA put it, this was a serious disappointment, and no amount of 'fresh eyes' are going to explain that away.

Keep in mind that every star wars movie was a kids movie. Kids were the target audience.

Another poster here put it better, but you're wrong. Aside from what he put, how many kids shows have incestuous love triangles?

If you were a kid when you watch one of the movies, you probably liked it, if you were not a kid, it was probably boring and predictable.

I'll grant you the nostalgia angle but if you are going to play that card you really need to pipe down a bit. You're basically admitting that you can't understand what that was like. You were cheated out of seeing how cool the original films were and can never really feel that gap that others of us do. You get watered-down and rehashed Star Wars and look at the old series through those eyes. Your point of view is understandable. That being said, you are in no place to dictate to those of us that did experience it as kids what it should have been like.

Re:Why a decade later

[jitterman]

You're correct of course, but the deeper question is, did you really care? Was it convincing to you as a viewer? I know Lucas didn't achieve those things for me. I was neither motivated to sympathize with Anakin's character as presented in the films, nor was I moved by his turn to evil. Bad writing + bad acting = bad viewer experience, no matter what the character's stated or revealed motivation.

Re:Why a decade later

[BluBrick]

Pod racing makes for a video game without weapons or violence. That gets it into the "G" rated games market, which is just perfect for (acceptable to more parents of) the age group that identifies with Anakin and will pester their parents to buy them the action toys.

Re:Why a decade later

[Anonymous Coward]

One of the problems with Star wars is that this is not established, yet Luke magically knows how to fly a fighter.

I haven't seen ANH in ages, but I clearly remember Luke talking about how he can fly when haggling with Han, and later during the Rebel briefing there's the semi-famous line about blasting womprats in Beggar's Canyon. You may not *see* Luke piloting anything but the landspeeder, but it's not like he jumped in an X-Wing without the slightest bit of experience. The lines are there.

Re:Why a decade later

[FoolishOwl]

What I found maddening about Episodes I-III is that they could *easily* have been a coherent story, with just a little effort to make the connections. It's like they got so wrapped up in the whooshing noises that they literally forgot what the plot was. Lucas was buddy-buddy with Joseph Campbell, author of "The Hero with a Thousand Faces," and set up a classic "black magic" story, but didn't make the obvious connections.

That is, Anakin's haunted by dreams of Amidala's death. He turns to Palpatine, who says the Sith know how to save someone from death. Later, Amidala dies -- for no apparent reason -- Anakin is brought back from the brink of death, in Palpatine's presence, and is thereafter utterly Palpatine's creature, until his redemption and death (which happens, also without explanation, shortly after Anakin/Vader kills Palpatine.)

The obvious way to tie these together is that Palpatine use Sith powers to bring Anakin back to life, through stealing his beloved Amidala's life, and binding Anakin, body and soul, to Palpatine. It's a classic "black magic" motif, it pulls the entire saga together, reinforcing the tragedy of Amidala's death and Anakin's fall, and the nobility of Anakin's ultimate redemption, which in this version would be at the cost of his own life. It's also obvious, and would have taken just a line or two of dialogue to establish.

That they failed to do this, is breathtakingly sloppy.

I also resented the way that Lucas deliberately tossed out years of fan fiction, including authorized fan fiction, some of which was much better stuff than the movies we actually got.

Re:Why a decade later

[farble1670]

well. i actually like the story. i thought the implementation of the story was not as good. i tend to give sci-fi a little more slack than other genres. i think doing an excellent job of telling a sci-fi story is very, very hard to do in a movie because of the special effects in requires and the sheer amount of time to build up the future / alternate universe where it takes place. star wars is in a special class because the universe is *vastly* different than anything we know.

i compare it to my all-time favorite sci-fi, bladerunner. an excellent movie by all accounts, but the story still happens on an earth that is not so far off from what we have today, with no aliens, without space travel, with androids that conveniently look just like humans. it's much easier to write a consistent compelling story if you intertwine it with real life facts that people already understand and have some familiarity with.

Re:Why a decade later

[PunXX0r]

Yeah...

Because being a teenager in puppy-love is a perfect reason to slaughter a hundred kids with a sword and then undertake an endeavor to enslave the entire universe. The three prequels were horrible for so many, many reasons that it is difficult to pick just one to label their primary failing. Here is a short list...

1) Darth Vader - the archetypical evil incarnate character - becomes an infatuated teenager (this, I believe reflects Lucas's own experience with relationships)
2) Yoda - the zen master archetype - becomes a flexing action hero with a big sword and something to prove
3) Every action scene panders to the forthcoming video game
4) The comic relief is handled by two dimensional racial stereotypes

For the record, I am not now, and never have been the biggest fan of the original movies... better sci-fi is pretty common these days, and even back then there was much to celebrate that was not Star Wars. But, the first three movies were enjoyable, consistent, well acted and reasonably well directed. The prequels? Utter S#!t.

Re:Why a decade later

[FatdogHaiku]

...No Pod-Racing... 20 minutes about 1/3 of the movie about nothing.

In a good home theater the pod race will rattle your gonads, and that's always a good thing... besides, one of those puppies would really cut down the commute time. As a bonus, trails of flaming wreckage would provide employment for many as well as entrepreneurial opportunities for those who are fleet afoot.

Re:Why a decade later

[Anonymous Coward]

I find your worshipfulness towards Lucas disturbing.

Re:Why a decade later

[yurtinus]

Three things which were not in the original trilogy. A trilogy which, as I recall, has had a bit of success marketing toys and other goods. Can you name *one* video game featuring young Anakin or Jar Jar that was a success? I can't, but I can think of several original games that were both commercial successes *and* generally regarded as good games.

Marketing may have been an excuse, but it is a misguided one at best.

Re:Why a decade later

[jitterman]

I agree with your overall assessment, but want the factual pedant in me wants to point out two things, just for precision:

The major merchandise tie ins to movies didn't exist.

This trend actually began with the Planet of the Apes films, which predate Star Wars.

The concept of a blockbuster didn't exist either. It succeeds on its own merits.

Funny, I literally looked this up right before reading your post because I believed the term "blockbuster" had been coined due to the Star Wars phenomenon. Turns out we're wrong. Still, it DID succeed on its own merits, as you point out.

Re:Why a decade later

[jitterman]

Dude, I bet you weigh less than a duck... think we're gonna have to burn you!

Re:Why a decade later

[Anonymous Coward]

Most notable for me was: Boba Fett's backstory.

Seriously, making his father the template for the clone army? WTF? Also doesn't using clone soldiers seem either immoral or illegal for the Republic to use?

Re:Why a decade later

[stonedcat]

Don't forget they made an animated series that.... oh wait... it failed horribly and no one liked it at all.

Re:Why a decade later

[Tetsujin]

I believe any hopes for a Spaceballs sequel died with John Candy, unfortunately.

They could do a prequel! Or give us the long-awaited "Jews In Space!"

Re:Why a decade later

[Culture20]

later during the Rebel briefing there's the semi-famous line about blasting womprats in Beggar's Canyon.

In a T-16

Re:Why a decade later

[jitterman]

No one can describe QGJ without using his character's profession or wardrobe as descriptors... The other one was Queen Amidala.

The question I pose to you is, even if you are more capable than the people he interviewed to come up with descriptors, do you honestly feel the characters in the more recently-produced films are as strong or stronger than those in the originals films? If so, all you and I can do is agree to disagree on that point (and honestly, it's just film, so I'm not up in arms about that - just sayin' I think the newer characters do lack in development and depth).

Also, what's with the editing? It looks like he added his voice to video-from-still images and then edited them for time...

That was all done on purpose - he was going for a "feel" to his work. I'm not going to try to explain it, but there are certainly people who "get" what he did and why. I've talked to them and we had a good laugh over it. Just trust me, it wasn't an accident.

Re:Why a decade later

[bckrispi]

A little perspective, please...

The marriage between films and merchandising didn't exist before Star Wars came out. Star Wars invented the movie tie-in.

Re:Why a decade later

[MightyMartian]

Because it had cool space ships, guys dueling with swords made out of light, and the coolest looking damn villain ever put on the silver screen.

Re:Why a decade later

[gnick]

Can you name *one* video game featuring young Anakin or Jar Jar that was a success? I can't, but I can think of several original games that were both commercial successes *and* generally regarded as good games.

Here. Now it wasn't the best game in the world, but it sold like mad - A nice parallel to the movie. The original (Ep 4) movie, I don't believe factored marketing in much, although that certainly changed by Jedi. The difference between those movies and Ep 1 are that they lost sight of ANY obligation to put out a decent product and focused solely on marketing. Thus, we get a crappy movie, long-time fans are pissed, and Target moves a gazillion Jar-Jars. By Ep 2, I think that they realized that their approach was flawed.

I howled when Colbert told Lucas that he owned every Star Wars movie and asked him if he did too. Lucas replied, "All except episode 1".

Re:Why a decade later

[rsborg]

I don't know about you, but for me the star of the original trilogy was Han Solo. I'm not sure who the star of the prequel trilogy was, but there was not a single Han Solo-esque character in it.

Wasn't that supposed to be Ewan McGregor's Obi-Wan? ... Maybe that's because Harrison Ford told Lucas to stuff his lines "George, you can write this shit but you can't make me say it."

Re:Why a decade later

[Cro Magnon]

I don't know about you, but for me the star of the original trilogy was Han Solo. I'm not sure who the star of the prequel trilogy was, but there was not a single Han Solo-esque character in it.

There wasn't even a Luke Skywalker-esque character in it. Anakin went from whiny kid to arrogant teen to Darth Vader, and sucked at two of those roles.

Re:Why a decade later

[fiannaFailMan]

Why and how did Darth Vader become so evil? How did he get seduced to the dark side? The films hand-waved through the most important question that everyone had.

No, the big question was how did Vader switch from an American to an English accent. That question has never been answered. Ever. By anyone.

Re:Why a decade later

[Anonymous Coward]

Because God knows what a bust the Star Wars action figure, toy and game market was after the first movie in the 70s.

Re:Why a decade later

[Maserati]

I managed to see an episode. Don't bother tracking it down, it sucks... well, balls.

Put me down for opening night of Jews in Space though.

Re:Why a decade later

[Anonymous Coward]

THIS

Re:Why a decade later

[Anonymous Coward]

notice the difference in ratings between the good and bad starwars movies
if that doesn't explain this phenomenon, i don't know what will.

Re:Why a decade later

[Anonymous Coward]

Planet of the Apes. Look it up. That was the real start of toys/movies love-fest.

Re:Why a decade later

[Arthur Grumbine]

George, you need to calm down - remember your blood pressure...

Re:Why a decade later

[bckrispi]

^Ohhhh, that's right!! The Original Trilogy certainly did not feature a hero who whined and bitched throughout the first two films!!

Re:Why a decade later

[Planesdragon]

I agree. You can ask any professional creative writer: That gotta be one of the best roots to build a story upon ever!

Gah. It's a terrible premise. "Why is Freddy Evil?" is two throwaway lines. Books and movies setup like that simply do not sell -- because so few of their already small audience go out and tell someone how good the story was. (Why? Because it's a hard story to tell convincingly, AND even if you pull it off, you're still stuck wthi a story that human nature says doesn't need to be told.)

Re:Why a decade later

[Anonymous Coward]

No, the big question was how did Vader switch from an American to an English accent. That question has never been answered.

Obviously, it's because he turned evil - and the bad guys always have an English accent, as Eddie Izzard pointed out:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TjC3R6jOtUo#t=3m50s

(Interesting to note: Jake Lloyd and James Earl Jones are American, but Dave Prowse and Sebastian Shaw are British. Hayden Christiansen is Canadian...hmmm....)

Re:Why a decade later

[JamesTRexx]

Damn nerds are taking over Slashdot.

I vote this best comment of 2009! :-)

Re:Why a decade later

[Anonymous Coward]

Dude, I bet you weigh less than a duck... think we're gonna have to burn you!

Same as a duck. She weighed the same as a duck. Turn in your nerd badge.

Re:Why a decade later

[bckrispi]

There was also the cut scene that was reinserted into the Special Edition where, prior to the Battle of Yavin, Red Leader expresses concern about Luke's ability to fly in combat. Biggs comes to Luke's defense telling Red Leader that Luke is the "best pilot in the outer rim".

Re:Why a decade later

[Rary]

I don't know about you, but for me the star of the original trilogy was Han Solo. I'm not sure who the star of the prequel trilogy was, but there was not a single Han Solo-esque character in it.

Wasn't that supposed to be Ewan McGregor's Obi-Wan?

I think Lucas wanted Obi-Wan to be that character, but the problem is that the Jedi are just not likable. They're all completely wooden and walk around like they have sticks up their ass. The prequels needed a rebel, and simply casting a cool actor to play a stuffy Jedi role doesn't magically turn that stuffy Jedi into a rebel.

Realistically, the one who had the most potential to become the cool likable character was Qui-Gon. So Lucas did nothing to flesh out the character, and killed him off in the first movie. Brilliant.

Re:Why a decade later

[TigerPlish]

The key, IMO, is that Anakin was a whiny bitch. Darth Vader was anything BUT a whiny bitch. Given how much I loved 4-6, I expected to see a noble character who was gradually, tragically led to the dark side. Instead, we see an emo prima donna who whines about everything. How did this guy become the most dignified and feared person in the galaxy? It just doesn't add up.

Vader *is* a little whiner. With or without the suit. He always did what his pimp told him to do. Except at the very end, which is why it was all about his (vader's) redemption.

Vader was feared because his pimp held the biggest gun in the galaxy. That's all. Take the pimp away, and what are we left with? Scrap metal, and not much of that, to boot.

The only reason Vader didn't come across as whiny is because that mobile iron lung made it hard to sound whiny. Not to mention having JEJ's voice didn't help His Whininess any ;o)

Time to invoke Godwin's Law: A certain German leader was also a little whiny ex-WWI private. He was also feared, revered, even.

I'd say Stalin was one too, except what I know of him tells me he was nothing more than a street thug with smarts. And that's better than being a whiny i-deserve-everything snotnose like Anakin ;o)

Re:Why a decade later

[bckrispi]

Yup. Revenge of the Sith was definitely a kids movie. What with Anakin murdering a temple full of children before going all "domestic violence" on his pregnant wife, followed by him having three limbs lopped off and being burned alive.

Re:Why a decade later

[Rary]

Anakin went from whiny kid to arrogant teen to Darth Vader, and sucked at two of those roles.

Only two of them? Which one didn't he suck at?

Re:Why a decade later

[dwye]

Please. Pod raing? George Lucas has had an extraordinary career paying homage to everyone else. This time, it was movies like Gran Prix and Le Mans.

It was to the Chariot Race scene in Ben Hur, damn it. It's frigging OBVIOUS. (in the idiom of the review)

Re:Why a decade later

[Cytotoxic]

I'll add this: In the first five minutes of Star Wars, Vader walks into the carnage of battle, picks a captured soldier up by the neck, holds him dangling in midair at arm's length and questions him before offhandedly snapping his neck with one hand and tossing the body aside. Bad guy established in less than 2 minutes. While it is cheezy sci-fi schlock, it is also effective storytelling. You knew right off the bat that Darth Vader was an evil badass that you didn't want to get involved with.

Darth Maul gets introduced half way through the movie and despite the cool makeup we have to be told that he is a bad guy. Also, despite being a much better stunt man and athlete and having much cooler fight choreography, Maul never reaches the level that Vader does in that introductory scene. Therefore his defeat is no more intriguing than getting past the chompy things on the assembly line. He's not a character, he's just another obstacle for our hero to jump over.

Re:Why a decade later

[dwye]

Mod parent Insightful

(or plagiarist, since I read that in quite a number of reviews from the period, as well).

Re:Why a decade later

[gnick]

Yeah - The late 1970's Star Wars video game market was HUGE!!!

My favorite one was where there was a blaster-charge bouncing back and forth between two light sabers that you could move up and down using paddles.

Re:Why a decade later

[Caesar Tjalbo]

It could tell you something about Lucas' current tastes and mental age.

Re:Why a decade later

[bckrispi]

Disagree entirely.

In the Original Trilogy, it was pretty much all Black & White. Good Guys vs. Bad Guys. It wasn't until the last 10 minutes of the second film that we got any moral nuance at all. The key plot line that Darth Vader was worth redeeming wasn't touched on until the final film.

Flame away, but I actually like the story of the prequels better than the original trilogy. The story is actually much deeper, once you start to read between the lines. A trade dispute escalating to the brink of war by cowardly (but surprisingly well armed) corporate heads may not play out on screen like a Star Destroyer tearing apart a Blockade Runner, but the story it conveys is no less relevant. It's the first, seemingly inconsequential step that a Republic takes to become a Dictatorship. Here, the Good Guys aren't always "Good". The Republic, the intergalactic symbol of Democracy, is filled with "greedy, squabbling delegates". The Jedi, while "noble", are arrogant and stubborn. Also, the Bad Guys aren't always "Bad". Jango Fett was a mercenary - nothing more, nothing less. The Confederacy was filled with member systems who felt that the Republic had become too corrupt to represent them. Even Anakin himself fell to evil in an attempt to save the people he loved. Just like Jocasta in Oedipus Rex, he was so obsessed with preventing a prophecy from being fulfilled, that he wound up causing it to come to fruition.

Re:Why a decade later

[stillnotelf]

So you mean...if Jar Jar had been Jugg Jugg?

Re:Why a decade later

[optimus2861]

I never said the prequels were kids movies. I think Lucas fully expected the prequels to be well-received and intended them to be all-ages just as the originals were. It wasn't until after Phantom got such a, "WTF was that?" reception that Lucas came out with the, "Oh this was made for kids" line as a retroactive excuse, then tagged it onto the originals as well to stroke his ego.

The last hour of Sith was the only decently written part of the prequels and it still doesn't hold a candle to the originals.

Re:Why a decade later

[Chaos Incarnate]

Star Wars: Episode I—Racer, as qnick said. Also Lego Star Wars.

Re:Why a decade later

[djdavetrouble]

You're kidding right? This stuff is 30 years older than Star Wars

Star wars wasn't the first anything, it was just the freaking best.

It even had a pretty stupid name if you think about it.

Re:Why a decade later

[Anarchduke]

Hey, the original movies were cinematic masterpieces. Oh wait, you were talking about Star Wars, not the Akira Kurasawa films Lucas stole from.

Re:Why a decade later

[Anonymous Coward]

Ha, I played that one too! Good times, but I didn't say anything about video games. There were, however, board games and electronic hand-held games.

Re:Why a decade later

[Anonymous Coward]

>>Damn nerds are taking over Slashdot.

Slashdot

News for nerds. Stuff that matters.

You were saying?

Re:Why a decade later

[Landshark17]

All good points, however I have to correct one factual error. The concept of the blockbuster as we know it today originated in 1975 with Jaws and paved the way for movies like Star Wars in 1977.

Re:Why a decade later

[Fulcrum of Evil]

So running into a wall at 100mph isn't violent?

Re:Why a decade later

[Anonymous Coward]

Your feeble attempt to portray Lucas as some kind of humbled egomaniac and/or redeemed villain are not going to fly on Slashdot. We remember episodes 2 and 3, as well.

Re:Why a decade later

[Anonymous Coward]

I thought Episode III was good for precisely this reason: it's about a good person who turns evil for the right reasons.

Are you high? They should have set up the story keeping the 'forbidden love' angle (and a little older Anakin would help in the Phantom Menace). Make the Jedi like non-marrying priests and have the Jedi attempt to split the couple. This - and not bogus dream sequences - sets up perfectly a reasonable conflict between Skywalker and the Jedi council. As for hand slaughtering children, imo, unacceptable, he should have just blown up a planet or moon/planet sized space station (with lots of jedi) with some proto Death Star. Why is that 'less evil' - it is not. It is palatable and as a 'war' or tactical strategy has some redeeming value. As filmed, Anakin's actions were inexplicable. Never does Anakin ever even seem all that good. He wasn't a good man/boy turned evil but a bland one turned 'meh'. I mean, are we ever excited at his exploits or his character? Ever? He is mostly a whinier more angst-ridden version of Luke without the scenes of growth/fall/redemption that a typical good character goes through. Instead it is like the 7 signs of serial character. A creeped out teen with little redeeming value.

Hell, I would have liked it had Anakin-soon-to-be-Darth having to flee the Jedi masters/kids and THEN blowing up whatever rock they were on.

Re:Why a decade later

[beefguts]

Sounded like Strongbad was narrating it...

Re:Why a decade later

[Anonymous Coward]

-- You don't have blah blah in a kid's movie.

In the 70's you did, along with blatant racism, casual sex, and recreational drug use.

Re:Why a decade later

[Maxo-Texas]

Jar Jar was one of the best *characters* in the movie. He was the only one anyone really cared about and he was the only one who created any genuine character interaction (i.e. "Stop!", various looks of exasperation).

Without Jar Jar, the movie would have been even more dry and antiseptic than it was.

As our evil reviewer points out, most of the characters in this movie were boring and worse, indescribable as people.

Jarjar... clumsy, dumb, good with animals, lucky, irritating, friendly, brave, (you could go on a bit more)

It was sad to see so many human actors upstaged by an animation.

Re:Why a decade later

[Anonymous Coward]

You know, I never actually realised there was a stand-in or a second queenlike person until I read The Abridged Script.

Re:Why a decade later

[Maxo-Texas]

Merchandising grew by an order of magnitude during the duration of the star wars franchise. I'm not sure if it is the reason.

Re:Why a decade later

[mhajicek]

Pod racing makes for a video game without weapons or violence, which makes for a boring and forgettable game.

Re:Why a decade later

[MightyMartian]

Worse acting? Ummm, watch Hayden Christensen, and then tell me that he's an equal of any of the original trilogy actos. I mean, except for Guiness and Cushing, none of them were what I would consider decent actors (Ford had potential, and when Solo was massaged into the much more fleshed out Indiana Jones, he shone as pretty much the foremost action actor of the last two decades of the 20th century).

Liam Neeson was pretty much wasted in the TPM, McGregor and McDiarmid were the standouts. Everyone else sucked. Even Samuel L Jackson seemed to be there more because he's a very rich well-connected fanboy than because his character has any real function.

Acting has never been a standout in any of the Star Wars films, still, Ford and Hammil in particular, were serviceable when they needed to be. Fisher was at her best in Episode IV before they made all schloppy.

Re:Why a decade later

[kikito]

I encourage you to see the whole thing. It gets more interesting from part 3 onwards.

I believe that those people were able to describe Han Solo better than Padme or Qui Gon because, well, it is a better developed character, yes... but also because they have watched the first 3 movies like 7 times each (TV repositions, nostalgia, etc). In contrast, I doubt any of those people watched TPM more than once. So it is understandable that they aren't as familiar with the characters as with the others.

Re:Why a decade later

[hkmwbz]

Didn't Hayden Christensen pull of a young Vader (movement, way of speaking) pretty darn well considering the completely retarded dialog?

Re:Why a decade later

[MinistryOfTruthiness]

One word: "NOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!"

And I think that was just for lack of opportunity.

Re:Why a decade later

[Anonymous Coward]

But don't you often watch a scene in a movie and think that they have only put that in there because it transfers perfectly into a video game?

Re:Why a decade later

[Temposs]

It was pretty wretched.

Re:Why a decade later

[hkmwbz]

Why and how did Darth Vader become so evil? How did he get seduced to the dark side?

Hmm, this was pretty obvious. He was arrogant and impatient all along. He lost his mother, which filled him with rage because he had been held back by the Jedi, and if he had become a powerful dude he thought he would have been able to save her. So he becomes more and more pissed with the assholes constantly holding him down, and then he risks losing another loved one, and that finishes the transformation. That was one of the better parts of the movie(s), I think.

Re:Why a decade later

[MightyMartian]

I don't think he pulled anything off. Even with retarded dialog Alec Guinness was a kick-ass Obiwan, and even Mark Hammel, not exactly a thespian of any great note, could produce a character who is the legitimate hero of the first trilogy. Christiansen is wooden, having two faces; adolescent intense gaze and adolescent bitching. Like I said, he's a Breakfast Club reject.

Re:Why a decade later

[Farmer Tim]

Hayden Christiansen is Canadian...hmmm....

Which is half way between American and British with a bit of French thrown in. That's why we couldn't quite tell whether Anakin was good or evil, just that he was a whiny, pretentious bitch.

Re:Why a decade later

[Anonymous Coward]

But the ending of ROTJ clearly cast Darth Vader as a tragic hero. And the origins of a tragic hero can be very compelling.

Re:Why a decade later

[Digital Vomit]

Also, what's with the editing? It looks like he added his voice to video-from-still images and then edited them for time, chopping himself off in several mid-syllable lines. If he's having trouble working any of the free movie-making tools out there, perhaps he shouldn't be doing a video review

Whoooooosh!


(and, no, that's not an X-Wing flying over your head)

Re:Why a decade later

[Anonymous Coward]

A Grocho Marx quote in a Star Wars thread, and soooo appropriate.

I salute you :-)

Re:Why a decade later

[Hungus]

I believe any hopes for a Spaceballs sequel died with John Candy, unfortunately.

They could do a prequel! Or give us the long-awaited "Jews In Space!"

Wasn't that called Battlestar Galactica?

Work with me a second: We all know BSG was Mormons in Space, but Mormons believe they are at least spiritually descended (if not genetically) from the tribes of Israel lost in the Diaspora that came to the now USA and became tribes of Native (North) American Indians. So at least in the view of the creator BSG was Jews in Space.

Re:Why a decade later

[hkmwbz]

Because being a teenager in puppy-love is a perfect reason to slaughter a hundred kids with a sword and then undertake an endeavor to enslave the entire universe.

Did he slaughter the kids before or after his mother died? I can't remember. He turned from love-sick puppy to angry teenager because he lost a loved one and felt that the Jedi had held him back and prevented him from saving his mother. If they hadn't held him back, if he had been able to become awesomely powerful, he thought he would have been able to save his mother.

Re:Why a decade later

[Anonymous Coward]

May John Candy rest in piece.

Re:Why a decade later

[Anonymous Coward]

You don't have Han Solo shooting Greedo first in a kids movie.

That is actually why it was changed in the remake.

Re:Why a decade later

[Anonymous Coward]

Damnit! When can we finally expect the release of Ben Hur: Virtual Galleon Rower.

Re:Why a decade later

[Anonymous Coward]

I think JarJar could have been cool if he wasn't a complete klutz and was able to fight with capoeira

And if he wore tight shorts and had big boobs.

Yes, if JarJar had only been a little more like Lara Croft,. it might not have been so bad.

Jebus H Christ On A Bike, it couldn't have been been WORSE.

Re:Why a decade later

[rtb61]

Dang, you must be young. At the moment I am watching a particular movie collection, you have obviously never heard of it or the associated merchandising that was targeted at children and even at adults, "James Bond".

PS if you choose to watch this particular collection I recommend you watch it in order from newest to oldest, special effects are no substitute for quality movie making, hmm, much like "Star Wars" or even "Star Trek".

Re:Why a decade later

[CensorshipDonkey]

Just because it's true doesn't mean the film directors realized that.

Re:Why a decade later

[xbytor]

> In IV - VI, we find the story of a character who's very evil who finds redemption.

Redemption? Vader was responsible for the deaths of Billions! I don't really consider redemption an option in his case.

Re:Why a decade later

[roc97007]

> The big problem with The Phantom Menace is that it was created with a formula. That may work for a Syfy movie of the week,

I have yet to see a Syfy movie-of-the-week that worked. I think "Alice" made my brain ooze out my ears. I would have said: TPM failed for the same reason that SyFy movies-of-the-week fail.

Re:Why a decade later

[Anonymous Coward]

100mph? Move aside granny!

Re:Why a decade later

[Endo13]

You may think that, but you would be dead wrong. I didn't get the chance to watch the original Star Wars movies when I was a kid, and as a result Phantom Menace was the first one I watched. I couldn't really figure out why people thought Star Wars movies were so great. Then I watched the original trilogy, and I found out. I've since then watched the trilogy multiple times (I own the DVD boxed set as well as the DVD releases that include the original theatrical versions), and even managed to watch episodes 2 & 3 twice. But I've never yet managed to bring myself to sit through a repeat viewing of the fecal matter that was episode one.

Re:Why a decade later

[Anonymous Coward]

So it was the French part that won out?

Re:Why a decade later

[rantingkitten]

Even Obi-Wan comments that he's heard Luke has become quite a good pilot, like his father. I thought it was pretty well-established that Luke knows what he's doing when it comes to flying -- there were quite a number of references to his piloting skills.

Re:Why a decade later

[darthvader100]

It was supposed to be JarJar(DIE JarJar DIE). However after the release of the first movie that idea was canned.

Re:Why a decade later

[johnny0099]

I'm still laughing. Thanks.

Re:Why a decade later

[Anonymous Coward]

One might say that there is something inherently wrong about making kids movies. The very young would have little "toy-selling" power over adults. And after a fairly young age kids can follow, and want grownup stories. The original fairy tales were scary tales... and meant for kids. Kids like to be scared. The Victorian/Disneyesque concept of kids stories is fairly new and not necessarily best for them. The success of Harry Potter with the kids is that they were really grownup stories targetting kids (only because the main character was a child). But the main character doesn't even need to be a child to attract the kids. Knigths and heroes of old were equally appealing to the wee ones a long time before Disney. As a kid I enjoyed the first 2 Star Wars, and was a bit disappointed by the third (Episode VI, to make sure I don't confuse the terminology). The liking of the first movie led me to watch the second and third. This would not have happened had the first one been the kind of movie that I could only enjoy if I was less than 7 years of age, which is the case of the Phantom Menace. Merchandability is not its prime asset.

Re:Why a decade later

[CAIMLAS]

Those three points violate rule #1 of sci-fi action for kids - Marketability outweighs quality.

My son is 6. He saw the original Star Wars, Empire Strikes Back, and Return of the Jedi shortly before he saw Phantom Menace. He prefers any of the three over Phantom Menace. (RotJ is actually his favorite, but he also likes Empire.) Maybe he's just a discerning kid, but...

Younger kids identify more and are responsible (indirectly) for many more toy sales.

Action figures.

And yet, boys like to fight. That's just the way it is. Anakin does very little of that, and kids my son plays with have battle droids, Darth Maul, Obi Wan, etc. - no Anakin. Most of the kids don't even really realize the movie was "about" Anakin, from what I can tell.

Video games.

Those sucked unless they involved fighting. And yes, a 6 year old can tell the difference between "fun" and "un-fun". Racing games were -never- the preferred games for kids.

Sure, those were probably the motivations used in making the damn film, but they were flawed reasoning: they evidently didn't see the original films as kids, and don't have children of their own.

I had a crush on Princess Leah in the metal bikini when I was 7. How about you? My daughter wants to be a "princess"; she doesn't relate to Jar Jar, she relates to Princess Leah/Amadilia all dressed up pretty.

Leave the cartoon animation to the cartoons, please.

I'm just glad Lucas is done making more Star Wars movies.

Re:Why a decade later

[Ihmhi]

I actually liked Episode 1 Racer. It's a bit challenging. Plus it's fun to use the secret flamethrower...

Re:Why a decade later

[VShael]

Younger kids identify more and are responsible (indirectly) for many more toy sales.

Because young kids didn't identify with Luke? And didn't buy tons of toys?

Action figures.

Because they haven't sold ENOUGH C3P0 and R2D2 toys in the last 30 years?

Video games.

Because it's simply not possible to have a video game based on sensible stuff in the movie?
We've got to have StarWars meets Mario Kart in there somewhere?

Re:Why a decade later

[Anonymous Coward]

Right on.

Lucas stole the entire plot for SW from Kurosawa's "Hidden Fortress" and (I would guess) didn't imagine it would ever be big enough to merit a sequel, let alone SIX features.

SW is a great story because "Hidden Fortress" is a great story.

Unfortunately, there was nothing left to 'steal' when it came to 5,6,1,2,3 and they progressive run out of steam and founder.

The RedLetterMedia review here is right in saying that SW does follow tried-and-true film plot convention (since it was lifted from a classic film) but the prequel failed to follow.

Re:Why a decade later

[coaxial]

If you look at it with fresh eyes, the original three had a weaker plot line, worse acting, worse special effects, and significantly worse choreography.

Let me refute each of these points.

Weaker plot? What was the plot of Episode 1? Seriously. I can't figure it out. It's just a bunch of stuff. No one is motivated to do anything. So the whole thing is just to make Palpatine chancelor? Wouldn't it be simpler to just to have Palpatine already a corrupt chancelor? What was Episode 2 about? I honestly don't know. It didn't even have a big six movie plot point. It's just stuff blowing up for two hours. Episode 3 just built up to an overly long sword fight, that honestly got boring, and an annoyingly huge inconsistency with Padame dying in childbirth of a broken heart (I'm sorry, she died because "she lost the will to live." As Stewie said in Family Guy parody, "Oh come on!") even though Leia is supposed to know her as a child.

Episodes 4-6 are a traditional story. ANH is a complete story. It has a start, a middle and end. ESB and ROTJ on contrast are the middle and third acts of the 3 act story. ROTJ is just a a big battle (which probably makes it your favorite), but ESB is about losing. It's all about failure. The good guys lose. As the review linked above asks, "Who is the main character of the Phantom Menace?" It's not Anakin. He's not seen until 40 minutes into the film. It's not Obi-Wan. He's a sidekick. How about the New Trilogy? Anakin? Why do we care about him? The Original Trilogy? Luke. It's all about Luke. He's a nobody we identify with, rises to the occasion in ANH, gets kicked down in ESB, and overcomes and ultimately defeats the bad guys in ROTJ. Where's the plot arc? It's all so rushed. Anakin turns evil because he thinks Padame is going to die, but doesn't make sense. He kills Sand People in E2, but it's just a snap. He's whiney in E3 for some reason. There's no character growth. There's nothing.

Worse acting? Hayden Christensen is bad. He's just very very bad. There's a reason why he doesn't really work, even though Natalie Portman and Ewan McGreggor have since E1-3. It's not all their fault. There's only so much you can do with the script you're given. The writing is just very bad. Not only are there glaring plot holes, but the dialog is atrocious. The reason why the dialog is better in the original trilogy is simple. Lucas didn't write nor direct them. He only wrote and directed ANH, the one with the weakest dialog and weakest direction.

Worse Special Effects? Yes. Let's compare movies on special effects that are 28 years apart. Let me repeat that. TWENTY EIGHT YEARS. My god, if the effects weren't better, then there'd be something wrong. It's not how the effects are executed. It's about how they're used. There's just too much shit going on in the new trilogy. It's distracting. Even Lucas himself said during the production of the ESB back in 1980 that special effects that don't serve the story are pointless, but now we get stuff crammed into every frame. It's like watching one of the damn "punch the monkey for a free iPod" ads, or a chinese website. ("Renao" or "hot and noisy" is the Chinese term for that design. And yes, they consider crowded flashing colors a feature.) Just because you can make a dinosaur walk in front of the camera, or have a construction robot punch a tiny robot, doesn't mean you should.

Worse choreography? I assume you're talking about the lightsaber battles. Let's examine those. There are three in the original triliogy, and all three are better. Why? They mean something. Especially Luke vs Vader 1. Vader vs Kenobi is about letting go. It's the rematch of the old teacher and fallen student. It's the old teacher giving one last instruction to both his old student and his new one. It's about sacrifice. It's about saying that you w

Re:Why a decade later

[coaxial]

Hanzel and Grettle are taken out into the woods and left to die of exposure by their parents. They meet a cannibal that they burn to death in an oven, before returning to the very parents that just tried to murder them. What's your point?

Re:Why a decade later

[vegiVamp]

True, but then in all the examples you mention, the kid character is a sidekick. In TPM, Anakin is pretty much the central character, as he's the major link to the later movies.

Re:Why a decade later

[jonadab]

> The first movies didn't suck like the last three

You didn't *notice* their suckiness, because back then you were accustomed to the assumption that if it was sci-fi or took place in space, ipso facto it must Hoover like a Shop Vac. Up to that point most sci-fi featured cosmic rays as a major plot element, used actors straight out of drama school if you were lucky, and had robots and/or spaceships that were obviously made out of cardboard. So sci-fi audiences were prepared to cut Star Wars a little slack. When it had a real character-driven plot and real costumes and used real state-of-the-art (for the day) special effects and even featured a real professionally-composed sound track consisting of music written just for the film, we were sold. The acting was pretty lousy (especially Luke), but we'd expected that, so it didn't really stand out.

But by the time Episode I came out, sci-fi was a major established film genre, so you expected it to stack up and compare well against, well, anything.

> Luke was in his late teens/very early 20

Yes, Luke was in his late teens and at least twice as wangsty and annoying as little Anakin and teen Anakin combined. "Aw, come on, uncle Owen, I don't want to help around the farm for a whole nother year, I want to go off and have adventures now. Now, now, now!" Sheesh.

Then there's Han. Stop and think? Solve a problem? Nah, let's just argue loudly and incoherently all the time and then when we lose the argument we'll just blast everything.

Speaking of flat stereotype characters, two words: Princess Leia. At least the acting was okay there (not that it was a difficult role).

I'm not saying the prequel movies didn't have some problems. But I don't think they were objectively much worse than the first three. They seemed worse mostly because audience expectations had shifted.

Re:Why a decade later

[Anonymous Coward]

Not a thespian of any note?

He is the definitive Joker.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_gBWpWwIBKw

Search your youtube, you'll know it to be true!

Re:Why a decade later

[Thumper_SVX]

I think JarJar could have been cool if he wasn't a complete klutz and was able to fight with capoeira

And if he wore tight shorts and had big boobs.

Yes, if JarJar had only been a little more like Lara Croft,. it might not have been so bad.

Unfortunately, I've now got an image of Jar Jar in a tank top and tight shorts with big boobs... but he's still male. Thanks... I'm not going to sleep for a week, now :P

Re:Why a decade later

[Anonymous Coward]

Apparently Planet of the Apes was the first proper SF merchandising effort, but it was still hardly the norm when SW came out. After all, Fox gave all merchandising rights to Lucas because they didn't expect it to be a big deal.

Re:Why a decade later

[Xabraxas]

think the real problem is that all the kids that watched star wars when they were little grew up to be cynical assholes.

No, the the new trilogy was really that bad. The review was spot on. The story made no fucking sense at all, the characters were boring as hell, and the whole setup was so convoluted you didn't even WANT to follow what was going on. Maybe that was what Lucas was going for. It had you begging for the stupid, over-choreographed lightsaber battles.

Re:Why a decade later

[FoolishOwl]

One of the staples of much of the authorized spin-off fiction that I'd seen was that the Clone Wars were a war *against* clones, which makes much more sense, given the name, and the general ominous sound of clones. Wars are named for the subject of contention or the enemy fought against, not for the method of fighting.

Re:Why a decade later

[bluefoxlucid]

The problem with The Phantom Menace was nobody was prepared to deal with a complex character and a plot from a truly brilliant writer. Basically, Darth Vader is a huge bad-ass with a horrible attitude, and he's always pissed off at everything, so totally awesome super badguy. Turns out he got there by a really complex path of emotional trauma and careful manipulation.

What people got from this is: Darth Vader is a whiny little bitch that can't stop crying about his last girlfriend.

Really, the character development occurred in a non-related plot (pod races, crap on a desert planet). The key players weren't all that important, really; Padme was a key character, but the planet and all its people were minor roles, the battle was a minor skirmish, and the only real significance of all this stuff was the leverage these events gave Palpatine to become an evil dictator by careful manipulation.

So basically, a whiny little bitch on a planet full of idiot people nobody cares about, engaged in a minor skirmish of little actual significance. Complete waste, nothing interesting, mostly bullshit. Most viewers were completely unprepared for something that didn't involve brute-force warfare and a born-to-be-evil badass donning a black helmet and cape. Most viewers also have no affinity with Palpatine's character, so the complexities of such were completely and totally lost; although Palpatine is probably the most interesting character in the series.

Re:Why a decade later

[FoolishOwl]

Except that the entire saga was about Anakin/Darth Vader. His fall to evil and ultimate redemption is the backbone of the overall plot.

Episode IV: the first character we're introduced to is the fantastically evil Darth Vader. Obi-Wan tells Luke about his father, the noble Jedi Knight who was his friend. The climax of Episode V: the revelation that Darth Vader and Anakin are the same person. Episode VI: Luke trusts his own feelings and reaches out to the "good" side of Darth Vader, and succeeds.

What more obvious subject to explore in the prequel trilogy but how Anakin Skywalker went from good to evil?

Re:Why a decade later

[elrous0]

Good list. But I would add "No Mitichlorians" to it. Here is this incredible mystical force, described by Yoda in Empire as a matter of deep faith, reduced in Phantom Menace to some fucking germs?!?!? Did Lucas even see Empire?

It also would have helped to make Padme older too, and hire a co-screenwriter (who can write believable dialogue).

Actually, there was a lot to like about Phantom Menace (Liam Neeson actually did a pretty good job, for example). But it was buried under all the crap.

Re:Why a decade later

[TheRaven64]

The sad thing is, I think I got more enjoyment from the Pod Racer game than from the three prequel movies put together. If they just wanted to make a game out of it, they could have had a thirty second clip of pod racing in the background of one of the shots.

Re:Why a decade later

[TheRaven64]

Star Wars is full of Christian imagery and references. In Christian mythology anyone can be redeemed if they honestly repent, which Vader does.

Re:Why a decade later

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree with the parent's sentiment, but in defense of the horrible portrayal of kids in most movies, I have to call out the "Sandlot" as having characters I could identify with.

Re:Why a decade later

[UnknowingFool]

The guy had a good point. In the first five minutes you learn a lot about the main characters and the plot. Vader is looking for some plans. You don't know exactly what plans yet but he's not above killing and torturing people to get them. Leia had them at one point. And she's not exactly as innocent as she appears. Then you realize the droids have them. It's a simple plot but it evolves as the story continues.

Re:Why a decade later

[chromatic]

[It's] much easier to write a consistent compelling story if you intertwine it with real life facts that people already understand and have some familiarity with.

I think you're looking for the word verisimilitude, which requires an internal framework sufficiently coherent that actions and their consequences ring true. The audience must relate to the characters in some fashion, but that's often at the thematic level rather than surface details. I may not have a swordsmith father as does Inigo Montoya, but I can understand the desire to avenge a family member wronged injustly even if he's from Spain (or Florin or Naboo or wherever).

Re:Why a decade later

[dzfoo]

Vader? Is that you?
      -dZ.

Re:Why a decade later

[dzfoo]

There's also a comment made by Obi Wan when they were talking about how good a pilot his father was, something like "I hear you've become a great pilot yourself."

        -dZ.

Re:Why a decade later

[dzfoo]

>> The last hour of Sith was the only decently written part of the prequels

Please tell me you are not including the line "NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!" within that last hour.

      -dZ.

Re:Why a decade later

[dzfoo]

True, but he was waaaaaaaaaaaaaay off from that sort honed skill back in the early Star Wars days.

        -dZ.

Re:Why a decade later

[ajs]

The question I pose to you is, even if you are more capable than the people he interviewed to come up with descriptors, do you honestly feel the characters in the more recently-produced films are as strong or stronger than those in the originals films?

That's a straw man argument. The review wasn't claiming that, on the whole, the original films were better. He was claiming a complete lack of characterization to an extent that painted modern-Lucas as utterly incompetent as a screenwriter. While I do agree that the original films were far better, this video misses its mark by a wide margin.

Also, what's with the editing? It looks like he added his voice to video-from-still images and then edited them for time...

That was all done on purpose - he was going for a "feel" to his work.

If the "feel" was "I can't edit my own short" then it worked. Beyond that... no, I think you're reading incompetence as a thematic choice, and that's always dangerous ground.

Re:Why a decade later

[ajs]

Whoooooosh!

(and, no, that's not an X-Wing flying over your head)

2/10. Sorry, but as trolls go, that's rather weak.

Re:Why a decade later

[Anonymous Coward]

It was because that was Lucas' plan. He gave up a lot to the studio to get the merchandising rights. At the time, those rights were not thought to be very important. Before Lucas, no one spent any significant effort to cash in on them.

Re:Why a decade later

[Anonymous Coward]

damnerds /.nerds

Re:Why a decade later

[Gilmoure]

Dude!

Christmas eve.

Cruising Slashdot.

Seriously?

Re:Why a decade later

[Anonymous Coward]

It thought it was "DO NOT WANT"

Re:Why a decade later

[captjc]

Point is kids today are pussies. Hell, my aunt won't even let her kids watch Looney Tunes because it is "too violent". I grew up watching Looney Tunes, as did my parents and grand parents even. We also grew up on Grimm's Fairy Tales. Not the sanitized Disney versions either. The real badass ones. We all turned out fine.

Re:Why a decade later

[coaxial]

I fail to see why that means kids are pussies. Kids are kids. Always have been. Sounds like their parents are the ones over reacting.

Demo Reel

[bsDaemon]

I thought it was awesome at first, because it seemed to just be a demo reel for SGI and Alias|WaveFront. Then I realized that it was a "real" movie, and that it was supposed to be Star Wars... then I realized how bad it was. Apparently so did the rest of the world, and they seem to have taken it out on SGI. Poor SGI... it wasn't their fault!

Re:Demo Reel

[MightyMartian]

The real problem is that George Lucas wrote it. As a generic sort of idea man, Lucas is great, but the more involved he is in the film, the worse it gets. The reason The Empire Strikes Back is probably the best of the bunch is because Lucas was at his most distant from the whole process.

Frankly, the prequels were a letdown. Episode III is clearly the best, but that's pretty relative. It still sucks a lot more than even the most dismal of the original trilogy; Episode VI, but compared to TPM and Attack of the Clones (I mean, that really is a retarded name), it's a brilliant film.

Lucas seems to have a hard time building any kind of dramatic tension. In place of a decent script and dialogue, he puts in ever more insanely huge spectacles. In Episode III, for instance, instead of a battle between Anakin and Obiwan around a lava crater (as was originally expounded in the book for Episode IV, Lucas, who seems incapable of writing the kind of chilling dialogue that would go on between a former master and pupil and friend, replaces it with a WHOLE MOLTEN PLANET. I mean, it's eyecandy to be sure, but every time I watch those scenes, I feel like I was robbed of what could have been an extraordinarily dramatic moment.

TPM lacks any kind of useful dramatic device. It holds the worst aspects of Lucas's filmmaking, with little or nothing of some of the better aspects of the franchise.

Re:Demo Reel

[Grishnakh]

I was so digusted with Ep. 2 that I never did get around to watching Ep. 3.

But you're exactly right. Lucas should have stuck with just coming up with ideas and visuals of these alien worlds and ships, and that's it, and left the storywriting to people who are actually talented at that. That's why ESB was so great: it was written by a professional sci-fi author, not Lucas. Any time Lucas writes dialog, it's beyond terrible. But his ego is so huge that he refuses to admit it, and insists on doing it himself.

Re:Demo Reel

[nomadic]

As a generic sort of idea man, Lucas is great

Lucas is great at coming up with stories; his stuff, even the stuff that doesn't come out that well, tends to be interesting and creative. The problem is he's not that great a screenwriter. If the basic story in TPM had been told and directed and acted well, it could have come out really well.

In contrast there are movies that just cannot be saved from the lousy story by good screenwriting, acting and directing.

Re:Demo Reel

[girlintraining]

Apparently so did the rest of the world, and they seem to have taken it out on SGI. Poor SGI... it wasn't their fault!

SGI didn't fall from glory because of a three-coiled Lucas-branded turd. It failed because it made repeated strategic mistakes in the market. When 3D hit the desktop, they sat there watching people build clusters out of gaming consoles and making boards out of commodity components -- management was convinced it wasn't a threat. Then they made several attempts to change platforms to various Intel chips, and released Linux workstations. People didn't take them seriously after that (Yes, I am saying on slashdot that using Linux was a strategic mistake). They were nearly dead, delisted from the NYC, shareholders demanding they fold -- when they finally reversed course, hired a crisis team, and assessed the damage. But it was too late -- the economy didn't allow for a recovery, and the vulnerable shell of SGI was bought out, and its brand identity assumed by a company specializing in rackmount servers.

SGI died because management lost focus, got complacent, and fried like an egg in a frying pan in the recession. Besides, Hollywood was never SGI's main market -- it was the government and scientific institutions. For every CG animation you see, there's ten weather modeling simulations, and other massively-parallel graphic-intensive processes.

Re:Demo Reel

[MightyMartian]

Episode V had some great dialogue. The Yoda sequences gave us all the mystic mumbo jumbo of Episode IV, but with more Zen-like conviction and less being pure corny. The fight between Vader and Luke, and the ultimate revelation of Vader's identity was a moment of extraordinary drama that surely stands as one of the great moments in cinema history.

The whole film has a kind of tension to it that none of the other films had. It was a character driven film. The special effects don't play as a big a role. You'll note a lot of the action in this film takes place in claustrophobic places; ice tunnels on Hoth, Bespin interiors, Star Destroyer interiors, Dagobah (which is so murky it might as well be a closed interior), the interior of the worm creature/asteroid. This means the camera is concentrating less on eyecandy and more on the characters, and requires a lot more dialogue and interaction between characters.

Re:Demo Reel

[Verdatum]

The real problem is that George Lucas wrote it...and directed it...and edited it.

FTFY. The bonus features had him bragging about (over)using digital editing techniques that would make anyone with the most basic knowledge of filmmaking cringe. And I've never heard an actor say anything good about Lucas' directing style. The most quoted direction from lucas by actors in interviews, "uh, faster; more intensity."

Re:Demo Reel

[Verdatum]

You make a good point, but I'm curious how you explain the endearing nature of ANH. It's terrible dialog, and Lucas is allowed to direct, but somehow it still works.

Re:Demo Reel

[ascii]

I may receive flack for this but Lucas' is *horrible* at writing dialogue. Try to count the number of times he has used the line "I have a bad feeling about this" throught the Star Wars movies and you'll get to jesus kabillion in no time.

What's more - the only variance with these lines is where to put the intonation. Here's a quick rundown on Lucas' options when writing dialogue:
1. *I* have a bad feeling about this
2. I *HAVE* a bad feeling about this
3. I have *A* bad feeling about this
4. I have a *BAD* feeling about this
5. I have a bad *FEELING* about this
6. I have a bad feeling *ABOUT* this
7. I have a bad feeling about *THIS*

That is all.

Re:Demo Reel

[drinkypoo]

SGI should have gotten started with going Linux before it became an emergency, by which point it was too late; you couldn't make Linux as realtime as IRIX in the time allotted. That's half the charm of XFS, too. Going intel was a good idea, but using Windows was not. Apple, for all their faults, understood this. SGI is sort of the Apple of the Unix world, but it's not clear that there's room for such a thing. (NeXT wanted to be that guy, but never achieved the necessary volume of success to lay claim to it. It all worked out great for Jobs in any case.)

Re:Demo Reel

[BobMcD]

The real problem is that George Lucas wrote it. As a generic sort of idea man, Lucas is great, but the more involved he is in the film, the worse it gets. The reason The Empire Strikes Back is probably the best of the bunch is because Lucas was at his most distant from the whole process.

You may not know how right you are. According to the Secret History of Star Wars, not only was much of the story borrowed directly from other material, but he got extensive help from Hollywood friends to make it into a workable movie. Also that book makes the excellent point that Empire and Jedi really only rehash the original movie in more depth. Which can't exactly be that hard, when you look at it that way. Read that book, if you get the chance. It puts this Definitive Evisceration in perspective.

Anyway if he skipped both the borrowing steps and the getting help from others step the result probably should be a rather unimpressive ball of crap.

Re:Demo Reel

[Spellvexit]

I haven't watched any of his commentary except for the last 30 seconds of part 6 of this video (it was pointed out in another blog), but he directly addresses the lightsaber battle on the molten planet, with a hilarious quote from Lucas at the end.

If you haven't watched that bit yet, check it out -- the irony behind Lucas' words is beyond farcical.

Re:Demo Reel

[MightyMartian]

I think there are some pretty serious structural problems with TPM. In part it's because they choose to introduce Anakin as a child, which, to my mind, makes a lot of what happens in the second half of the film more like some silly Disney film, where no matter how adult the situations (ie. flying a space fighter to blow up a huge enemy space cruiser/battle station), you have to insert a kid into it. Jar Jar is a symptom of that too. Star Wars was never what I'd call a grown up franchise, but it had some grown up ideas and interactions (the passing of the torch from an older to a younger generation, flirtations between Han and Leia, the discovering of one's heritage). TPM didn't really have any of that. It played more like a very long Walt Disney children's cartoon with better special effects.

Re:Demo Reel

[Grishnakh]

I'm not really sure; maybe he just got worse as time went on? After all, THX-1138 was a pretty cool movie, very different and interesting. After Star Wars hit it big, and he got mega-rich, it seems the success all went to his head.

ANH really wasn't that great overall, (esp. compared to ESB) but it does work somehow despite a lot of corniness (esp. towards the end).

Re:Demo Reel

[Fjandr]

I heard William Shatner in my head saying these lines as I read them. You sir, are an insensitive clod!

Re:Demo Reel

[nomadic]

I think there are some pretty serious structural problems with TPM. In part it's because they choose to introduce Anakin as a child, which, to my mind, makes a lot of what happens in the second half of the film more like some silly Disney film, where no matter how adult the situations (ie. flying a space fighter to blow up a huge enemy space cruiser/battle station), you have to insert a kid into it. Jar Jar is a symptom of that too. Star Wars was never what I'd call a grown up franchise,

Yeah, you do have a good point, though I think that could have been handled in a way that wasn't silly. Like a good child actor who played a melancholy, quiet Anakin. Jar Jar without the ridiculous accent.

Re:Demo Reel

[Tablizer]

Lucas, who seems incapable of writing the kind of chilling dialogue that would go on between a former master and pupil and friend, replaces it with a WHOLE MOLTEN PLANET. I mean, it's eyecandy to be sure, but...

Theater movies are a visual medium for the most part. Intricate dialog you can get from books or radio.
     

Re:Demo Reel

[Anonymous Coward]

Whooosh!

The OP knew that SGI was already in trouble by the time TPM came out. He was just making a joke, which you just ruined.

Re:Demo Reel

[sadness203]

Sure, that's probably why silent movies are still a great success in theater since 1920 ?

Re:Demo Reel

[clintp]

It's a week late, but I'd like to chime in on this. You're absolutely right. I spent the late 90's putting SGI workstations on the desktops of engineers for drafting and fluid analysis. Hot shit, really. But SGI relied way too heavily on their outstanding graphics hardware and completely missed the fact that... hardware vendors always lose eventually.

In the early 90's I worked for one of many minicomputer companies that were trying to sell terribly expensive hardware and give away the software for practically nothing. Eventually they all learned that the hardware really was just a commodity and it was the software that was the valuable bits. You can't turn the marketing around once the customer figures that out. 1989 hardware = $100k, software = free. 1992 Hardware = $10k, software = $100k. Doesn't work.

In the late 1980's I got to watch the PC market go through the same death throes. Any fool can build slightly outdated hardware for pennies on the dollar.

Re:Demo Reel

[shadowrat]

all this time i thought the appearence of "i have a bad feeling about this" was a reference to the force.

Re:Demo Reel

[MightyMartian]

I'm not even sure why they started Anakin off as a child. The most we get out of the other movies was Obiwan saying "When I first met him, he was already a great pilot..." I think one could have made a much more credible transformation of Anakin to Darth Vader if Anakin had started as an adult, come late to the training, trained imperfectly by Obiwan (as Obiwan said) and thus being seduced by power. But Lucas, in some bizarre mythos mashup decides to throw in the Immaculate Conception which added nothing to the story, thus making irrelevant the entire relationship with his brother (now transformed into a step-brother with little of the emotional and idealistic tension pointed at in Episode IV). It was all pointless, overcomplicating and removed what any reasonably decent writer would have seen as a way to delve into Anakin's character.

Re:Demo Reel

[bennomatic]

And if Keanu Reeves had been in the flicks, the options would have instead been:

1. Woah.
2. Woah?
3. Woah!
4. Woah...

Re:Demo Reel

[MightyMartian]

That's a real cop-out. Some of the best filmed martial arts sequences were done on relatively small sets. The excitement isn't derived from the backdrop, but rather from two masters of their craft pitted against each other. It's one thing to, say, have a kung fu battle over a sawmill, but it's another thing to have one over an entire landscape made of saw blades. The point of the duel wasn't to show off yet more impossibly overdone monoplanets (Lucas has a real problem with these), but to show the penultimate battle between Anakin/Vader and his ex-friend and master, Obiwan Kenobe. Luke and Vader certainly didn't require some insanely overdone backdrop for their confrontation in Episode VI, because the exact locale of that confrontation was besides the point.

Maybe the big problem is Lucas made better movies when the technology was less capable of letting him go overboard.

Re:Demo Reel

[jitterman]

As soon as I saw your post, I had a bad feeling about this.

Re:Demo Reel

[bckrispi]

I'm not even sure why they started Anakin off as a child.

So you could see how someone "pure" with good intentions can turn out very, very wrong. To see that taking a small child away from his mother - only to be reunited with her 10 years later immediately before she dies can really mess you up! Young Jedi are sequestered for their training as soon as they show aptitude. Anakin was a child, but a child who already had ideas and feelings that, by is upbringing and attachments, ran counter to Jedi Ideals.

But Lucas, in some bizarre mythos mashup decides to throw in the Immaculate Conception which added nothing to the story

Watch the Opera House scene in RotS again. The idea of the "immaculate conception" certainly was elaborated upon there.

Re:Demo Reel

[bckrispi]

Maybe the big problem is Lucas made better movies when the technology was less capable of letting him go overboard.

Yes. The technology was so limited that it almost killed him! During the filming of ANH, he was waaay over budget, way past his deadline, the studio wanted him to axe the entire battle of Yavin because "the heroes already escaped the Death Star". On top of this, he sits down to see a "final" edit of key scenes that his team had worked a year on, only to see that it was downright dreadful. He had an anxiety attack and collapsed right on the set.

Re:Demo Reel

[Anonymous Coward]

I guess it wasn't the famously overused line from UFO abduction dramas. You know:

1. I did not ask for the anal probe
2. ...left as an exercise for the reader

Re:Demo Reel

[Anonymous Coward]

The options you list are not tools of the screen writer - they'd all look the same in the screenplay.

The actor and director work through these options in rehearsal and on set. Unfortunately Lucas directed as well.

Re:Demo Reel

[Torodung]

I whsdould rephply to thsish buht i am prrphreslantly too drunk frlum plaa-ying thath drinking game. Bottoms dwon! I am druhunker thanh that tibbetttan guhy ath the strhart of Raidurrs.

--
Toro

Re:Demo Reel

[Arielholic]

the ultimate revelation of Vader's identity was a moment of extraordinary drama that surely stands as one of the great moments in cinema history.

Not for the Dutch*, they knew it all along!

* and Germans, etc.

Re:Demo Reel

[TheRaven64]

Ignoring Linux was not a problem for SGI, but ignoring commodity hardware was. When a few of their engineers said 'we could make something almost as good as our high-end stuff, sell it for a tenth of the price to everyone with a PC' they said no. Those engineers went on to found nVidia. Even if they hadn't, someone else (ATi, Intel, Matrox, 3dfx, S3, whoever) would have done. They could have been the company that owned the consumer 3D market. They didn't want to create that market because they thought it would demolish their high-end market. They didn't seem to realise that it would whether they were in the new market or not. It's a lesson that lots of businesses miss. The record labels could have owned a vastly profitable download market if they'd started offering it back in the early '90s before most people had enough bandwidth or disk space for it to be useful. Instead, they decided that downloads would hurt CD sales (which they do) and thought that not offering them would prevent this (it didn't).

Re:Demo Reel

[Kittenman]

One of them had Yoda fighting Christopher Lee: that's a 3-foot-high green thing fighting Lee, who must be half way between six-foot and seven-foot. That was just hysterical, and more than justified the cost of admission.

It was meant to be a comedy, wasn't it?

Re:Demo Reel

[Blakey Rat]

It also had some godawful dialog. Specifically: (paraphrased)

Helpful Rebel Guard: "Sir, it's too cold out there! Your Taun-Taun will freeze before you make the first marker!"
Han Solo: "Then I'll SEE YOU IN HELL!"

The most mystifyingly bad line in the movie.

Re:Demo Reel

[imroy]

Then they made several attempts to change platforms to various Intel chips, and released Windows NT workstations. People didn't take them seriously after that.

There, I fixed it for you.

Re:Demo Reel

[VShael]

There might have been 7 options, but he only ever used number 4.

cool story, bro

[Luke727]

BURIED!

Good Material But Lengthy and Bad Delivery

[eldavojohn]

So from watching the first part, the guy raises some good points. And we've all ripped apart Episode One because it's so easy. Some of the points he raises are the fact that we can't identify with anyone and therefore any character that's supposed to be the protagonist fails at being a protagonist. He also points out that George Lucas doesn't have big enough genitals and intelligence as a director to be straying from this standard model. On top of that, it's George Lucas which we can all safely assume there was no second guessing King Midas on set or off set. These are problems. The other thing addressed in part one of this series is that the characters are by and large featureless in the prequel while anyone can talk for two hours about Han Solo's character. Good luck describing Qui Gon.

Now that said, I wish the voice acting for this review had been better. Or at least normal. The guy intentionally mispronounces everything. It was funny the first time but after a bit he just comes off as a one trick pony looking for a half million views on YouTube (well done, by the way). The pitch inflections actually recall me to a sort of idiot valley girl a la Alicia Silverstone. I think if the effort had been more serious he might have gotten a message out to Lucas and maybe even Hollywood but he needs to put his own humor on it so that's his choice. Now, this isn't the MST3K style of ripping apart a movie, it's deeper than that and I just wish it had been presented in a serious manner. Yes, you can still be funny when you're being serious, that's what makes great teachers, speakers and orators.

One important caveat that this review overlooks is that many of his criticisms center on complexities and different approaches that Lucas took (before that he wanted to take different approaches when he asked Lynch to direct RotJ). Just because Lucas screwed it up doesn't make these things bad. Lucas gambled and he lost. He lost everything. He made something different but he wasn't good enough at what he did to ensure that it was still great. In software development, you generally start with the basics and master them before you begin an epic endeavor into parts unknown.

Lucas made bad choices and failed. If you need to relinquish another seventy minutes of your life to this failure. Watch this series. The odds are you already know all of this.

Re:Good Material But Lengthy and Bad Delivery

[Anonymous Coward]

while anyone can talk for two hours about Han Solo's character

Without repeating the same stuff over and over? I find that hard to imagine. How about you give us 500 words on the subject?

Re:Good Material But Lengthy and Bad Delivery

[Jethro]

Yeah, that's what I came here to say. Guy makes some good points (that, face it, aren't new) but tries way too hard to be funny. That 'voice' was way too annoying.

Re:Good Material But Lengthy and Bad Delivery

[NimbleSquirrel]

So from watching the first part,

So you didn't watch the whole thing?? Your three paragraph diatraibe is rather wothless if you didn't watch the whole thing. The guy does know a thing or two about making film, and what makes this review funny isn't just ripping apart The Phantom Menace (which in itself isn't hard to do), but the way he does it and the way it is revealed there is something else about the reviewer. While this review makes some serious points pulling apart TPM, it is not a serious review itself.
How about you watch the whole thing and then start your diatribe?

Re:Good Material But Lengthy and Bad Delivery

[badboy_tw2002]

Seriously. The review itself has more character development, plot, intrigue, etc than TPM itself. Thought I found the ST: Generations review to be a lot funnier, esp. the parts that show the shortcuts and incongruities with the series.

Re:Good Material But Lengthy and Bad Delivery

[Bemopolis]

The pitch inflections actually recall me to a sort of idiot valley girl a la Alicia Silverstone.

Actually, I think he's going for Buffalo Bill from Silence of the Lambs, with a bit of Ed Gein thrown in. It's a bit that did not work for you, apparently, but that keeps it from being too Comic Book Guy. If that's what you want I'm sure there are hundreds such out there. Once I spun up with it I liked this review. Chacun à son goût.
He also has multi-part reviews of all of the TNG-cast Star Trek films (yes, in the same character), even more brutal than the Ep I takedown. Good stuff.

Re:Good Material But Lengthy and Bad Delivery

[CeramicNuts]

I think his review is brilliant, both delivery and content. Even the editing is funny. Haven't laughed so hard in a long time... His Star Trek movie reviews are great too.

What's wrong with your face?!?

Re:Good Material But Lengthy and Bad Delivery

[theArtificial]

Sounds like he's had a stroke? He sounds like Larry Mitchell who made the Cinema4d tutorials.

Re:Good Material But Lengthy and Bad Delivery

[furby076]

Lucas gambled and he lost. He lost everything.

This is where I have to disagree. He went on to make 2 more movies, and their associated toys, video games, books, etc. He went on to make a stupid amount of money. While the person who created this entire thread said he didn't see the last two movies (and I doubt this very much) most people, even the ones who complained about TPM, did. We went to the theatres, we saw the movies, and cheered during the movie. After the movie we became the typical fanboys who tried to equate the last three movies to something from our childhood.

Right there that is the equivelant of what I did to myself by watching Transformers cartoon (the original cartoon) when I was 30 years old. I f'd up my memory. Back when I was 8 y/o Transformers was top notch graphics...now it is like reading a comic book - except not drawn as well. Same thing with these movies; we are trying to compare what our childhood memories (fantasies) represent and compare it to this -- it ain't going to fly.

Anyhow - many of us have gone to see movies for their graphics and not their stories (avatar anyone)

Re:Good Material But Lengthy and Bad Delivery

[fiannaFailMan]

Now that said, I wish the voice acting for this review had been better. Or at least normal. The guy intentionally mispronounces everything. It was funny the first time but after a bit he just comes off as a one trick pony looking for a half million views on YouTube (well done, by the way). The pitch inflections actually recall me to a sort of idiot valley girl a la Alicia Silverstone. I think if the effort had been more serious he might have gotten a message out to Lucas and maybe even Hollywood but he needs to put his own humor on it so that's his choice.

Sense of humour failure, methinks.

Re:Good Material But Lengthy and Bad Delivery

[zwede]

Good luck describing Qui Gon.

Who? Oh, wait... good point.

Re:Good Material But Lengthy and Bad Delivery

[Anonymous Coward]

This and more. This guy's voice makes me want to blow my brains out and i don't give a fuck how spot on his points are, this is 10 years too late. Who the fuck doesn't know all this stuff already if you actually care about TPM in any sense at all? Phantom has been torn to shreds over the last decade and this guy isn't bringing anything original to the table except his shitty jokes. If you need 70 minutes to dissect why TPM "is a bad movie", you're doing it wrong. It isnt that complicated. TPM isnt the worst movie ever made. I've paid money to see worse. I'm not even sure that its the worst star wars movie ever made. I think there are failures in ATOC and RotS that are much bigger, simply because more of the film hangs on those moments (like the anakin/padme 'romance'). Regardless, I cant understand why this is lighting the internet on fire. Some guy spends 70 minutes talking like a retard and repeating film 101 bullet points and he's a fucking comedy genius?

Re:Good Material But Lengthy and Bad Delivery

[eldavojohn]

How about you watch the whole thing and then start your diatribe?

I thought I made it pretty clear that if you want me to watch an hour and ten minute critique of a two hour and thirteen minute movie, you had better do a better job than what I saw in the first ten minutes. Nothing groundbreaking was presented to me in the first ten minutes and on top of that I was getting pretty annoyed with the guy's intonation. All I'm saying is that it's not my cup of tea. If you found something worthy of note in part whatever that you think is brilliant, let's hear it.

But who is he and what has he done to contribute to modern cinema? He sure speaks like everyone's a fucking moron for not seeing all the problems with The Phantom Menace. Yet I could have presented films where the exact techniques he criticizes actually work. He himself shows some of these movies, why did it work in the Usual Suspects but not The Phantom Menace to leave the enemy confusingly hidden the whole time? "Because TPM is for kids" does not suffice. If I give you seventy minutes of my life, I expect a comprehensive analysis. I stand by my statements and will not devote any more time to this review.

We all know Lucas is no stranger to screwing with his old work. Maybe now, a decade later, he'll hack apart something that should be hacked apart and rework TPM to have a five minute pod racing scene, no Jar Jar Binks and a whole lot more interesting development? I think there are some good things in TPM but the bad things just overshadow anything worth watching.

Re:Good Material But Lengthy and Bad Delivery

[foo fighter]

One important caveat that this review overlooks is that many of his criticisms center on complexities and different approaches that Lucas took (before that he wanted to take different approaches when he asked Lynch to direct RotJ).

I don't know what this sentence is supposed to mean, exactly.

Just because Lucas screwed it up doesn't make these things bad.

Well, yes it does. The Phantom Menace is bad because Lucas screwed up. And the critic does explicitly address the fact that it is not just Lucas's fault, but the fault of the editors, producers, screenwriters, and everyone else who were sycophants instead of creative partners willing to say no and challenge Lucas when he screwed up.

Lucas gambled and he lost. He lost everything.

Lucas didn't gamble anything. And he sure as frak hasn't "lost everything". He's still in the top 25 of Forbes Celebrity 100. He pulled in $170 million last year and has an estimated net worth of around $3 billion (that's three-fraking-BILLION-with-a-"B").

In software development, you generally start with the basics and master them before you begin an epic endeavor into parts unknown.

How did this vacuous comment make it to +5?

Re:Good Material But Lengthy and Bad Delivery

[rhyder128k]

"So from watching the first part, the guy raises some good points."

This is Slashdot and it's unreasonable of people to criticise you for not watching the TFV. They're obviously still on web 1.0 and obsessed with not reading TFA without extending standard /. protocols to FVs.

I'm on part 3 and it seems to be going the same way as TPM. It started well with a good pace and a plot that expounds some interesting details. Shame as he was onto something pretty good at the beginning but by the middle of part 3 I kept saying, "Well, I can't really agree with that". For example, it doesn't seem implausible, in story terms, that a corrupt trade regulation body would be carrying out an embargo for self serving reasons.

It's a shame that he couldn't have taken his own advice and edited out some of his crappier ideas.

Yeah, I was disappointed that Ep1 was a kids movie too. Most adults who grew up with the original trilogy were. But it could have been much worse and it does expand the SW universe with some interesting new details.

Anyway. Onwards...

Re:Good Material But Lengthy and Bad Delivery

[badboy_tw2002]

You devoted more time to the review by replying.

That said, the major point was that you _couldn't_ do anything with editing to fix the film. Its broken in so many ways that you'd need to completely rewrite it and reshoot it, without the kid, without Jar Jar, without the gungans, without the trade federation, and probably with a different, older (teenager?) Anakin. And no Qui-gon, which the review also does a good point of showing is useless. Center it around Anakin, or center it around Obi-wan. Make the movie about someone we give a shit about instead of a bland menagerie of characters that are "starwarsy" but not really all that interesting.

Re:Good Material But Lengthy and Bad Delivery

[NimbleSquirrel]

I thought I made it pretty clear that if you want me to watch an hour and ten minute critique of a two hour and thirteen minute movie, you had better do a better job than what I saw in the first ten minutes

Really? You made it clear? Can you please point out the part in your original comment where you said that? You never made that claim in any form.

That aside, you never watched the whole thing, so you feel qualified to critique it? It is like reveiwing the plot of a movie by watching just the trailer (that may be possible with a lot of Hollywood movies, but not true for every movie).

What you're saying now is that your three paragraph diatribe was just a big TL;DR.

Re:Good Material But Lengthy and Bad Delivery

[DinDaddy]

Struck me as TPM review by Buffalo Bill (Silence of the Lambs), for obvious reasons.

Re:Good Material But Lengthy and Bad Delivery

[Senjutsu]

I think if the effort had been more serious he might have gotten a message out to Lucas and maybe even Hollywood ...

Apparently Damon Lindelof (Lost co-creator, Star Trek Producer) has been pimping links to the review and is quite taken with it.

Re:Good Material But Lengthy and Bad Delivery

[nine-times]

I thought he was going for a sort of napoleon dynamite sort of thing. Whatever it is, I don't think it really works. I think you could have given the script to the guy who does Zero Punctuation and it would have been much funnier.

Re:Good Material But Lengthy and Bad Delivery

[BlackCobra43]

How did this vacuous comment make it to +5?

You must be new here.

Re:Good Material But Lengthy and Bad Delivery

[Anonymous Coward]

Stop fucking saying 'frak'. Unless you're fighting cylons, you don't get to fucking say 'frak'. Stop it, asshole. We know you mean 'fuck'. So say it.

Re:Good Material But Lengthy and Bad Delivery

[Anonymous Coward]

You got whooshed. Watch the second part and once you're in his basement, you get the point.

Re:Good Material But Lengthy and Bad Delivery

[Xtravar]

I didn't mind the funny voice, but the whole thing had an overly misogynistic tone. Killing and raping women is kind of not funny.

Re:Good Material But Lengthy and Bad Delivery

[foo fighter]

Frak you, you fraking mother-fraker.

Re:Good Material But Lengthy and Bad Delivery

[mujadaddy]

So I take it you're not in the "grandkids left their toys in my basement" demographic?

Re:Good Material But Lengthy and Bad Delivery

[Anonymous Coward]

(...) Jar Jar,(...)"starwarsy"

Now try saying this word in ...that voice. I will have nightmares tonight.

Re:Good Material But Lengthy and Bad Delivery

[jnik]

Agreed, in spades. Wasting ten (or more) minutes of the seventy on violence-against-women "jokes" seriously undermines an otherwise solid argument. NSFW tag is one thing, what about a trigger warning?

Re:Good Material But Lengthy and Bad Delivery

[jitterman]

"Because TPM is for kids" does not suffice.

Okay. One reason you didn't like this that I infer from what you wrote: you don't get the insinuations the guy is making. He points out that Lucas SAYS the film is for kids, while demonstrating for you that clearly there are parts that children don't get and never will give a rat's ass about. He doesn't say it - he shows you. Several times. The point is pretty clear that this film tries to be a number of things at once, and because it does it fails at all of them.

Re:Good Material But Lengthy and Bad Delivery

[Anonymous Coward]

Or at least shorter. (zing! Actually I enjoyed it, but sometimes the set-up is just right there...)

Re:Good Material But Lengthy and Bad Delivery

[Narcogen]

I didn't mind the funny voice, but the whole thing had an overly misogynistic tone. Killing and raping women is kind of not funny.

That there are common traits between someone so obsessive they'd make a 70 minute video review of a film years after its release and people who murder their wives, kidnap and batter women, and has human bones in his basement was sort of the second layer of parody in the piece that I think most of the audience passed over.

The video (and all the other Star Trek reviews done by the same guy) are just as much critiques of the critics as they are of the films.

If that's what it means to be a geek...

[RedK]

Seriously, if a Movie wounded your inner child and destroyed your hopes and dreams, you had a very sad life. Most normal Star Wars fan just didn't watch the movie again and that's it. Personally, it was the 3rd movie that turned me off completely. Anakin's turn to the darkside felt so rushed and didn't seem to work with the character at all (one minute he's a goodie 2 shoes that's going to turn Sidius in, 30 seconds later he's bowing to his new master... wtf ?).

Re:If that's what it means to be a geek...

[Again]

Seriously, if a Movie wounded your inner child and destroyed your hopes and dreams, you had a very sad life. Most normal Star Wars fan just didn't watch the movie again and that's it. Personally, it was the 3rd movie that turned me off completely. Anakin's turn to the darkside felt so rushed and didn't seem to work with the character at all (one minute he's a goodie 2 shoes that's going to turn Sidius in, 30 seconds later he's bowing to his new master... wtf ?).

Do not underestimate the power of the Dark Side.

Re:If that's what it means to be a geek...

[Doctor_Jest]

WELL put! Although I wasn't as put off as you on the 3rd movie (I enjoyed it a bit better than ATOC), I echo the sentiment. I think the pacing problem was Lucas' inability to show sufficient time passing in the movie... don't know why.

The prequels were for kids, no doubt about it. And all these whiners who are talking about how Lucas raped their childhood (and so on) are forgetting one important thing... they were KIDS when they saw the first trilogy. The only problem with the 2nd set of movies is that after the first Trilogy, everyone and his sister tried to re-capture the model Lucas used to achieve blockbuster status. There have been DECADES of also-rans, improvements, and the entire hollywood system has morphed into the "blockbuster channel" (with some Oscar stuff thrown in like sprinkles on a sundae). Before A New Hope there wasn't much in the way of epic Space Opera storytelling (the storyline was pretty standard and had been done to death in books before and in movies/games/books since), now with the likes of Terminator, Alien, etc. we have been accustomed to the epic blockbuster sci-fi movie. The new Trilogy from Lucas did not open in the same atmosphere as ANH did.

I for one enjoyed the movies for what they were... another trip into the Star Wars universe. I didn't expect Shakespeare, nor did I expect Oscar quality acting (let's face it, Mark Hamill was a whiny bitch in the first movies...) I just wanted a fun ride with awesome effects that let us know how it all started. Was it perfect? Far from it. But then again, if we are honest with ourselves, neither was the first Trilogy.

Re:If that's what it means to be a geek...

[Anonymous Coward]

Why didn't he just give him a dark side lollipop to turn him evil in the first episode, when nobody suspected he was a Sith Lord then?

Re:If that's what it means to be a geek...

[Anonymous Coward]

Seriously, if a Movie wounded your inner child and destroyed your hopes and dreams, you had a very sad life.

Without naming names or anything, I went to USC film school in the late 90s, and many, many of my friends, roommates and classmates had chosen their future profession primarily on how much they had been affected by watching Lucas's original Star Wars films. Those films were very inspiring, they made you want to make movies yourself. They proved that you could make a great film that was entertaining, thematically rich, use a big budget to your advantage, and make a lot of money doing it.

I'm not going to say that TPM was some sort of shattering experience or anything, but I seem to recall the whole tone of the critical dialogue over big budget action movies began to shift, starting with this film, Titanic, Starship Troopers, Men in Black etc. In short, I think what started to happen was people like Lucas, Spielberg and Cameron around this time began to internalize their contempt for the audience. With Lucas in particular you can see this working itself out in TPM-- he has no desire to make a remotely good movie on its own merit, one wonders if he even considers it a possibility. It's clear that even he thinks Star Wars is kinda dumb at this point, and he doesn't seem to be as concerened with high-quality entertainment as much as he is with creating the functional component of a marketing platform. Now, I'm not talking about the mythology of Star Wars here, or the Force, or if Greedo shot first or any of that shit; I'm talking about what Star Wars (or Raiders, or Gremlins, or all those other shows the review mentions) said about the potential for film as a medium to entertain and inspire.

For people who grew up with his original movies, and thought they showed how someone with creative vision could make a kick-ass movie that pleased basically everyone and made a lot of money, this is pretty demoralizing, because even Lucas, someone who's extremely independent, vastly wealthy and doesn't have to please anyone, seems to be admitting defeat. Now Hollywood doesn't really do good fantasy films anymore; we get obvious, dumb, soulless CGI fests like "Avatar," which is more of a carnival ride, or arch, cynical Wes Anderson movies. The only pleasures in watching a film nowadays are guilty ones, and the budgets spent on these movies that people admit from the outset are mediocre are stupendous, while really good stories remain unproduced.

Oh well, it's not really anyone's fault, it's natural that Lucas would have begun to hate his creation. Why he'd make three movies illustrating how and why he hated his creation is of course more curious. And now that people see that you can make a lot of money giving your audience the finger, I imagine the trend will continue until its natural culmination.

d46345aa360c9e250bba02b4bf1601fae0437d75

Re:If that's what it means to be a geek...

[BobMcD]

Why didn't he just give him a dark side lollipop to turn him evil in the first episode, when nobody suspected he was a Sith Lord then?

Because then he wouldn't have had the experience of being a general in a galactic civil war, nor Jedi training, nor any of the useful skills he picked up by allowing your enemies to train him. He also wouldn't have had much in the way of leverage, and if you know much about the Sith they're always trying to kill each other. The last damn thing you want is an unstable kid more powerful than you are being told it is okay to kill stuff with the Force. Let your enemies have that security risk until you gain some leverage over him.

Or that's how it WOULD have gone, had I written it. :) Lucas would probably say something involving Gungans and microbes.

Re:If that's what it means to be a geek...

[Anonymous Coward]

THANK YOU! In one scene, sure, he's got some anger issues, but he's not pissy all the time.

The next scene, he's slaughtering children at the Jedi school.

RLY?

I think a big part of the problem isn't that "I saw the first three when I was a child", the problem is "I wrote the back story in my head from all the clues in the first three, AND MY STORY WAS BETTER!" There were bits and pieces of I, II, and III that were ok, but for the most part I couldn't believe what was done to the story. It had such promise.

My son enjoyed I and II (we haven't watched III together yet...he was too young, imo, to deal with the fight scene at the end). I wish I could, but they were horribly botched.

I've actually considered writing a story the way I thought it should've been, but I have more important things to do (like read these posts). ;)

Re:If that's what it means to be a geek...

[Anonymous Coward]

Soon to be released: Star Wars 0: A Sad Hope. In this installment, you discover that Mitochondrians are really escaped bioengineered special effects processors that feed on dialogue, siphoning it from the brain of their hosts. The stronger the Force, the weaker the dialogue -- but you get the flashy effects popping up wherever the Force is used. It was meant to be the next great thing in Force Feedback gaming. Unfortunately, the feedback was all negative, so they scrapped the project.

In Star Wars 0, you first meet our hero, Biff Slywalker, dumpster diving behind the testing lab of Taco Bell Pharmaceuticals....

Re:If that's what it means to be a geek...

[Yvanhoe]

Maybe it is a bad moment to mention all the fan-fiction I wrote while in denial ?

Re:If that's what it means to be a geek...

[effigiate]

I wish I had mod points for this comment, it is exactly as I feel. I didn't go in to the new Star Wars movies expecting them to be cinematic greatness, I just wanted another peek inside. I got what I wanted and I don't feel bad about them one bit.

Re:If that's what it means to be a geek...

[bckrispi]

THANK YOU! In one scene, sure, he's got some anger issues, but he's not pissy all the time. The next scene, he's slaughtering children at the Jedi school.

Perhaps I should just chalk this up as being part of the limited attention-span ADHD generation, but you really weren't paying attention, were you? First, he murders an entire tribe of Tusken Raiders (women and children included). Then he executes a (literaly) unarmed Count Dooku. Then, he winds up impulsively betraying and helping to kill the senior (motherf&*$ing) member of the Jedi Council. With all of his friends betrayed and noone else to turn to, he goes to Sidious, and is then given the order to raze the Jedi temple.

There are certainly things to criticize about the Prequels. But the argument that "one minute he's podracing, the next he's killing children" is a flat premise at best.

Re:If that's what it means to be a geek...

[TheRaven64]

You got the ordering a bit wrong. He killed Dooku first, under orders from Palpatine. This makes sense, because he (probably correctly) thinks more people will die if he doesn't, so he's acting to help people and under orders from the head of the Republic (who he doesn't yet know is a Sith). Killing the unarmed Tuskens happens just after he's found that they tortured his mother to death. Given that Jedi can feel other people's pain through the force, this isn't particularly surprising and he feels guilty about it afterwards. He doesn't intentionally help kill Windu, he just decided that Palpatine should stand trial, not be killed out of hand (maybe he learned something from killing Dooku) and Palpatine (who he thinks is too weak to do anything) suddenly kills Windu.

Then, suddenly, he goes and slaughters lots of children. Apparently the jump from 'Palpatine shouldn't be summarily executed by the Jedi without standing trial' to 'all of the Jedi, including the children, deserve to die' is a small one.

Re:If that's what it means to be a geek...

[bckrispi]

No, my ordering is correct. He killed the Tuskens in Attack of the Clones - a full movie before he killed Dooku. Sure, you can argue that he killed Dooku on Palpatine's orders - or you can say that Palpatine simply gave Anakin "permission" do to what he had already decided he wanted to do: take revenge. Palpatine even used revenge as a way of "justifying" why Anakin wanted to kill Dooku, just has he justified killing Tuskens in revenge for his mother's death. And remember - Anakin admitted to killing Tusken children in his rage. Even as he wept through his guilt, he tried to justify it by saying "They're animals. And I slaughtered them like animals!" No, he didn't rush to Palpatine's office with the intent to kill Windu, but that was what happened. It wasn't planned, but again, he was able to justify it ("The Jedi are relentless. If they are not stopped, it will be civil war without end!").

There is no coincidence that when Windu said "He's too dangerous to be left alive!", he is saying, word for word, what Palpatine told him before he murdered Dooku. And what does this tell Anakin? It tells him that Palpatine was right! The Jedi and Sith are nearly identical. The "stand trial" bit was just Anakin trying to rationalize why Windu should spare him. Anakin didn't care about a trial! He cared because the only person in the galaxy whom he thought could save his wife was about to be eviscerated.

Now, up until this point, Anakin had the choice to turn back! But once he swore his fealty to Sidious, he signed his Deal with the Devil. He knows what he's told to do is wrong, but he does it anyway. What difference does it make? He murdered children before. How hard could it be to do it again?

Re:If that's what it means to be a geek...

[Anonymous Coward]

"The prequels were for kids, no doubt about it."

Turmoil has engulfed the Galactic Republic. The taxation of trade routes to outlaying star systems is in dispute. Hoping to resolve the matter with a blockade of deadly battleships, the greedy Trade Federation has stopped all shipping to the small planet of Naboo.

PALPATINE : Supreme Chancellor, delegates of the Senate. A tragedy has occured on our peaceful system of Naboo. We have become caugt in a dispute you're all well aware of, which began right here with the taxation of traderoutes, and has now engulfed our entire planet in the oppresion of the Trade Federation.

PALPATINE : Enter the bureaucrats, the true rulers of the Republic, and on the payroll of the Trade Federation, I might add. This is where Chancellor
Valorum's strength will dissapear.

VALORUM : The point is conceded...Section 523A take precedence here. Queen Amidala of the Naboo, will you defer your motion to allow a commission to explore the validity of your accusations?

AMIDALA : (angrily) I will not defer...I have come before you to resolve this attack on our sovereignty now. I was not elected to watch my people suffer and die while you discuss this invasion in a committee. If this body is not capable of action, I suggest new leadership is needed. I move for a vote of no confidence...in Chancellor Valorum's leadership.

VALORUM : What?...No!

MAS AMEDDA : Order! We shall have order...

BAIL ORGANA : Alderaan seconds the motion for a vote of no confidence in Chancellor Valorum.

MAD AMEDDA : The motion has been seconded by Bail Organa of Alderaan.

BAIL ORGANA : There must be no delays. The motion is on the floor and must be voted upon in this session.

LOTT DOD : The Trade Federation moves the motion be sent to the procedures committee for study.

And on and on...

Oh yeah, the kids gotta love this stuff!

Re:If that's what it means to be a geek...

[hitmark]

or maybe lucas had a hard time getting people to pick up of the mental issues anakin was having?

basically, he started training as a jedi late (yoda and the rest of the council worried).

he showed raw power that some gossiped could outdo yoda.

while the jedi code forbade family or other ties (to avoid negative emotions), he was in love with padme, and his mother got killed by sandpeople (one thing that never showed up in the movies).

all this time his ego is going thru the roof, but is snubbed the title of jedi knight.

then palpatine starts his mind games on the kid (as i suspect he was very much a kid mentally), playing on his fear of loosing padme and his ego (planting the idea that the council was holding him back from fear of his potential).

in essence, its a expanded version of "the road to hell is paved with good intentions". And also a case of teens/20-something people thinking they cant do wrong, are invincible or cant die.

this is all a whole lot of stuff to cram into 2 hours, without having some kind of continual inner voice spelling out each thought anakin is having about a situation. And is not unlike the problem faced when dune was turning into a movie back in 1984.

Re:If that's what it means to be a geek...

[frenchgates]

Not to mention the impossibility of the average kid (or adult for that matter) parsing the phrase "phantom menace."

Re:If that's what it means to be a geek...

[frenchgates]

Mod this up please.

Re:If that's what it means to be a geek...

[Doctor_Jest]

You obviously don't remember a child's capacity to tune out boring and tune in when there are explosions....

Re:If that's what it means to be a geek...

[captjc]

and his mother got killed by sandpeople (one thing that never showed up in the movies).

I am pretty sure that was in Attack of the Clones. Mommy dies and he goes apeshit and murders them all.

Different Audience

[ATestR]

Sure, TPM was lame when compared to the original Star Wars trilogy, but it was never meant to please the audience of the original films. Its primary target was the little kids... progeny of the original audience. Agreed, Lucas could have achieved this with a film of the caliber of the originals, but I suspect that at that point he didn't really care to go to the effort.

Re:Different Audience

[Anonymous Coward]

As a kid in the early 90s I loved the original trilogy. From my PoV, there was no need to simplify the method further for children.

When I watched the full seven parts a few days ago I thought the first three parts (or there about) had the most professional critiques of TPM while the following four dug into what was systematically wrong with how Lucas made it. I agreed with nearly everything the narrator points out and am among the many who thinks the series would have been better off if the new three were never filmed.

Re:Different Audience

[maxume]

The original films aren't all that good. They are enjoyable and have some outstanding moments, but they aren't 'of a caliber'.

Re:Different Audience

[larry bagina]

if Lucas had the budget and technology to make the films he wanted, they probably would have been a lot worse.

Re:Different Audience

[maxume]

Yes.

Re:Different Audience

[BatGnat]

Blasphemer! Kill the Heretic!! Stone Him!!!

Re:Different Audience

[Captain Fallout]

Sure, TPM was lame when compared to the original Star Wars trilogy, but it was never meant to please the audience of the original films. Its primary target was the little kids... progeny of the original audience.

That point is addressed in one of the later clips. If this movie is made for little kids, then why make it so complicated in regards to trade disputes, political arguments in the galactic senate and the machinations of someone trying to take power.

Re:Different Audience

[Anonymous Coward]

Indeed.

Re:Different Audience

[Anonymous Coward]

Star Wars was for children because it was about a teenage hero who teamed up with a mysterious old wizard and a swarthy space pirate to rescue a princess, battle an evil knight dressed in black armor, and destroy the Death Star.

TPM was for children because it was about galactic teamsters strike negotiations, interspersed with with CSPAN footage of a senate sub-committee debate on interplanetary tariffs. If the Jedi don't foil Senator Palpatine's evil plan in time, he will be elected to a Senate sub-committee chair! The video game probably expands on this theme by including lots of exciting amendments and cloture votes, because kids love that stuff.

Re:Different Audience

[operagost]

"Of a caliber" is a statement of comparison. Neither Ladas nor Yugos are good cars, but you can still say that Yugos were not of the same caliber as a Lada, because a Lada is crappy but better.

Re:Different Audience

[maxume]

Yes, I understand, I was bending it a little bit to imply that the original 3 movies aren't really a standard against which anything should be compared.

(The comparison is entirely possible, it just doesn't accomplish much)

Re:Different Audience

[nine-times]

Right, and that's part of the sad thing-- that it seems that Lucas must have thought he was doing something subtle, sophisticated, and interesting.

But I also bristle at the defense of "Oh, it's not supposed to be good. It's supposed to be for kids!" There's a good chance that if my kids are watching a movie, I'll get stuck watching it too, so please make it good. Besides that, why shouldn't we expect children's entertainment to be good? If you're constantly sitting your kids down in front of stupid movies, I expect you're more likely to end up with stupid kids. No thanks.

As some people have shown (e.g. Pixar) it's perfectly possible to come up with child-appropriate entertainment that's also well made and thoughtful. We shouldn't just let our kids watch whichever movies they're willing to watch. Or more generally, we shouldn't accept that something is sufficiently good for children because the children themselves are willing to accept it. Left to their own devices, your kids might well live on a diet of sugar, hotdogs, and butter.

Re:Different Audience

[supersloshy]

Because the kids would only be there for Jarjar and lightsaber fights; everything else just goes in one ear and out the other (believe me, I'm a victim of this too).

Re:Different Audience

[Hognoxious]

Its primary target was the little kids... progeny of the original audience.

Both of them?

Re:Different Audience

[Anarchduke]

That is very true. Take the movie Jaws. The whole reason the first movie had so much suspense was that the animatronic shark wasn't working right, so they had to shoot the movie without it. If it had worked, then we would have gotten a much worse movie. The limitations forced Jaws to become clever in an attempt to scare people, and it worked.

Re:Different Audience

[roc97007]

It just occurred to me that the same description applies to later Star Trek. (Excluding the most recent film.) It's like any franchise, if it lasts long enough, naturally devolves from swashbuckling adventure to dry, conference-room discussions of treaty negotiations. I wonder why that is.

Re:Different Audience

[roc97007]

> But I also bristle at the defense of "Oh, it's not supposed to be good. It's supposed to be for kids!"

My kid hated TPM and had to be bribed into going with me to Eps II and III, which I subsequently had to apologize for. I kept expecting the films to get better, and they never did.

Re:Different Audience

[zmollusc]

Where is the 'Depressingly close to the truth' moderation?

Re:Different Audience

[deek]

Maybe Lucas wanted to throw in some sophistication for the more mature members of the audience. Unfortunately, he then created a character like Jar-Jar, a complete offence to most people beyond the age of 8. Alas, it was a movie that tried to please too many, and thus pleased too little.

Re:Different Audience

[Anonymous Coward]

L. M. F. A. O. !!!

Re:Different Audience

[hitmark]

heh, i must confess, i never understood this out and out hatred vs jar-jar.

but then i watched the movies subtitled, so i avoided the need to try and make sense of this "accent".

Re:Different Audience

[axl917]

Just because it was too complicated fro you doesn't mean it would be for a kid.

It was impossible

[Anonymous Coward]

To listen to this review for more than two minutes.

I was hoping that the monotonous and almost comically distorted voice-over was somehow a parody, but then it kept going on and on and on...

My advice is to take the hot potato out of your mouth on the next film.

Re:It was impossible

[gbarules2999]

I can never understand this. It wasn't that bad, and became the punchline of several very amusing jokes later in the review.

Re:It was impossible

[Anonymous Coward]

Hahaha, are you telling me his voice *wasn't* a parody? I only watched for 30 seconds and realized I didn't have the time to see it all right now, but thanks, now I know I can totally forget about this thing.

Re:It was impossible

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm pretty sure he was deliberately doing a Buffalo Bill (from Silence of the Lambs) impersonation to go with the serial killer schitck.

Re:It was impossible

[ucblockhead]

Yes, I am sure that it isn't all meant to be funny, and he also really does have a hooker tied up in his basement.

Re:It was impossible

[Bryan Ischo]

I agree with you; however, I watched the whole thing, and I am glad that I did. It was quite insightful and interesting. It had some amount of stupid psycho killer stuff in there too, and much of the time, I wished I could read it instead of listen to it (or at least hear it narrated by someone not so painful to listen to), but nonetheless, the content was so excellent, that it was worth it.

Han shot first!

[burtosis]

IMHO the decline into craptacularism and lowered expectations started with the re-release of an otherwise good film.

Re:Han shot first!

[Hawthorne01]

A-yup. The Special Editions were Lucas deciding that he knew better than all the other people he collaborated with to make the original releases.

I beg to differ

[wizardforce]

seventy minute analysis of this mother of all train wrecks.

You seem to have forgotten about the Star Wars Christmas special. The review its self is just too long... 70 minutes of video to review a 10 year old movie is a bit much.

Re:I beg to differ

[BatGnat]

hey that's longer than scary movie 4

Re:I beg to differ

[kungfugleek]

Remember, remember the 17th November,
The Holiday Special and plot,
I see no reason
The Star Wars Life Day treason
Should ever be forgot.

Re:I beg to differ

[Itninja]

I thought that too. I bet the whole thing is just his thesis for film school.

I actually liked TPM

[Anonymous Coward]

1) The Pod Race is really cool over a six pack.
2) The Gungan fight is awesome.

Who cares about the rest?

Re:I actually liked TPM

[left00coaster]

Whew, I guess beer goggles really can affect one's sense of perspective . . .

Jar^2

[TBoon]

Jar Jar wouldn't have been so bad, if he had gotten way less screen time. Sure he's a "breakthrough in technology"...hmmm... actually that seems to summarize everything wrong with that movie... It's there because it's possible (and/or have never been done before), not because the story needs it to be there...

Re:Jar^2

[Le Marteau]

Interesting that this reviewer barely mentioned Jar Jar. I expected him to really launch into him. Showed him in a couple of scenes, and called him a 'rabbit' but beyond that, I guess the reviewer figured, "too easy".

Re:Jar^2

[Tablizer]

Mod me to heck, but Jar Jar made me chuckle. The forced worked through (channeled) his clumsiness, which is a rarely-used plot device, making it refreshing. Sure, Shaggy and Scooby "solved" crimes by clumsiness, but it was just lucky accidents (as far as the audience knows), not supernatural assistance.

It kind of reminds me of speculation that the future is saving itself from the LHC by making a bird poop on just the right spot. And the fact that those around Binks seem to mostly ignore his clumsiness makes it even more funny. They may waver an eyebrow or two, but otherwise go about their business with a serious face.
 

Re:Jar^2

[Quiet_Desperation]

Meh... the character was just too much of a jackass, and the voice was grating and incomprehensible at best. A more Arthur Dent-like character would have worked- someone just flat out lost but doing his best to deal with cosmic events way over his head. Like when Dent locks up the ship's computer trying to make tea. It was a disaster, but stemming from an honest mistake.

Re:Jar^2

[Tablizer]

voice was grating and incomprehensible at best.

My son and I imitate J^2's voice style all the time. To each his own, but I find it a fun and funny character, kind of like a stoned Kermit with taffy-like limbs, ears, and tongue. One expects the universe to have plenty of strange and stupid creatures. Perhaps by alien standards, us humans are really odd. Male gonads gotta be quite the silly sight for aliens with well-packed giblets, for example.
   

Re:Jar^2

[Anonymous Coward]

Who Framed Roger Rabbit had a more believable cartoon animal than Jar-Jar.

Re:Jar^2

[cryptoluddite]

Jar Jar wouldn't have been so bad, if he had gotten way less screen time.

The biggest problem with Jar Jar is that he talked English. His equivalent in the original movies, Chewie, talked but only in another language so we didn't have to actually hear his dialog. Instead we get to use our imagination to fill that in (not relevant to the story) with whatever stupid or smart dialog we can imagine. It brings some of the imagination element of books to the movies.

And no, C3PO is not really comic relief or the equivalent of Jar-jar, he's a prophet / a fate. Just about everything he says comes true later on in the movie. He prepares us for what's coming so we can focus on what's important.

Re:Jar^2

[Cro Magnon]

For the most part, I thought JarJar sucked, but I did get a half-chuckle/half-incredulous stare out of the fight between the Gungans and the droid army. To this day, I can't believe that that Gungan tossed that explosive device to the idiot who got banished for his clumsiness.

Re:Jar^2

[ucblockhead]

See, this is why I love slashdot. Someone points to an hour long evisceration of a movie, and someone immediately pops up with a comment that says that something that wasn't particularly complained about "isn't so bad" and gets rated 5 for it.

Re:Jar^2

[bckrispi]

Agreed. I had TPM on DVD for about a year before I got my first big-screen TV, and it made all the difference. The Battle of Naboo is actually really freaking intense... so long as you keep your focus off Jar-Jar who appears at the center of every frame. I mean, in RotJ, you had comic relief teddy-bears, but there was at least a moment where the comedy was broken to see an Ewok getting blown to bits.

Re:Jar^2

[Quiet_Desperation]

I've been known to do Jar jar voice, but but only ironically. ;-)

One expects the universe to have plenty of strange and stupid creatures.

That's nice. One might also desire fictional films, entirely created by humans for humans, not to have the stupid and grating ones as main characters.

[TWIKI VOICE]Bede bede bede bede, annoying characters are, at the end of the day, annoying, Buck.[/TWIKI VOICE]

Character

[Anonymous Coward]

In the first couple installments, he attacks the lack of real characters in the prequels. However, while the people in the video stare blankly when asked about Amidala, my wife was able to give some legitimate answers (devoted to her people, proactive, not willing to sit around, wants to be in the action). So some of it is strawman. But for the most part, dead on. And hilarious.

SWHS?

[Monkeedude1212]

I still haven't seen the Holiday Special, but I've heard from a very reliable source that it is so terrible that there are no words in any language on Earth that sufficiently describe it.

Re:SWHS?

[Anonymous Coward]

I still haven't seen the Holiday Special, but I've heard from a very reliable source that it is so terrible that there are no words in any language on Earth that sufficiently describe it.

Actually all the salient details can be summarised by "Chewy has a son called Lumpy".

Re:SWHS?

[Brett Buck]

It was terrible, but it wasn't even the worst Christmas special that year! That distinction goes to Shields and Yarnell at Disneyworld. Mimes, for God's sake!

      Brett

Re:SWHS?

[Anonymous Coward]

As a fan of star wars you should nevertheless try to get a hand on it .... the kitchen scene reminds me of a futurama episode (which seems to cite that part of swhs imho) where bender watches a cooking show and tries to cook a dinner for his friends ....

on the other side, hearing the wookie "language" for nearly 90 minutes with only a few interruptions when luke talks .... *shudder* i don't want to remember that

Re:SWHS?

[Enderandrew]

I honestly couldn't bring myself to watch the whole thing. I've yet to speak to a die hard Star Wars fan who has watched the whole thing. It really is that bad.

Re:SWHS?

[Pop69]

Belgium man, Belgium !

Re:SWHS?

[Anonymous Coward]

I sat through the whole Holiday special, which turns out is actually a Thanksgiving special. I kept thinking something worthwhile was going to happen, then Leia started to sing....Its on google video, the best parts are the vintage ads!

Re:SWHS?

[Rary]

I honestly couldn't bring myself to watch the whole thing. I've yet to speak to a die hard Star Wars fan who has watched the whole thing. It really is that bad.

I sat through it, in its entirety, with a couple other people.

What I have not been able to do is sit through it a second time, even though I have managed to sit through all of the prequels a second time. That's how bad it is.

Re:SWHS?

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh, what a sob story. [tiny violin]

You are forgetting those of us who were kids then. It was a time when "special effects" in science fiction consisted of cheap plastic models with fireworks and sparklers stuffed in them, and laser shots were hand-drawn onto the film. Good science fiction was a rarity, and if the story was good the effects that went with it were often very, very poor indeed. There was none of this fancy CGI stuff that today gives you some eye candy to admire even if the story sucks. And, oh, you should have seen some of the awful, forgotten spin-off movies that Hollywood spewed out once they realized, thanks to Star Wars, that there might be some money in this science fiction stuff after all.

I'm talking about people who were old enough to have gone to Star Wars Ep IV when it was first released in the theatres. Then, after weeks of anticipation built up by the advertising, and after weeks of begging our parents to "stay up late" to 10pm, we also watched the holiday special on TV. It seemed like a duty after going to the theatre so many times in a row. The special was viewed with none of this mamby-pamby "torrent" or "youtube" nonsense where you can pause at will in between the gasps of horror, laughter, and gagging on your food. I'm talking actual cathode-ray-tube, over-the-air TV signals where you *had* to sit through the commercials -- an ancient time when the whole family would be huddled around the glow of that tiny, solitary TV in the house. When it was all over, you could collectively say together: "That was it?" and feel embarrassed to be so duped by the hype.

Talking to people of that era is kind of like the science fiction equivalent of talking to battle-scarred veterans. They've seen so much glory and horror.

When The Phantom Menace sucked so badly that, I swear, the air pressure in the theatre caused my ears to pop, I almost felt nostalgic about it. Oh, it was all gussied up with newfangled CGI, but *this* was the cheesy, cringe-worthy science fiction I remember!

So, grow some guts and watch all of it, ya yellow-bellied maggot! And on Nov. 17th every year, please remember the many sacrifices made by science fiction fans before you.

Re:SWHS?

[Anonymous Coward]

And just how do you think those two lost their ability to speak?

Re:SWHS?

[Anonymous Coward]

I still haven't seen the Holiday Special, but I've heard from a very reliable source that it is so terrible that there are no words in any language on Earth that sufficiently describe it.

"Echuta!!"

Re:SWHS?

[Tetsujin]

And just how do you think those two lost their ability to speak?

They visited the Haunted Mansion, where an eerie supernatural presence mystically stole their voices, converted them to crude racial stereotypes, and trapped them in a pair of animatronic birds in the Tiki Room!

Re:SWHS?

[Enderandrew]

My wife had never seen Wrath of Khan before. Last night we rectified that. I was honestly worried that she wouldn't sit through the film, because of the pacing. Wrath of Khan is a slow developing character piece wrapped in the trappings of sci-fi blockbuster.

I really wonder if a film like that can be made today with a sizable budget.

The latest Harry Potter was editted pretty tight, rushed, and they felt the need to add an extra attack sequence that wasn't in the books. The best parts were the scenes in between because the principle actors have such good chemistry with each other at this point. But I fear Hollywood would never allow a major film to hinge on such moments.

As for the glory days of sci-fi, I find it sad that Flash Gordon and Buck Rogers are far more famous than The Twilight Zone. Not everything that came before was all that great. But as you said, when you only had a few stations, no cable, no internet, you took what you can get.

You would think in era of ten million choices, competition would make everything better. Yet cat videos and stupid memes gather more attention that quality entertainment. I don't get it at all.

Re:SWHS?

[Tetsujin]

Oh, what a sob story. [tiny violin]

You are forgetting those of us who were kids then. It was a time when "special effects" in science fiction consisted of cheap plastic models with fireworks and sparklers stuffed in them

Cheap? Plastic? Huff-huff and guffaw, good sir! You speak as if you know nothing of the special effects models of that era.

Most of them would have been wooden, most likely... "Cheap" certainly varied depending on the production... But I wouldn't say the original Starship Enterprise models were "cheap" by any means. The main one was huge - 11 feet long. And while it's true there was a lot of crap and even the good stuff wasn't always that great, they did some impressive work...

Re:SWHS?

[Tetsujin]

I still haven't seen the Holiday Special, but I've heard from a very reliable source that it is so terrible that there are no words in any language on Earth that sufficiently describe it.

"Echuta!!"

Poodoo!

Re:SWHS?

[Anonymous Coward]

You are quite right that the first Star Trek movie was indeed an exception. The largest of the models they used was fricking huge, and the subsequent movies didn't live up to the first one in terms of craftsmanship of the model, in my opinion. It was an impressive work of model and film art.

You are right that the amount of effort sometimes dedicated to model building and their filming was amazing. But for every Star Trek, Star Wars, and 2001: A Space Odyssey ("glory"), there were many less accomplished films. Let me see... what can I dredge up? I know. How about this one? The horror.

It was a truly special film of that era that could compare to what is routinely seen in terms of special effects even on TV these days (e.g., BSG). This is not to diminish the impressive and dedicated efforts of the people putting together the special effects with traditional means back in the 1970s, but to point out that modern science fiction viewers have it easy in terms of making the leap across the "plausibility gap".

Say what you like about The Phantom Menace, but at least while suffering through the story the special effects weren't bad too.

Re:SWHS?

[hazem]

What I have not been able to do is sit through it a second time, even though I have managed to sit through all of the prequels a second time. That's how bad it is.

I once gave a copy of it to a friend of mine who was in a fraternity. They decided that it would be great hazing to make the pledges watch it. I don't know if they really went through with it, but I imagine the pledges would much rather have eaten live goldfish, had sex with goats, or any of the "normal" fraternity stuff.

As for me, I remember being a kid and excited about the Star Wars Holiday special, but I don't remember actually seeing it. Having seen it as an adult leaves me sad that there is no bleach strong enough to scour the memory of it from my mind. I am forever altered.

Re:SWHS?

[Svartormr]

Well, at least now with TSA on the job, you can bet they'll never board that plane and someone will make them talk!

It's actually a pity ...

[tonk]

... that after Return of the Jedi, no more Star Wars movies were ever made.

Re:It's actually a pity ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Even ROTJ was showing major cracks compared with the previous two.
 
It's funny, though, that the author mentions not seeing #2 and #3 as I shared that reaction, but it seems like pretty much every one else was like "Oh, this is shit.... Let's go pay $11 to watch the next one!" I could understand that attitude among the general populace (e.g., Transformers 2, Fast and Furious Ad Nauseum, etc.), but geeks are supposed to be pickier and smarter than that.

Re:It's actually a pity ...

[jlmale0]

Funny, but you really needed the link: http://xkcd.com/566/

Re:It's actually a pity ...

[MightyMartian]

The thing is that, for a lot of us, Star Wars holds a rather special and pre-emptive place in our imaginations. I was five years old when Episode IV came out, and it defined a lot of my childhood. We hard Star Wars figures, fought endless light saber battles with sticks or vacuum cleaner extenders, lusted over the Millenium Falcon model or friends had. In a way, Lucas has us by the scrotum.

But my tolerance ended with The Clone Wars. When I saw the previews and saw the horrible animation, and realized the thing was just a tie-in to a kids cartoon and even more merchandising, that was it. I lost all interest. The Ewoks and Jar-Jar were managable attrocities, but this was just pure shit.

Re:It's actually a pity ...

[EvanED]

Actually, in comparison to the prequel trilogy (at least I & II), the Clone Wars cartoons are actually... surprisingly decent.

Re:It's actually a pity ...

[Anonymous Coward]

... that after the Emire Stirkes Back, no more Star Wars movies were ever made.

Fixed that for you. I can't believe you're actually putting the awful Rancor monster, Sarlac pit, and the Ewoks over JarJar and a whiny little brat. Imho, Ep1 was better than Ep6 (and I'm not saying Ep6 was a bad movie).

Granted all of the new movies each had at least three gratuitous video game scenes, but overall the prequels were still some of the best scifi+action+adventure movies of the last decade. They're certainly better than the Harry Potter series. And granted, there were much better scifi movies (e.g. Donnie Darko and Serenity), and much better adventure movies (e.g. Gladiator, LotR), and I don't think the prequels are even in the top 50 of the decade, but they're still good movies. I suspect people only rate Ep6 higher because of our nostalgia for the original cast, because after having watched them all on DVD I promise you the prequels are better than Ep6.

The real problem is: we all grew up over the past 2-3 decades and forgot how to appreciate the genre. That and we had such high expectations for what the movies could have been that we felt personal injury when they weren't top 20 of all time movies.

Re:It's actually a pity ...

[Anonymous Coward]

"but geeks are supposed to be pickier and smarter than that"

I don't think Ep. 1-3 were targeted at geeks. Sure there were some geeks that watched them but it was more a mainstream sci-fi action movie than anything else. Basically like Stargate Universe isn't targetted at the old Stargate audience but tries to reach the cheesy soap opera viewers.

Every "respectable" franchise apparently has to rid itself of the tarnish that are the geek fans.

Re:It's actually a pity ...

[BobNET]

It's actually a pity that after Return of the Jedi, no more Star Wars movies were ever made.

You mean there was more than one Star Wars movie?

Re:It's actually a pity ...

[Anonymous Coward]

... that after Return of the Jedi, no more Star Wars movies were ever made.

Probably for the best though...

Re:It's actually a pity ...

[Tetsujin]

It's funny, though, that the author mentions not seeing #2 and #3 as I shared that reaction, but it seems like pretty much every one else was like "Oh, this is shit.... Let's go pay $11 to watch the next one!"

Heh... Yeah, I didn't escape that trap. It went something like this...

"Hey, let's go watch "Episode 1"! Those Special Editions really got me all excited and now there's gonna be an all-new Star Wars movie for the first time in 16 years! Isn't that cool?"

(George Lucas personally enters the theater, kicks each audience member squarely and firmly in the crotch, and leaves)

"Aw, damn, that hurt... Three years later and it still hurts. Well, I guess we should give episode 2 a chance, right? They say it's a lot better, and Jar-Jar barely talks in it at all... It's got to be better, right?"

(George Lucas again kicks each audience member in the crotch)

"Damn it, no more! Oh, come on, you say this time it's gonna be different? Yeah, I heard that one before... I mean, "Clone Wars" was fun but there's no way "Revenge of the Sith" is gonna be a better movie than the other prequels... What? You promise this time? It really is gonna be as good as the old Star Wars movies? You don't mean "Jedi", do you? Oh, you mean "Empire"! And you're going to tell us the exciting story of Darth Vader's origin, and explain how he became evil, and how the Jedi died, and it's going to be ABSOLUTELY THE LAST STAR WARS MOVIE EVER so we'd better not miss it? Well, that's different, let's go then"

(BAM, another nut shot...)

I did avoid Transformers 2, at least... I should have known to avoid Transformers 1 and "Star Trek" as well... But if you don't go see the movie how do you really know you don't like it? Right?

Re:It's actually a pity ...

[Tetsujin]

Actually, in comparison to the prequel trilogy (at least I & II), the Clone Wars cartoons are actually... surprisingly decent.

Are you talking about the Genndy Tartakovsky Clone Wars cartoons or the CGI-animated Clone Wars movie and TV show?

I thought MightyMartian was referring to the latter. Everybody knows Tartakovsky's Clone Wars cartoons kicked ass. And he made Shaak Ti so goddamn cute!

Re:It's actually a pity ...

[secretcurse]

And you'd think The Matrix could've gotten a sequel or two. Too bad that never happened...

Re:It's actually a pity ...

[EvanED]

Oh, I didn't realize there were two. I was talking about Tartakovsky's, and I haven't seen the 3D one.

Re:It's actually a pity ...

[bckrispi]

But my tolerance ended with The Clone Wars. When I saw the previews and saw the horrible animation, and realized the thing was just a tie-in to a kids cartoon and even more merchandising, that was it.

So you're basing your condemnation... on the previews?

Re:It's actually a pity ...

[wylderide]

Yep. There are two. Star Wars and Empire Strikes Back. It ends in an odd place, but at least there's no dismal followups or, worse yet prequels, to ruin the story.

Re:It's actually a pity ...

[ckimyt]

... that after The Empire Strikes Back, no more Star Wars movies were ever made.

There, FTFY.

Re:It's actually a pity ...

[coaxial]

I agree the Clone Wars series and Genndy Tartakovsky ("Dexter's Lab, "Powerpuff Girls," "Samurai Jack") 's Clone War's "microseries" are great. They're nice stories, with people getting shot and killed, and lines like, "It's alright sir. We're clones. We're meant to be expendable."

Honestly, I think what makes them good, is that Lucas's involvement is limited to cashing the checks.

Re:It's actually a pity ...

[MightyMartian]

So you're basing your condemnation... on the previews?

Does the animation get better in the full length feature?

Re:It's actually a pity ...

[Anonymous Coward]

And granted, there were much better scifi movies (e.g. Donnie Darko and Serenity)

But in fairness to Lucas, He didn't brutally kill off favorite characters. Han Solo wasn't pointless murdered for the sake of shocking the audience. (Ok, Samuel L Jackson but that is a discussion for another day.) Serenity had a habit of doing that.

Box Office

[Dan East]

Of course this doesn't directly correlate to the "crappiness" of the movie, but Phantom Menace did just shy of $1 billion in worldwide sales, and it is currently the #10 top grossing movie of all time (placing just below LOTR-TTT). It was the #2 top grossing film of all time until the first Harry Potter movie came out in 2001.

Regardless of the hype, or the previous success of a franchise, a movie cannot be so popular without being liked or enjoyable to at least a very significant portion of the population. That seems to go against TFA's opening line of "Chances are you probably didn’t like Star Wars: Episode I The Phantom Menace."

Could Episode 1 have been better? Absolutely, in so many ways. But it was an incontrovertible success on many levels too. For me personally, various aspects of the movie was too childish (for starters).

Re:Box Office

[BatGnat]

Titanic made a shit-load of money aswell....

Re:Box Office

[dachshund]

Regardless of the hype, or the previous success of a franchise, a movie cannot be so popular without being liked or enjoyable to at least a very significant portion of the population.

Standard practice in the movie industry nowadays is to hype-hype-hype a movie and then hope that the opening week will bring in most of the profit. That ensures that if the movie sucks, they still make lots of money before word gets out. Another trick is to use a franchise that's so popular that people will go to see it even if they hear bad things from their friends. In these cases the revenue rarely correlates to the actual quality of the movie (example: Transformers ROTF).

Or to put it another way, Lucas could have released 90 minutes of people ramming their heads into walls and still made that money, provided he had some good trailers. Basically he capitalized on the fact that everyone who'd ever seen his earlier movies would want to see this one.

Granted, there are some people who really genuinely liked the movie. A lot of them being young kids, which seems to have been the real target audience of the movie;

Re:Box Office

[Anonymous Coward]

"hype-hype-hype"

This. With enough marketing you can convince people to pay for ANYTHING. Just have some well known celebrities repeat something over and over again and the general populace will take if for granted.

It's the same with video games. Newest products from major corporations like EA look nice and shiny and come with a shitload of marketing mullah, but when you objectively look at them, they are crap.

People are shit; they will believe anything that gets repeated often enough.

Re:Box Office

[Urkki]

Titanic made a shit-load of money aswell....

And do you know how much it's been watched and re-watched, especially by the femal... Oh. Never mind.

Re:Box Office

[oogoliegoogolie]

PPL saw the prequels because of two words that were in the movie title:"Star" and "Wars". Anything containing those two words will make tons of cash. Remove those two words and TFM would have grossed 10% of what it did, as most movies of that quality typically do. Lucas could do a "Star Wars-Happy Days" crossover and it would wind up being one of the top grossing movies of the year.

Re:Box Office

[Anonymous Coward]

You pay for a movie before you have a chance to see if you like it or not.

Re:Box Office

[KGBear]

I have no idea how old you are, of course. I was 13 when I saw Episode IV on the big screen. I didn't know what to expect, I didn't particularly want to go to the movies with my dad and mom that day. It's safe to say however that that movie changed my life and has a great deal of responsibility in making me who I am. I saw the movie again 12 more times during its first theater run. I borrowed money, I worked, I sold raffles, all to afford spending every minute I could watching that movie. 12 x a movie ticket is a lot of money to the average 13 yo. Then I waited 20 years. It is extremely unlikely that anyone who has gone through the original trilogy in their teens would have skipped the latest 3 based on reviews. That is why it was such a blockbuster. I, and millions like me, just *had* to see it, even if we knew it was going to suck. Others have spoken here about why the original trilogy was amazing and why the latter one sucks so I'm not going there. Except to say that IMHO Lucas tried to keep the franchise's appeal to kids while trying to give the 1978 kids some grown-up material that would appeal to the middle-aged geeks they had become. To do that requires a sort of genius that Lucas does not possess. It's possible - just look at the Phineas and Ferb show on Disney Channel. But Lucas seems incapable of dealing with adult issues, let alone bridging the required age gap. His adult themes are not grave, they are boring - trade taxes indeed! So Star Wars fails to grow up with its audience.

Re:Box Office

[Andtalath]

I can't see why a movie that seemed to be fun, that a whole lot of people already had a huge emotional investment (for a movie in) which contains elements to make kids want to see it several times (it's mostly kids who want to go several times to the cinema to see the same movie) couldn't be successful without being a decent move.

The movie is horribly poorly written, directed, it has no real characterization, it makes little sense if you do try to make sense of it and it has a bunch of other problems as well.

So, no, a movie isn't redeemed since it made a lot of money, however, the reason it's so universally reviled is JUST BECAUSE you know that that piece of crap made more money than so many jewels.
If it had failed abysmally, no-one would've cared, now, it's the highest grossing SW movie and is also easily the worst of them.

That's what's wrong with todays movie industry, the hype is what makes the movie successful in the only thing which is important to the managers, their income.

oh zing mr. lucas

[Anonymous Coward]

Welcome to Last Week, Slashdot.

Also much nerd rage and neckbeardery going on for a ten year old film. Where is the pundit who will excoriate and denigrate Citizen Kane on the YouTubes?

I was more disappointed by Return of the Jedi

[bunuel]

I think Return of the Jedi was a more disappointing movie. The change in tone in this from Empire was more drastic than the change between this and the prequels.

Re:I was more disappointed by Return of the Jedi

[Tetsujin]

I think Return of the Jedi was a more disappointing movie. The change in tone in this from Empire was more drastic than the change between this and the prequels.

I don't know, I rather like the part at Jabba's palace. The rest I don't think was as good as Empire but still good stuff. Speeder bikes, cooler Death Star battle, Jedi showdown... Maybe a bit unimaginative (another Death Star... Really?) but good times.

Did she mention Stupid?

[Anonymous Coward]

If she's so proactive why did she call for the no confidence vote so quickly, and then rush back to the planet with no plan 10 minutes later?

Stupid and quick on the draw. A hotter version of George W. Bush??

A lot of these characters are STUPID, but I don't think that's a good enough description for a redeeming movie.

Re:Did she mention Stupid?

[Minwee]

A lot of these characters are STUPID, but I don't think that's a good enough description for a redeeming movie.

That was actually the point of the movie. It's all about the downfall of the Republic, characterized by Queen Amidala's ineffectual term as Senator, and the decadence of the Jedi Order, demonstrated by how even "renegade" Qui Gon Jinn tells Obi Wan to let The Force guide him. When Qui Gon said "There's always a bigger fish" he didnt mean "It sure was lucky that a bigger fish came by", he actually means it. Throughout the entire trilogy all of the Jedi blindly stumble around hoping that The Force will do their thinking for them, and without the Sith to oppose them that approach had worked pretty well for them for a long time.

So the characters in the prequel trilogy weren't mind numbingly stupid because of sloppy writing, it was all part of a larger plan to --

Oh, forget it. I can't keep this up with a straight face. If Lucas had really explored any of those ideas in the films then he could have had something interesting. Instead all we got was a bunch of muppets.

Re:Did she mention Stupid?

[Tetsujin]

A lot of these characters are STUPID, but I don't think that's a good enough description for a redeeming movie.

That was actually the point of the movie. It's all about the downfall of the Republic, characterized by Queen Amidala's ineffectual term as Senator, and the decadence of the Jedi Order, demonstrated by how even "renegade" Qui Gon Jinn tells Obi Wan to let The Force guide him. When Qui Gon said "There's always a bigger fish" he didnt mean "It sure was lucky that a bigger fish came by", he actually means it.

I cast "summon bigger fish"!

And don't dis Muppets!

Re:Did she mention Stupid?

[virg_mattes]

If she's so proactive why did she call for the no confidence vote so quickly, and then rush back to the planet with no plan 10 minutes later?

Stupid and quick on the draw. A hotter version of George W. Bush??

A lot of these characters are STUPID, but I don't think that's a good enough description for a redeeming movie.

This isn't stupid, it's a combination of inexperience as a politician and the desire to fix what's wrong. It turned out to be right based on a lot of luck and good diplomacy on her part, but it's not unlike what happens in real life to the young politico who thinks he can change the way things work with pluck and personal effort. She called for the vote of no confidence because she was tricked into it, and she left ten minutes later because the very act of having to call for that vote made her think that there was no help for her people forthcoming from the Senate so she had to go fix it herself.

I actually found her to be refreshingly real-life in a movie stuffed with caricatures.

Virg

Re:Did she mention Stupid?

[bckrispi]

^ Also, she did have a plan when going back to Naboo. Right before she told Palpatine she was going back, she had a discussion with Jar Jar where he told her that the Gungans were "warriors" with a "grand army" who wouldn't give up without a fight. He also alluded to the possibility that the disparity in the military might between the Gungans and Naboo was the reason that the two sides didn't get along. Yes, the dialog was goofy, but it was also important. Amidala goes back to Naboo with the plan of allying with the Gungans to fight together against the Trade Federation.

Grow Up

[twistedfuck]

The prequel to the movies you saw as a child didn't live up to your expectations? Perhaps you should take a closer look at those first three movies, and maybe you will realize they are all crappy movies meant to be enjoyed by kids.

Re:Grow Up

[Anonymous Coward]

I find your lack of faith disturbing.

Re:Grow Up

[domatic]

The first three at least work as summer action/adventure movies. Sure the Ewoks were a bit hard to take in the third but these movies weren't any worse than say RoboCop or Terminator. And I'm speaking of the original un-"enhanced" versions. The "enhancements" to the first three manage to shovel in a good bit of the suckness the prequels had. And I was there in the seventies and more than kids liked them. I knew many adults who watched them in the theatre multiple times. But take the fast moving lightly explained at most premises of the first movie and add:

Annoying little kid characters.
Annoying mockery of Jamaicans character.
Nasty explicatory things like "midichlorians" and trade disputes
cgi that doesn't exceed the original effects in many respects (hint here: if I get the feeling I'm watching someone play Wing Commander IV...)
excruciatingly bad dialog (or at least WAY MORE of it)
A drawn out love story
thin political debate

and take away:

Anything remotely resembling a character you want to care about.

Ah hell, I could go on for a long time. Trash up the summer movie aspect with buckets of that sort of vomit and all you have left is something that is for VERY easily pleased little kids.

Re:Grow Up

[thisnamestoolong]

As someone who knows a great deal about the art of film making, I can tell you that on every possible metric by which one could judge a film the original trilogy utterly decimates the prequel trilogy. The original trilogy is an entertaining and wildly creative sci-fi/adventure/fantasy epic. These films are absolutely flawed, but are still extremely well made and effective for what they are. The prequel trilogy, on the other hand, is an utter mess. The story is incoherent, none of the characters have any depth or behave in anything even approaching a believable manner, and all the CG eye-poop only serves to make the whole thing even less believable.

Re:Grow Up

[Tetsujin]

and take away:

Anything remotely resembling a character you want to care about.

I think one of the basic problems is that most of the characters didn't have any major development happening. For instance, original Star Wars:

Han Solo: Rogue, trying to save his good skin after getting in major trouble with a crime boss. By the end of the first film he's demonstrated that he is willing to put his life on the line with no explicit promise of reward.
Luke Skywalker: Whiny bitch who wants to have an adventure. Learns about the mysterious Jedi and hears a few stories about his father and the man who killed him... Endures loss and manages to save the day.
Leia: Royalty turned spy and guerilla fighter. Her character in the first film exists to turn the "damsel in distress" cliche on its head.

Now, the Phantom Menace:

Obi-Wan Kenobi: Jedi apprentice, he's studying to become a Jedi Knight and then someday, maybe, a Jedi Master. He fights, I guess, to serve a society he believes in.
Anakin Skywalker: Hard-working, earnest young slave. Qui-Gon learns he's some kind of mystery and thinks he could be the key to some vaguely-defined prophecy, so tells him he should learn to be a Jedi. Anakin thinks that's maybe an OK thing to do with the rest of his life. Of course, we all know he'll someday become the most evilest villain ever! But we don't know exactly how and the first movie gives us no indication as to this (except a deleted scene where he beats up Greedo)
Amidala: Royalty, later a fighter as well... She doesn't do too much in the first film except drive the plot around with her concern for her planet's welfare and complain about Qui-Gon's plans...

The thing that strikes me about the prequels is that having most of the main characters be Jedi is actually not as exciting or interesting as it might have sounded to me ten years ago... I think you need the "regular" characters around to make the Jedi characters look impressive by comparison... I think they were sort of trying for that with Amidala, but she wasn't quite enough of a balancing influence to do the trick... <shrug> I don't know...

Re:Grow Up

[domatic]

Most of the characters in the first movies really didn't need much development because they were action hero archetypes: Lovable Rogue, Faithful Sidekick, Plucky Kid, Princess With A Heart Of Gold, and Grizzled Old Zen Monk.......

Which makes sense given the Samurai movie bones under the space opera flesh. All you really needed was a Villain Wearing Black.....and boy howdy did they deliver on that. Where Lucas fucked up severely was fooling himself he was making a Great Epic when all that was really going on is a Few Good Guys with Excellent Aim taking out hordes of Evil Inept Guards and they did it with the best and loudest special effects going. So of course in addition to bolting on Creative Workshop Grand Themes he hosed up the effects too.

Re:Grow Up

[chromatic]

... the original trilogy utterly decimates the prequel trilogy.

How do you decimate a trilogy? Do you erase 30% of one movie?

Re:Grow Up

[frenchgates]

I find the superficial and pointless level of twistedfuck's analysis to be even more disturbing.

Re:Grow Up

[frenchgates]

It could only help the prequels.

The Definitive Evisceration of The Phantom Menace

[Entropy98]

I've been waiting almost 10 years for The Definitive Evisceration of The Phantom Menace and I must say that now that it's here I'm very disappointed.

My inner child has been abused and betrayed. Im going to mope around, talking to no one, for the next two weeks. I don't think I'll be able to bring myself to see #2 or #3, whatever they will be called.

There were so many good points to be made, but it seems the director just went for the easy, mass appeal, fluff. Maybe if the director wasn't surrounded with mindless 'yes men' with no vision this could have been better. Maybe if they had cast a narrator with a better voice. Unfortunately this 70 minute train wreck cannot be undone.

I hope I don't have to wait 10 years for the The Definitive Evisceration of The Definitive Evisceration of The Phantom Menace.

Phantom storytelling

[Bill_s16]

I remember after seeing Episode One: The Phantom Menace thinking "I know it was bad but I don't feel like expending too many cycles analyzing why"? The myriad answers here. And in the process of deconstructing dismanting the film, conveyed as well is a good basic lesson in storytelling/scriptwriting. My own Star Wars orbit began to decay with Return of the Jedi. Besides the accursed Ewoks, I came away with the distinct impression that Lucas didn't actually rescreen or review his previous films for the-story-up-to-now before scribbling the script for the next one. At the End of "Empires" Yoda states: "There is another." Leia, I'd guessed. Made sense. But I never found out who for sure...

Re:Phantom storytelling

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course it was Leia, you twit. You know, Luke's twin sister? Didn't you read the books? How do you think she was actually strong enough to strangle Jabba? Yeah, that's right: The Force.

Re:Phantom storytelling

[Bill_s16]

Nope. Didn't read the books. Strangling Jabba? Neh. She and her version of the force should have been central to that film. Instead. Ewoks.

Re:Phantom storytelling

[Tetsujin]

Nope. Didn't read the books. Strangling Jabba? Neh. She and her version of the force should have been central to that film. Instead. Ewoks.

Hm, that could have been interesting... Say, if Boba Fett had taken Luke down into the Sarlacc with him, and then Leia was the one to take on the burden of facing daddy Vader... There wouldn't be much time for her to learn Jedi stuff (since they didn't establish her as the sister in the second film) - which would be the main problem with this idea, I think - she would need her own little arc to grow into those abilities. That arc of development is the whole fun of the idea and also the reason it wouldn't work... No time for it...

Re:Phantom storytelling

[Anonymous Coward]

Besides the accursed Ewoks, I came away with the distinct impression that Lucas didn't actually rescreen or review his previous films for the-story-up-to-now before scribbling the script for the next one. At the End of "Empires" Yoda states: "There is another." Leia, I'd guessed. Made sense. But I never found out who for sure...

Uh... but they did follow that plot line in Return of the Jedi. You know, when Vader fights Luke, and tells him he'll turn Leia to the Dark Side if he refuses to.

TL;DW

[TangoMargarine]

I actually *liked* The Phantom Menace...minus the Anakin crap.

Re:TL;DW

[BatGnat]

So if we take out the "Anakin crap", we are left with a young Obi Wan, a half built C3PO, and Jar Jar.

What the????

Re:TL;DW

[Minwee]

So if we take out the "Anakin crap", we are left with a young Obi Wan, a half built C3PO, and Jar Jar.

You're left with Qui Gon and Obi Wan beating up a bunch of droids with light sabres, then some blurry stuff where we just can't seem to pay attention, then Qui Gon and Obi Wan beating up Darth Maul with light sabres. Then the credits roll, and nobody even remembered the Lost Orb of Phantastacoria.

I've seen worse movies.

Pathetic

[Anonymous Coward]

My inner child had been abused and betrayed. I moped around, talking to no one, for almost two weeks.

Why don't you seek professional help. This is one of those sad testimonies that makes geeks look like raving idiots. It's another reason to dismiss geek culture as a whole.

JarJar narrating?

[Anonymous Coward]

Is it just me or does it sound a bit like JarJar underwater is narrating this ? :)

Great Example of IP Abuse

[grumpygrodyguy]

I haven't seen it, but I'm glad someone devoted the time to do this.

The prequels, and especially the replacement of the original trilogy with the "re-mastered" Lucas-edited crap are great examples of how destructive exclusive IP can be to creative works.

"The ultimate single-minded, self-centered creature is a cancer cell."

That is what George Lucas became to his own films. After a great piece of artwork has become culturally accepted, it should be cast in stone, and be preserved as it is.

Re:Great Example of IP Abuse

[Deanalator]

So after the hobbit, Tolkien should not have been allowed to write the lord of the rings books?

Re:Great Example of IP Abuse

[Tetsujin]

So after the hobbit, Tolkien should not have been allowed to write the lord of the rings books?

Or perhaps he just shouldn't have been allowed to re-write "Riddles in the Dark"... :)

Nah, actually I'm with you. The audience doesn't "own" the art after they come to love it, there's no reason the author shouldn't have the ability to meddle with it later if he feels like it...

It might be nice, though, if the author didn't have the ability to end availability of the old versions...

Re:Great Example of IP Abuse

[aquabat]

So after the hobbit, Tolkien should not have been allowed to write the lord of the rings books?

I think he meant that one should be able to watch the first three films as they were originally shot, i.e. with Han shooting Greedo just for the hell of it, Leia's nipple, etc.

There's nothing wrong with editing your own work because you think it would be better if you changed a couple of things. Hell, after LOTR, Tolkien went back and edited The Hobbit, so the Gollum scenes worked better in the context of LOTR. Nothing wrong with that. I can still go find a copy of the original, if I really want to read it that way.

And that's the kicker. You can't go out and purchase a nice remastered BluRay copy of ANH as it was originally filmed. If you want to see it that way, you might be able to snag an old copy on VHS. Best you can do, I believe, is analog laser disc from the 80s. That, IMHO is a loss to the art world.

Re:Great Example of IP Abuse

[bckrispi]

Pedantic rant: Leia's nipple didn't slip, it was Oola, Jabba's first slave girl. It does still appear in the DVD, but it's been airbrushed. However, there is the scene at the end of RotJ at the bunker where Han reaches for Leia right after she is shot and grabs a full handful of boobie!

Re:Great Example of IP Abuse

[Blakey Rat]

That is what George Lucas became to his own films. After a great piece of artwork has become culturally accepted, it should be cast in stone, and be preserved as it is.

Seriously? You honestly believe that?

Every film is flawed

[Enderandrew]

Read Mr. Cranky and he will make the greatest film on the planet sound terrible. Every film is flawed.

The prequels on the whole failed to live up to lofty expectations. But they aren't terrible on a Batman and Robin scale either.

Episode 1 ultimately fails due to a poorly written script. Not just in dialogue, but also in structure. A tentpole blockbuster film comes down to a series of meetings followed by a series of meetings. Lucas forget screenwriting 101 - show, don't tell. That being said, the saber duels in Episode 1 are the best of the series. The pod race sequence is pretty decent. The movie also invented 8.1 channel sound, didn't it?

I don't understand the massive vitrol aimed at films that ultimately aren't half as terrible as people would like us to believe. The same person who wrote this probably sat through Transformers 2 without having an aneurysm. Really, which film was worse?

Re:Every film is flawed

[Quiet_Desperation]

I don't understand the massive vitrol aimed at films that ultimately aren't half as terrible as people would like us to believe.

It's all expectations as you said. I thought the two Matrix sequels were OK, but I went in expecting nothing more than a couple loud and kinetic sci-fi action popcorn flicks. I didn't buy into the weird hype, although I was unsatisfied with the ending. I was favoring the "matrix within the matrix" idea that some people floated after #2. Well, I also favored the "BSG takes place in our future" theory, so what do I know? ;-)

Re:Every film is flawed

[Enderandrew]

The first Matrix film was littered with metaphor. In the second and third films, they hammer than metaphor into your head with needless exposition, akin to reading The Scarlet Letter. (A stands for Adultery!)

That being said, Matrix 2, which I've also heard called the worst film of all time, has perhaps one of the best action sequences of all time. That freeway sequence really is incredible.

I was rooting for a final battle in the real world, and Matrix at the same time between Neo and the Agent. You have a stylized, over the top fight going on in the Matrix, and cut back to a gritty, realistic fight with two bodies duking it out.

The actual ending is really weak sauce, but it completes the parallels between The Matrix and Gnostic Christianity. (Note in the final scene, the reborn Oracle is even wearing Neo's glasses, and the use of three visible arches in Neo's sex scene, etc.) They really went nuts with taking symbolism too far.

Re:Every film is flawed

[Anonymous Coward]

The same person who wrote this probably sat through Transformers 2 without having an aneurysm.

How, exactly, did you come to this conclusion?

Re:Every film is flawed

[eulernet]

Really, which film was worse?

Both of them.

Re:Every film is flawed

[pete_norm]

Transformer 2...Is that the movies with the hot babe running in the desert??? I liked that movie! Not sure why they decided to include robots in it though.

Re:Every film is flawed

[ErikZ]

Transformers 2 was boring. But I didn't expect much after Transformers 1.

What I expected from Episode I was a plot, interesting characters, and all the stuff that made the previous 3 movies so good. It had *none* of that.

Why wouldn't you be pissed? He demonstrated that he could make a good movie in the past, and now has a lifetime of experience and an incredible budget.

The result, Episode I. So either he's been secretly incompetent all these years. Or that he purposefully made a crappy movie. I'm sure it's the latter. And to prove it I have to say one word. Midiclorians.

Re:Every film is flawed

[Enderandrew]

I understand disappointment. I was greatly disappointed with the film myself. That being said, all this hyperbole is still missplaced. Episode 1 isn't one of the worst films I've ever seen.

When filming Star Wars (retitled A New Hope), Harrison Ford said to George Lucas, "you may be able to type it on a page, but you sure as hell can't say it!"

There are stories of lines being improved and changed on set far more often with the original Star Wars movies. George Lucas has always struggled with dialogue. That's why he hired someone else to actually write the scripts for Empire and Jedi.

George Lucas even said himself in his AFI award acceptance speech that he isn't a very good script writer.

So why in the world did he insist on writing the scripts for all 3 prequels? Even Episode 1 turned into a decent novel. I suspect if a better writer had been given free reign on the script, it would have been a much better film.

Re:Every film is flawed

[aquabat]

The same person who wrote this probably sat through Transformers 2 without having an aneurysm. Really, which film was worse?

If TPM had a scene of Natalie Portman, smudged with grease, working on her hoverbike, then I'd be willing to swap the two films' relative positions in a list.

Re:Every film is flawed

[Tetsujin]

I was rooting for a final battle in the real world, and Matrix at the same time between Neo and the Agent. You have a stylized, over the top fight going on in the Matrix, and cut back to a gritty, realistic fight with two bodies duking it out.

That coulda been fun... Or, going back to the "Matrix within a Matrix" idea - it could have ended with the world being torn down, Big O style...

Re:Every film is flawed

[roc97007]

> Read Mr. Cranky and he will make the greatest film on the planet sound terrible. Every film is flawed.

That's true.

> The prequels on the whole failed to live up to lofty expectations. But they aren't terrible on a Batman and Robin scale either.

Um, yeah, I'd say they were, for a lot of the same reasons. A too-complicated plot, too many characters who were just empty suits, bad acting, bad scriptwriting, and not one likable character with the possible exception of Alfred. Um, I'm sorry, I mean... Yoda. No I don't, he started to piss me off about half way through the film... Sorry, I can't think of one.

> I don't understand the massive vitrol aimed at films that ultimately aren't half as terrible as people would like us to believe.

I'm not certain what people you're talking about. I personally went through the classic five stages of grief starting with the final spittle-flying cheek-wobble of whoever-the-hell-that-was, when I realized there weren't any scenes left that might redeem what I had just witnessed. I certainly didn't need anyone to tell me that I had just seen shite dripping down the screen for 133 minutes.

> The same person who wrote this probably sat through Transformers 2 without having an aneurysm. Really, which film was worse?

That's a good question. I think the trivial answer is that Transformers 2 had Megan Fox.

Re:Every film is flawed

[roc97007]

Exactly. At least Bey understood that the answer to boring robots is to have them chase a pretty girl. Lucas apparently though that the answer to boring robots is to have lots more boring robots. Lots and lots more.

Re:Every film is flawed

[roc97007]

Don't forget the short shorts.

It just occurred to me -- what TPM really needed was the Star Trek TOS costume designer. I mean, other than a brief shot of Portman's midriff in Eps 2, the costumes were practically burkas.

Re:Every film is flawed

[tuxedobob]

I don't know if you sat through the whole seven of them, but he mentions the lightsaber duels. Yes, the lightsaber duels in #1 are very choreographed, but they're not any good. If you want choreography, go see the ballet. Or a flag routine, if you want choreography with sticks.

Unfortunately, I have to agree with pretty much everything this guy says. : \

Your childhood...

[Anonymous Coward]

...shouldn't have been walking alone there at night dressed like that.

Re:Don't look now

[pinkj]

"All awful" is a stretch. I would say EP IV, V and VI were entertaining and uplifting, but not enlightening or deeply moving.

And really, we all know George's best film was "THX 1138."

Jar Jar redeemed himself

[benchbri]

I'd just like to point out that Jar Jar -alone- allowed the creation of the Galactic Empire.

Re:Jar Jar redeemed himself

[DeadDecoy]

Never attribute to malice that which can be attributed to stupidity?
It's actually amusing to see how the Galactic Empire came about given that their military forces are so incompetent: storm troopers that can't hit the broadside of a barn, a planet-buster that gets destroyed due to shoddy architectural design, and a critical output taken out by care-bears. If you think about it, the great empire only lasts for about 20 years before it's taken out by a small group of rebels. WTF?

Re:Jar Jar redeemed himself

[roc97007]

It wasn't lost on me that one could argue Jar Jar was the ultimate villain of the entire story arc. But that bit of irony wasn't enough to make up for three terrible movies.

Agreed...

[schon]

I was hoping that the monotonous and almost comically distorted voice-over was somehow a parody, but then it kept going on and on and on...

I'd like to hear what he had to say, but I just couldn't stand listening to that voice.. it sounded like he was trying to do an impression of Joe Lieberman doing an impression of Jar Jar's leader.

Lucas made the best film Lucas could make

[TiggertheMad]

TPM was lame when compared to the original Star Wars trilogy

While I would agree with most people that TPM wasn't as strong as the first three films, I often wonder what sort of movie Lucas would have to have made to appease the fanboi masses. After all, the 'holy trinity' was a cornerstone of growing up for many and its awful hard to compete with deeply ingrained nostalgia and twenty years of anticipation.

Could TPM been better? Sure. Could TPM been what everyone imagined? I don't know, its awful hard to compete with childhood memories...

Re:Lucas made the best film Lucas could make

[Grishnakh]

People keep saying this, and I really don't agree. The prequels could have been good movies (not necessarily great, but at least good, on par with the originals which were also not great), had Lucas simply relinquished the script-writing and directorial duties to some talented people. With a movie with that kind of budget, it shouldn't have been hard to find some good writers and a director to take these roles. Lucas could have instead stuck with being "creative director" or somesuch, and come up with ideas and drawings for aliens and ships and such, which is what he's actually good at. Instead, Lucas with his giant ego insisted on doing it all himself, and it came out as a steaming pile of shit.

If he had done this, we'd have had some decent movies at least, and while some people would certainly have complained, it wouldn't be anywhere near what we see now with just about everyone over the age of 13 saying these movies suck ass.

Re:Lucas made the best film Lucas could make

[TheRaven64]

Watch the videos - they make some very good points. A couple of the more important ones:

In TPM, there is no character for the audience to identify with. Who is the film about? Who are we supposed to care about? Who is the main character? With ANH, the beginning introduced Luke. You got to know him. You saw his life, his hopes and aspirations, the challenges, and then felt sympathy with him when his family died. In TPM, there is no equivalent character or group of characters. There is no one for the audience to identify with, no one for them to relate to, no one for them to care about. He demonstrates this very well by getting a group of people to describe the characters in both films, without relation to their appearance, their job, or their role in the movie. When asked about Han Solo, for example, people could give a description of his character. When asked about Queen Amidala, no one could think of anything.

Another great point he makes is the lightsabre duels. They're beautifully choreographed in TPM, but there is no emotional content. In the original series, your first duel is between Darth Vader and Obi Wan. There is more talking than fighting, and it's clear that Obi Wan is sacrificing himself for the others to escape. Then you have Juke against Vader. Vader is barely moving. It's obvious he could kill Luke, but he's playing with him. The point of the fight is to tempt Luke to the dark side and to let Luke know about his father. Then you have the final fight between Luke and Vader. He contrasts the point in this where Luke becomes angry and where Obi Wan becomes angry in TPM because his mentor was just killed in front of him. Luke loses all finesse and just hacks at Vader, drawing strength from the dark side and eventually hacks his hand off. Then he has an introspective moment, seeing that he has become like Vader, calms himself, and refuses to kill his father. In contrast, Obi Wan continues fighting in exactly the same unemotional way he did previously. Maybe he's a better trained Jedi, and controls his feelings better, but it just makes him seem less human.

Re:C'mon now...

[timlyg]

this is what happens to a fan who wore Han Solo's costume to TPM premiere...LOL

It sucked

[Mashhaster]

How many words, how much time do you need to waste saying something anyone who saw it already knew? It's like being trolled, in allowing yourself to be you have validated the troll. Seeing the movie was time that I'll never get back. Now they've made a pointless documentary about how bad it was, throwing good time after bad.

They are all just as bad as any others

[unum15]

I did not grow up watch Star Wars. I have absolutely no nostalgia attached to them. I watched the original trilogy for the first time in college, in 1998. I watched the remastered versions. They are ok movies not bad, but not great. Same with the newer trilogy. They all have annoying character and plot holes. Get over it. If you had watched the original three for the first time as adult, you would have thought they were over hyped(which they are).

I barely remember the movie...

[wandazulu]

...but I remember the hype and feelings of expectation my friends and I had about it. We paid full price for "Meet Joe Black" just to see the TPM trailer, then left immediately afterward. There were a lot of other people doing the same thing, to the point everyone was laughing and the ushers were promising the trailer would run again after the movie if everyone stayed.

After we left, we went to have dinner and talked endlessly, dissecting every second of the trailer at length, imagining what the plot would be, how they would eventually get to "New Hope", and then after dinner we went to an arcade and played video games.

I don't care a whit about the actual movie, but for me it'll always be about that evening with friends in New York and how much fun we had in total geek mode. Sadly, I can't say I've had a repeat of that experience since. So for that evening alone, I'll still say thanks to Lucas for making the movie in the first place. But, yeah, the movie itself sucked.

Re:I barely remember the movie...

[Ezel]

The funny thing is that even if "Meet Joe Black" isn't everybody's cup of tea (slow romantic snore-fest) it always will be a lot better than "The Phantom Menace".

Needed fans to consult

[Anonymous Coward]

I mean .. how is it that Obi-Wan needs Yoda to remind him that "there is another" when .. OBI-WAN WAS THERE FOR THE BIRTH?!?!

It is the stupid ignorance of HIS OWN MOVIES that makes the prequels so bad. Not the poor acting, dialogue, pod race, emo kid, midchlorideans, etc.

I would forgive everything else and give Lucas a pass on the prequels - had they fit and worked within the Star Wars Universe.

Re:Needed fans to consult

[Tetsujin]

I mean .. how is it that Obi-Wan needs Yoda to remind him that "there is another" when .. OBI-WAN WAS THERE FOR THE BIRTH?!?!

Well, she's a girl! She doesn't count...

But, really, I think the whole Skywalker family tree was thrown together as an afterthought. I can believe that maybe Vader really was Luke's father all along and Obi-Wan just lied about that in "Star Wars"... But if Leia as Luke's sister had been the plan all along I don't think they would have had the two of them frenching. :)

Re:Needed fans to consult

[cptnapalm]

"I can believe that maybe Vader really was Luke's father all along"

He wasn't. There was a draft or some such for Empire where Vader has a deadly duel with... Luke's Father! That and Luke and Leia hook up. The brother/sister thing didn't come about until they were doing Return of the Jedi, hence the incest kiss in Empire.

The Star Wars novel Splinter of the Mind's Eye was actually going to be the second movie since they didn't know if Ford would come back to play Han Solo. Lucas can talk all he likes about having had it all planned out from the get go, but in reality the saga was made up as it was being made.

Re:Don't look now

[Virak]

I've seen all the films as an adult, never had any of the toys, and I still like them and you are still a trolling asshat.

Who was the target audience?

[beetle496]

> Its primary target was the little kids

As the review points out rather humorously, films targeted to children give dialogs on tariffs less screen time! Lucas' target audience was fanbois. From a financial perspective, he was successful. Money and feeding his ego are his only motivation. Lucas gives lip service to artistic vision, but he is not credible when making such claims.

I am still waiting

[MemoryDragon]

For the Jar Jar Binks christmas special.

Re:I am still waiting

[roc97007]

Maybe they could digitally insert him into the original holiday special.

most fundamental flaw of prequels ---

[jollyreaper]

You can already guess how it turns out. I like flashbacks. I've seen many enjoyable stories where the past of certain characters and events is kept a mystery to slowly tease out over the course of the story. But it's never the primary focus of the story. When you go and make a prequel, dedicating an entire movie to going backwards, it feels like retreading old ground, even if we haven't explicitly seen it. Vader starts off as good guy, falls to evil. We caught the gist from Obi-Wan's exposition. Nothing we saw in the prequels added anything to it whatsoever.

Personally, I would have preferred to see the future adventures of Luke. Pretty much all of the expanded universe stuff was crap. But there could have been some great stories to tell as the Rebellion tries to become a Republic and not fall into the very tyrannies they fought against. Luke reforming the Jedi Order would have been awesome. The Jedi Academy stories weren't fit to line the bottom of birdcages. I would fear causing damage to any fireplace I tossed those books into for burning.

Re:most fundamental flaw of prequels ---

[Culture20]

You can already guess how it turns out. I like flashbacks. I've seen many enjoyable stories where the past of certain characters and events is kept a mystery to slowly tease out over the course of the story. But it's never the primary focus of the story. When you go and make a prequel, dedicating an entire movie to going backwards, it feels like retreading old ground, even if we haven't explicitly seen it. Vader starts off as good guy, falls to evil. We caught the gist from Obi-Wan's exposition. Nothing we saw in the prequels added anything to it whatsoever.

Watching the tragic creation of Vader could have been good theater, but instead we were given a sociopathic child who decided that killing all the other Jedi and becoming a Dark Lord of the Sith was a good plan to save his secret wife. And there wasn't any internal struggle or guilt or grief; it was like a lightswitch. I never guessed at the drivel Lucas fed us, and was disappointed as a result.

Re:most fundamental flaw of prequels ---

[Tetsujin]

You can already guess how it turns out. I like flashbacks. I've seen many enjoyable stories where the past of certain characters and events is kept a mystery to slowly tease out over the course of the story. But it's never the primary focus of the story. When you go and make a prequel, dedicating an entire movie to going backwards, it feels like retreading old ground, even if we haven't explicitly seen it. Vader starts off as good guy, falls to evil. We caught the gist from Obi-Wan's exposition. Nothing we saw in the prequels added anything to it whatsoever.

It might have worked if they'd really sold it. If they'd somehow made me believe that the same Anakin from "Phantom Menace" and "Attack of the Clones" someday would turn into Big Bad Vader... (Damn! I shoulda used spoiler tags...)

I think the more natural point for a prequel would have been a straight lead-in to "Episode 4" - the formation of the rebellion, early battles, the theft of the plans, and so on. With the right treatment I think that could have made a fine set of prequels. Phantom Menace went back too far, IMO - it went back to a point where not much interesting was happening. :)

Re:most fundamental flaw of prequels ---

[MightyMartian]

Everything about Anakin was done wrong; the immaculate conception crap, starting him off as a child, the midichlorian bullshit (when it's clear a Jedi doesn't need microscopes to sense whether someone is strong with the Force), the horribly bungled love affair, the truly inadequate explanation of how Anakin Skywalker, Jedi Knight, turns into Darth Vader.

I ain't no writer, but I can tell you this, I could have written the basic plot synopsis for three movies dealing with Anakin's fall from grace and the rise of the Emperor much better than Lucas did. For starters, I'd crank down the religious symbolism a few notches (I mean, isn't it enough to have the Jedi in there without pasting on psuedo-Christian symbolism), would have got rid of the "There are only two Sith" crap which took what could have been a cool anti-Jedi order and turned it into some sort of Force-based alternative lifestyle. Anakin would have started out in his late teens, early twenties, a lot like Luke, an adventurer with a lot of arrogance, and the arrogance, under the guidance of Palpatine, becomes transformed into a lust for power, but always with the notion that the power must be used for good (in short, the real trap that power lays for all great men and women, who rarely outright evil at the outset).

I would also have toned down the political overtones. Episode II, in particular, often got just plain preachy, when it's plot wasn't utterly bewildering. Episode II should have been where Anakin makes most of his passage to the Dark Side (not just some hastily pasted-on "I killed them murderous Sandpeople" bits), with Episode III being the final fall.

Others have pointed out, and I concur, that Anakin in the movie was a sniveling and whiny character. I felt more like I was watching a transplant from a John Hughes film. Hayden Christensen played Anakin like a Breakfast Club refugee. He was just plain awful in Episode II and III.

Re:most fundamental flaw of prequels ---

[TheRaven64]

Anakin would have started out in his late teens, early twenties, a lot like Luke

A lot like Luke is the crucial bit. The story should have shown a similar character to Luke so when you watch the end of Jedi you see Vader recognising his son as someone he could have been. Instead, you wonder if they really were related, or if Padme was secretly having an affair with one of the other Jedi...

Re:most fundamental flaw of prequels ---

[jollyreaper]

What you're saying is along the lines of what I was thinking. I'd mapped out my own take on the prequels. The Clone War is nixed, it's the Colonial War. It's a crisis of empire as colony worlds are struggling under the control of core worlds and want freedom. The Jedi are forced to act to hold the Republic together. The first movie is about trying to stop the nascent rebellion from turning into galactic civil war. Obi-Wan and Anakin are already master/apprentice at the start of the movie. The actions Obi-Wan is forced to take by the Jedi Council alienates him and he renounces his knighthood, fighting for his homeworld of Alderaan as a General (hence the General Kenobi bit). Palpatine is a border world governor, a loyalist distressed at the waste and impetuousness of the rebels. Discovers the secret of the sith -- anyone can use the force and it's a lot easier than you'd think. The Jedi training takes a lifetime so that one can use it responsibly. Palpatine's use of the Force enhances his reputation and makes his name on the galactic scene. There is also a nice sense of surprise at seeing the good guys on the side of the government and the bad guys being the rebels, an inversion of the original sequel.

Second movie is after years of war with seemingly no end in sight. Palpatine is a governor in the Roman sense where he's got a political career, civil and military responsibilities. He sets up a decisive battle trap to nail the rebels, just like we end up seeing in Return of the Jedi. However, the rebels know it's a trap and have setup their own trap using ancient weapons powerful enough to wipe out fleets. Only the intervention of the heroes is able to save the battle plan and break the back of the rebellion. We see Anakin as war hero and he earns the emotional scars that turn him to the dark side by the third movie.

Third movie is political machination/rise of the emperor. Palpatine has grown completely disgusted with people and thinks that the only way to save galactic civilization is to establish an empire with an iron fist. Believes that democracy will end in the tyranny of the small-minded and see everything fall to barbarians. Anakin is likewise feeling disgusted because he sees all the sacrifices of the war years pissed away by corrupt politicians and their cronies and the people are too stupid to know what's good for them. Palpatine's arguments make sense to him and the movie shows his seduction to the dark side. The aloofness and superiority the Jedi demonstrated in the previous two films allows Palpatine to easily create a smear campaign against them like what was used against the Knights Templar. The Obi/Anakin fight that leaves him a crippled wreck forces his plans into place. Anakin is assumed dead and now Palpatine has a new right hand man, a terrifying cyborg with a sith title who leads the pogrom against the Jedi.

Re:Don't look now

[operagost]

You're entitled to your opinion, but you are greatly outnumbered by both experts and lay people.

midichlorians

[DoofusOfDeath]

A big problem for my enjoyment was the midichlorians, the microbes that supposedly give a person control over the Force.

By making the Force scientifically explicable rather than mystical/magical, it changed the feeling of the story for me.

Re:midichlorians

[JDHannan]

I've always wondered why more people can't subscribe to the notion that midichlorians don't cause the Force, they're drawn to the force.  Like if someone had control over magnetism, you'd expect to find lots of iron on him... that doesn't mean that that iron caused the magnetism

Re:midichlorians

[Sechr Nibw]

Actually I believe the midichlorians were explained as life forms that were attracted to Force sensitive people. So the more midichlorians that were attracted to an individual, and residing within their body, the greater their Force sensitivity.

This tidbit of knowledge made the movie a little bit more enjoyable, though the pod-race was definitely too long, and Jar Jar was definitely still in the movie.

Re:midichlorians

[sohare]

A big problem for my enjoyment was the midichlorians, the microbes that supposedly give a person control over the Force.

By making the Force scientifically explicable rather than mystical/magical, it changed the feeling of the story for me.

I can respect your point of view, but I rather liked the concept itself. Now, the fact they were only introduced after the three original films is another matter. That was certainly a botch job. Perhaps I like the midichlorians since I'm a rather skeptical person and like my sci-fi to essentially take on a materialistic perspective. It's hard for me to stomach Vitalism injected into sci-fi, since I find the idea incredibly unimaginative.

Re:midichlorians

[chiefnerd]

I am not so sure that the Old Republic Jedi had this right. Maybe they *thought* that midichlorians imparted Force powers, but it was actually more of a correlative effect than causative. Maybe it was even a way to insure that Anakin (who was most likely created by Sidious' former master) was chosen by the Jedi Council for training. Interesting fictional conspiracy theory...

Re:midichlorians

[Anonymous Coward]

Did you really just correlation != causation a star wars movie? Can we get a car analogy too?

Re:midichlorians

[farble1670]

yes, it is always troubling when something is explained with science. you wouldn't be religious would you?

Re:midichlorians

[BobMcD]

I've always wondered why more people can't subscribe to the notion that midichlorians don't cause the Force, they're drawn to the force. Like if someone had control over magnetism, you'd expect to find lots of iron on him... that doesn't mean that that iron caused the magnetism

Because that's simply a mechanism put there by your brain to help you maintain your sanity. You're making that up because it helps you feel better.

What the Beardo actually said in the movie was:

Anakin: “Master, Sir... I heard Yoda talking about midi-chlorians. I’ve been wondering: What are midi-chlorians?”
Qui-Gon Jinn: “Midi-chlorians are a microscopic life form that resides within all living cells”.
Anakin: “They live inside me?”
Qui-Gon Jinn: “Inside your cells, yes. And we are symbionts with them.”
Anakin: “Symbionts?”
Qui-Gon Jinn: “Life forms living together for mutual advantage. Without midi-chlorians, life could not exist and we would have no knowledge of the Force. They continually speak to us, telling us the will of the Force. When you learn to quiet your mind, you’ll hear them speaking to you.”

Maybe he's just delusional. There's little mention of this feature of the Force ever again. Perhaps he's uploading his test results to the Jedi temple, they're rolling their eyes, and playing along, but it doesn't really mean anything. Again, however, this goes outside the material provided and makes assumptions. Beardo certainly believes in a causal relationship, and we're never given any story reason to doubt him.

Ergo, bad plot element.

Re:midichlorians

[lenester]

It's like the way everyone driving a BMW is a fucking dickwad. It's not that the car causes people to become dickwads, it's that in most circumstances only dickwads would drive one in the first place.

Re:midichlorians

[jitterman]

Ergo, bad plot element.

I think even Lucas realized this mis-step, which is precisely why the midi-whatsits were ignored in the other films.

Further, it's a shame that on at least one more occasion (R2 having booster rockets is one example) Lucas introduced something that had no later historical reality (in the scope of his fictional universe).

Re:midichlorians

[jitterman]

Religion vs. science!

Can't we all just get along!?!? :)

Re:midichlorians

[MightyMait]

Some of us like to believe that there are things which fall outside the scope of science. Now, if science *is* one's religion, that thought is troubling. For many actual practitioners of science, the thought is not troubling. It's said that Einstein didn't believe in a personal God, but he *did* express a profound sense that there is something ineffable that is much, much bigger and more majestic than we could ever know.

The introduction of the midichlorians rubbed me the wrong way as well. But then, I have a taste for mysticism in addition to a taste for science.

Re:midichlorians

[Tanman]

You mean the mitochondria ? waaaait a minute!

Re:midichlorians

[skine]

It's still faith, but George Lucas switched from Christianity to Scientology.

Re:midichlorians

[MightyMartian]

"Hey, those aren't midichlorians, it's friggin' staphylococcus!"

Re:midichlorians

[bckrispi]

I think even Lucas realized this mis-step, which is precisely why the midi-whatsits were ignored in the other films.

You weren't paying attention... In RotS, Palpatine tells Anakin that Darth Plagious was so powerful that he could "manipulate the midi-chlorians to create life". This was perhaps the biggest revelation in all six films.

Re:midichlorians

[Nos.]

While that is an explanation, its really misses the point entirely, or more to the point, what is the point? That is, what is the point of even introducing midichlorians in the first place. The best I can come up with is that Lucas (or whomever) wanted a way to measure Anakin against other Jedi. I believe Anakin had over 20,000, though I don't recall if they mentioned what Yoda's count was.

It would have been far simpler to just have a way of using the force to measure. Qui-Gon Jinn could have simply laid his hand on Anakin's head or similar and later told Obi Wan something along the lines of "He's even more powerful than Yoda". Its simpler, and achieves the same end goal without redefining one of the core elements of Star Wars.

Re:midichlorians

[bckrispi]

That was actually a theory I came up with shortly after AotC came out. Palpatine conspired against the republic by breeding dissent with the separatists. Then, conveniently, the republic has a ready-made army waiting for them when hostilities break out. Why not destroy the Jedi from within as well? A Jedi "born of the force" would be considered to be the one to fulfill the Jedi prophecy. The Midi-chlorians seemed to exist for a single reason in the plot: to give the Sith something tangible that they could manipulate to their own ends. Needless to say, I felt quite vindicated once RotS came out. :)

Re:midichlorians

[Dun Malg]

It's hard for me to stomach Vitalism injected into sci-fi, since I find the idea incredibly unimaginative.

Thing is, Star Wars isn't hard sci-fi. It's just another iteration of [Mystic|Samurai|Kung-fu] Heroes vs. Evil Warlord, set in space.

Re:midichlorians

[Scannerman]

It's like the way everyone driving a BMW is a fucking dickwad. It's not that the car causes people to become dickwads,.

Not sure about this.

When I have load of crap to carry I sometimes swap my C-class for a colleagues 5 series. I am definitely aware that I tend to drive more like a dick when I'm in it. I would like to think that its everyone else on the road. They assume that the guy in the BMW is a dick and treat me accordingly (can't argue with that, I do the same myself) so obviously I react to that. Maybe its just aggression caused by trying to use iDrive. But I'm not sure , I think its the car doing it.

Re:midichlorians

[Alamais]

But then he wouldn't be OVER NINE^H^H^H^HTWENTY THOUSAAAAAAND!!!!!

Damn filter. Faaaaaaaaiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiil.

Re:midichlorians

[ross.w]

Your example is not quite right. In "The Black fleet Crisis" trilogy R2D2 uses them to maneouvre in the Vagabond ship in the absence of any gravity.

Re:midichlorians

[Anonymous Coward]

Remember, BMWs come standard with tilt steering, CD changer with MP3 support, and driver's side douchebag.

Re:midichlorians

[Sir_Lewk]

And I've always wondered why people think that it is cool to use single width fonts in their posts. If people wanted to read text like that they would configure their browsers to display text that way. I suspect that it is just another form of karma-whoring, formatting posts so as to grab attention.

Pretty annoying if you ask me.

Re:midichlorians

[Anonymous Coward]

And since Black Fleet Crisis was written before Ep2, hmmm...

Re:midichlorians

[Anonymous Coward]

IMNSHO, it's the Audi drivers that are the most reliable asshats. I generally notice German cars (thanks, Top Gear!), and maybe there is some selection bias in seeing them drive badly. Even with that, though, I have seen maybe 2 Audis ever driven with any regards for survival.

Re:midichlorians

[darthvader100]

Midiclorians = Jedi Herpes

Re:midichlorians

[Anonymous Coward]

Ergo, bad plot element.

I think even Lucas realized this mis-step, which is precisely why the midi-whatsits were ignored in the other films.
 

He always wanted to talk about the midichlorians in the first movies, but he didn't have the technology to do so.

Re:midichlorians

[Vastad]

This.

I got my wonderful childhood memories of kung-fu qi-gong martial arts mysticism reduced to a satire of itself as "LOL! u hav magikal powers AIDS!"

What made it so ironic was this suspicion that it was an attempt by Lucas to make the Force less like new-agey ESP and more like Rupert Sheldrake's morphogenetic field science-y. Lets not even begin discussing how ridiculous this is in space opera fairy tale in the first place. It made it even more ridiculous and un-science-y.

While it was a mystical energy or qi or whatever, you only needed to loosely establish that it was some sort of universal constant like gravity and was not subject to time or space. Great. That's why Jedi can be any species. That's why anywhere in the universe can have it. That's why it can cheat physics a little bit. And it remains mysterious to reason.

But if it's some sort of mitochondria with magical powers...how do you explain it being present in every species known to possess force-sensitive individuals? Even between species with totally incomparable metabolic processes. How did it get across a huge universe in time to infect every sentient species available? How does mere mitochondria manage to send information outside of time-space contraints or c in order to allow things like precognition or telepathy? What factors govern whether or not you can be force-sensitive or not? If it's just to do with a population count, does this mean injecting more midi-chlorians into a subject can grant magical powers to a formerly non-sensitive individual? Would getting malignant midi-chlorian cancer turn you into an organic nuclear power plant? Where did they come from? If they are biological, are there different species of midi-chlorian? If they "talk" when you listen, what do they say? If telepathy is based on all midi-chlorian clusters somehow being able to sense one another and exchange information without any exchange of energy between population clusters i.e. bodies, then we are talking about some sort of weird quantum entanglement field that spans the universe.....aaaaaaaand ergo we're right back to the universal qi or new-agey ESP precedent set earlier. Only now, it's a fucking mess.

Re:midichlorians

[Anonymous Coward]

I think Robot Chicken nailed it with this exchange:

Luke: "I'll never join you! You killed my father!"
Vader: "No, Luke. *I* am your father!"
Luke: "That's not true! That's impossible!"
Vader: "And Princess Leia is your sister."
Luke: "That's not true! That's... improbable."
Vader: "And the Empire will be defeated by Ewoks."
Luke: "That's...very unlikely."
Vader: "And as a child, I built C-3PO."
Luke: "Huh?"
[segue, Vader drinking coffee and Luke having a smoke]
Vader: "And the Force? Well, that's just microscopic bacteria in your bloodstream called midi-chlorians."
Luke: "Look, if you're not going to take this seriously, I'm out."

Re:midichlorians

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree that it's annoying, but keep in mind there's a pull-down box that specified formatting [Plain Old Text / HTML / Extrans / Code]. It's simple to mis-click or forget to change it back (say you were posting code). I've never done it myself because I manually mark-up, but I can see how someone could easily make that mistake.

(Not that it excuses the lack of previewing, which is easily more annoying because it results in crap like

double-nested blockquoting, posts that embolden/italicise all the text after a key word or posts that don't linebreak properly)

Re:midichlorians

[Anonymous Coward]

Midichlorians are a microcosm of what was wrong with the whole series.

Every layer of the plot is told to us and not shown.

Midichlorians exist because Lucas needed a quantitative way of showing that Anakin was stronger in the Force than any other individual in the galaxy, and Lucas was too lazy to show it so he just had Liam Neeson say it.

Pathetic

Re:midichlorians

[Anonymous Coward]

I remember wondering at the time if Force ability was contagious, microbes frequently being communicable and all. When the hallmark of your childhood fantasy ends up getting chalked up to an infectious disease, it kinda sucks.

Re:midichlorians

[Random BedHead Ed]

I agree, I've never figured out why people get so hung up about midichlorians. Such a minor detail, and the mention of it in the third film was a nice callback. The big issues with TPM were the cardboard central characters, the annoying add-on character Jar-Jar, the complex plot and the over reliance on CGI. A film that had genuine characters and a classic Star Wars plot could have been called The Midichlorian Menace for all I care.

Re:midichlorians

[TheRaven64]

One (decidedly non-canonical) explanation of the series that I read here, which makes rather more sense than anything Lucas has spouted was that the midichloreans were nanites, rather than living things, and were manipulating the living creatures in the Republic / Empire on behalf of an AI. R2D2 is an avatar of this AI, which explains why he is present at all of the crucial events and how he manages to avoid having is memory wiped at the end of RotS.

So am I normal or something?

[Quiet_Desperation]

I moped around, talking to no one, for almost two weeks.

Really? I mean... really?

I left the theater, commented to my friends that Lucas had lost the formula somewhere along the way, and got on with life. I rented the next two. End of story.

Re:So am I normal or something?

[junglee_iitk]

FYI, it was sarcasm. It becomes in-your-face obvious if you watch the second part.

Re:So am I normal or something?

[dsanfte]

Hyperbole, from ancient Greek "", meaning excess or exaggeration) is a figure of speech in which statements are exaggerated. It may be used to evoke strong feelings or to create a strong impression, but is not meant to be taken literally.

Get your Assburgers diagnosed. I could shine a CO2 laser in your face, and it wouldn't be as blindingly obvious as that sarcasm was.

Re:Why a video

[Darinbob]

Who's going to watch a video review, much less a 70 minute one? Write it up on a web page with some illustrative clips.

I'm not sure why there's this trend to having high bandwidth video for stuff that the simple written word can handle. The Apple site comes to mind with the "Learn Your Way Around the Mac in Minutes" videos, that would take only seconds if it were text. Some of us still remember how to read.

Calling all Slashdoters/Wannabe Jedis

[beberly37]

It has long been my stance that while all 6 movies are fanstically enteraining movies, Mr. Lucas couldn't make a quality film to save his life. I just want to put it out there and start a movement. Start to finish, episodes 1-6 maybe even thrawn years (7,8,9) reimagined star wars movie with no Lucas influence. Who's with me!!! ps TPM will long hold a place in my memory. In the first ten minutes of the movie, when Obi won and Qui Gon are fighting the driods. The usage of bass to vibrate in my chest when a force push happened. That was the single coolest movie moment ever. If you didn't see it in the theater..I feel sorry for you.

Re:Calling all Slashdoters/Wannabe Jedis

[Tetsujin]

It has long been my stance that while all 6 movies are fanstically enteraining movies, Mr. Lucas couldn't make a quality film to save his life. I just want to put it out there and start a movement. Start to finish, episodes 1-6 maybe even thrawn years (7,8,9) reimagined star wars movie with no Lucas influence. Who's with me!!!

Meh, Star Wars has been done, why do it again?

Anonymous Cowards

[Anonymous Coward]

I couldn't get past the first 30 seconds of this bozo speaking with marbles in his mouth and using the f-bomb to ingratiate himself with the kiddies. Then I started to read the comments...

Dr. Zoidberg

[hansamurai]

Just watched the whole thing, entertaining, but I couldn't get over the fact that the narrator sounded like Dr. Zoidberg.

The Fight Scene w/ Darth Maul was awesome

[masmullin]

The fight scene didn't quite make up for the crappiness. But it was damn fine action at the end.

Re:The Fight Scene w/ Darth Maul was awesome

[TheRaven64]

Except it wasn't. It was fine choreography, but to be good action you need to be able to believe that the characters are emotionally involved in what's going on, and you need to be able to identify with one side or the other.

Re:The Fight Scene w/ Darth Maul was awesome

[masmullin]

I did identify. I wanted to kill Why-gone too!

Han Solo is so sexy.

[Jessified]

I like how all the men describe Han Solo as sexist and chauvinist and so on, and the girl thinks he's "sexy." I bet she's a feminist.

Not the worst

[rhadamanthus]

Attack of the Clones was far worse. Sillier story, even more breathtakingly unnecessary market-driven hoopla and the dialogue goes from "it's a small child and consequently this is bad, but tolerable" to "omg, who wrote this utter drivel and why did these actors defile themelves by partaking in it?"

Oblig

[masmullin]

I find your lack of faith... disturbing!

Re:Oblig

[vegiVamp]

Don't worry, he'll get over it. He just got too much antibiotics when he was sick last week.

Re:C'mon now...

[Anonymous Coward]

I didn't know Keith Dawson wears a sombrero now...

Merchandising doesn't require bad child actors

[sjbe]

Those three points violate rule #1 of sci-fi action for kids - Marketability outweighs quality.

Marketability is made much easier by having a good product.

Older Skywalker (Lets get him in his late teens)

Younger kids identify more and are responsible (indirectly) for many more toy sales.

I've got a box full of the original Star Wars action figures that says the age of the kid has little to do with marketability. Furthermore, none of the other Star Wars movies featured a child so prominently and somehow they still managed to sell a galactic ass-load of merchandise.

No JarJar and/or no C3PO and R2D2 (way to many comedy characters)

Action figures.

See previous response.

No Pod-Racing... 20 minutes about 1/3 of the movie about nothing.

Video games.

You don't need pod racing to do a video game. Even if you do want to make it a video game you don't need 25 minutes of it where the plot advances nowhere and we have bad dialog and worse acting by the kid playing Anakin. They could have shown pod racing in about 2-5 minutes and you'd have your video game AND a better movie.

Re:Merchandising doesn't require bad child actors

[Anonymous Coward]

You're response is too intelligent to deserve a response. (and likely beyond the abilities of most movie executives to understand)

Re:Merchandising doesn't require bad child actors

[Anonymous Coward]

The N64/PC podracing game was a highlight of my childhood, actually. And it's still an awesome game- zero friction, 400mph racing through teeny tunnels.

Re:Merchandising doesn't require bad child actors

[biovoid]

The original Star Wars arcade cabinet was a highlight of my childhood, and the X-Wing and TIE Fighter games highlights of my teens. And they were all better than that N64 podracing game.

Re:Merchandising doesn't require bad child actors

[memco]

You mean F-zero? Yeah that game was pretty rad!

Oh for $#%& SAKE!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

Get over it!!!!
The New Trilogy were made in the same Saturday morning matinee style as the originals;i.e. they're kids movies! Sure, they have some heavy scenes, a bit of Kurosawa, and some Tao, but they're still meant to be fun.
I bet if the complainers had first watched the Original Trilogy as adults rather than as children you'd probably think the same way of the originals.
But yeah... Jar Jar did suck!

Re:Oh for $#%& SAKE!!!

[frenchgates]

That's the great thing about this 70 minute takedown of Phantom Menace! It proves conclusively and methodically that those who can't differentiate between the quality or eps 4-6 vs eps 1-3 are either willfully ignorant or naturally ignorant. Just because you can't taste the difference between a big mac and filet mignon doesn't mean there is no difference.

Case in point...

[TiggertheMad]

LOL, You just said that you don't agree with my thesis, and then in the second sentence of your reply, you reworded exactly what I said.

My point wasn't that the movies couldn't have been better, but rather that it is probably impossible to make a better 'star wars' film in the eyes of the emotionally invested fans.

I think your just validated my point.

Re:Case in point...

[schon]

You just said that you don't agree with my thesis, and then in the second sentence of your reply, you reworded exactly what I said.

I think you replied to the wrong post - he said he disagreed, then he said why. You said nothing about Lucas handing over the reigns, or hiring others to do the jobs he took on himself, so there's no way he "reworded" anything you said.

Good news, everyone!

[everynerd]

Good news, everyone! Dr. Zoidberg is now reviewing 20th century cinema.

Re:Good news, everyone!

[z0idberg]

Hooray!

What should have happened

[lymond01]

If the prequels had been a separate story of a person or persons, amongst the backdrop of the rise of the empire and Darth Vader, they could have been great. What we have instead is a 9 hour Wikipedia article on the history of Darth Vader, and about as fun to watch on the big screen (with the exception of the sabre fight at the end of Episode 1 which was awesome).

Just pick a new character -- someone we've never heard of before. Heck, even make the person a wannabe Sith apprentice who finds himself (like all the video games) and who dies at the end in some heroic fashion. Memorable, but nothing to interfere with the next 3 movies. But at least someone that the audience might say, "Damn...I wish that character was still alive..." rather than wishing they were all dead.

Because it is funny and entertaining

[sjbe]

Who's going to watch a video review, much less a 70 minute one? Write it up on a web page with some illustrative clips.

I did. It's actually funny as hell as well as pretty insightful. If you actually watch it you'd understand that there are some points that are a LOT easier to make with a video. It also has more impact when you see Darth Lucas himself actually saying things that matter in the context of the argument about why the movie sucks.

I'm not sure why there's this trend to having high bandwidth video for stuff that the simple written word can handle.

Because there are some things that video can do that text can't and vice-versa. Sure it can be misused but that isn't an argument against the format.

Re:Because it is funny and entertaining

[NoOneInParticular]

I did watch the video review (all 70 minutes of it), thought it was funny as hell, and still agree with the grandparent complaining about it. A video is a very poor way of transmitting information. I need to remember from rote all that this guy said in the video, as there is no way in hell that I would ever revisit this video to find some choice words. Were it written down, I might do that. As it is know, it's a nice consumable, but hasn't been archived. The information content is most likely lost.

Re:Because it is funny and entertaining

[Anonymous Coward]

I did watch the video review (all 70 minutes of it), thought it was funny as hell,

Same here.

and still agree with the grandparent complaining about it. A video is a very poor way of transmitting information.

Ever hear the saying, "a picture is worth a thousand words". Videos are even better, cuz they include lots of pictures and a bunch of words. It's really hard to transmit pictures without... erm... pictures. ASCII art exists and all, and I know that there are tools to make it easier, but it's just not as efficient as actual pictures.

I need to remember from rote all that this guy said in the video,

Why? Who would want to remember it rote? Do you remember the Star Wars movies from rote? Or Gallagher's comedy routine?

as there is no way in hell that I would ever revisit this video to find some choice words.Were it written down, I might do that.

So, you're really complaining that you don't get a transcript. I think I hear a very small violin playing just for you. If you really want it that badly, you could get some voice recognition software and play the videos all over a gain, letting the software make the transcription.

Then again, many many many quotes are taken from things people said. Or from movies, hwere they're SAID and REMEMBERED because they were MEMORABLE. Or from songs, 'cuz they're MEMORABLE.

As it is know, it's a nice consumable, but hasn't been archived. The information content is most likely lost.

OMG!!!1! You're so right! The information content is totally lost! Nobody will ever be able to watch that video again, since the original was burned to a crisp when YouTube fell into the center of the earth! Ohwait, you mean it's still on YouTube? That's unpossible - if it were still there, it wouldn't be lost, but you just said it was lost!

Re:Because it is funny and entertaining

[TheRaven64]

I watched the video too, which makes at least three of us. A lot of things simply wouldn't have worked in any other medium. He shows clips of TPM and ANH side by side to contrast how things worked in both. The videos of people trying to describe the characters in TPM wouldn't have been nearly as effective in transcript.

Now, maybe it would be nice to have a transcript as well, but video is the right medium for dissecting a film. This is even more apparent in some of his other videos, for example the one about Star Trek Generations where he shows exactly where they reused the footage of the Klingon ship being destroyed from the previous movie.

TPM was best of the three.

[tjstork]

Everyone rips TPM because of Jar Jar, but I'd rather have an annoying but plausible character over a ridiculous concept of a guy being a Jedi knight for a bunch of years suddenly selling out the galactic republic because he had a bad dream. Revenge of the Sith was the most ridiculous thing ever made. There was no adequate reason or foreshadowing of Anakin's downfall, just a bunch of fanboys cheering when it happened. And frankly, if it was down to the Emperor vs Yoda + Obi Wan, why not take the Emperor down? They had the battle almost -won-.

In fact, really, the Phantom Menace was the only prequel that was actually any good at all.

Re:TPM was best of the three.

[Culture20]

In fact, really, the Phantom Menace was the only prequel that was actually any good at all.

I remember thinking at the end of TPM: "Nice over-arching story telling, Lucas: The Emporer wins either way..."

Re:TPM was best of the three.

[tjstork]

remember thinking at the end of TPM: "Nice over-arching story telling, Lucas: The Emporer wins either way...

Yeah, really, the problem of the prequel trilogy, is that, for it to really work, you must have to have Anakin be more like a Shakespearean character, a moody, slow moving character study with lots of great dialog, almost soliloquies, and more. Do that, and you can really get to understand Anakin, Obi Wan, Yoda and more. You need to scratch the whole adventure side almost entirely, or, if you have it, have it in the first episode, like the phantom menace. TPM is the only one of the three episodes that could have worked in that regard. The 2nd was bad, and the 3rd was just terrible.

Re:Don't look now

[dzfoo]

Interesting idea. Except that it is not necessarily true.

As a child, I remember watching the first Star Wars movie over and over and over and over again. I think at one time during my teens I counted 40 times, between multiple visits to the theater (since it kept being re-released every other year or so) and later owning it in VHS. I remember liking a bit the other two but nothing like the first one, yet I also saw them many times over.

Now, over 30 years later, I still watch Star Wars once in a while, and I enjoy it very much. To me it is an action-packed, fast-paced movie with a good story, like so many others I also enjoy. During the years, my taste in films and appreciation of the art has expanded greatly, yet I still enjoy action movies, both old and new, once in a while--including, but not limited exclusively, to those from my childhood.

To me, the original Star Wars may not be a great and perfect film, but it is entertaining. Plus the special and visual effects have stood rather well against the test of time (not to mention the sound effects!). In contrast, there are many movies which I remember fondly from my childhood, in diverse genres, which I have tried to watch as an adult only to regret with utter agony.

Although I do admit that nostalgia takes a part in my appreciation of some things, it is mosts definitely not the only criteria that colors my view.

              -dZ.

Thank the Force for Good Friends

[hyades1]

I have so far managed to avoid seeing all three of these abortions. I was lucky to have a couple of friends who went to the first one. When their eyes stopped bleeding, they swore to me on a case of single malt Scotch that if I was foolish enough to waste my money watching such drek, I would henceforth be known to them as, "That Dumb Asshole".

Their firm response to having their wallets heartlessly drained by a movie that apparently would have given Plan 9 From Outer Space some competition as Worst SF Film Ever saved me from attending until enough reviews were out to thoroughly support their opinion.

Besides, my mom would have been upset if she happened to drop by and overhear my new nickname.

Geez!

[Berkyjay]

Wow, the movie wasn't that bad. Get over it already.

Re:Geez!

[maggern]

Agree.

Parent is a flamebait? Think not. Moderators are not strong with the force...

You don't like them because they aren't for you

[rgviza]

My kid loved all three prequels. Given the target audience, that makes them a success. Maybe people don't like the prequels because they are grownups now. /shrug

All I know is my dad thought the first 3 were crap. Probably because he was a grownup. Us kids loved them.

I think everyone is pissed at Lucas because they feel abandoned. You don't like them because they were never meant to be liked by you. You like the old ones because you were a kid when you first saw them. I have no problem turning on my sense of wonder and suspension of disbelief. I loved all 6 star wars movies and the animated series'.

Get over it, they are tween movies, a space soap opera meant for kids, like Buck Rogers. You need to look at them from that perspective. Then again I'm totally into Sponge-bob and iCarly too. I step down to my son's level and watch the stuff with him. When I'm there, I love it. I don't like serious movies or tv shows. I'd rather watch Toy Story than Seven.

I'm not sure how you can take a set of movies called "Star Wars" seriously to begin with. Adults expecting something more is like expecting High School Musical or Hannah Montana to be as satisfying as Gone With the Wind.

Analyzing every detail and character takes all the fun out of it. It's like critiquing the latest McDonalds happy meal and talking about how it doesn't measure up to what a meal at a 5 star French restaurant should be.

The whole subject of Lucas "ruining" Star Wars is decidedly stupid. Move on, grow up, and let it go, or enjoy the movies for what they are: movies for kids.

Re:You don't like them because they aren't for you

[oogoliegoogolie]

My kid loved all three prequels
Well, that makes sense since the prequels certainly were targeted at children.

Maybe people don't like the prequels because they are grownups now
Just because a movie sucks does not mean the reason I think it sucks is because I am an adult and the movie is for kids. The Incredibles, Cars, Wall-E were movies that adults and kids enjoy equally. TFM and the other two prequels were simply poor movies.

Re:You don't like them because they aren't for you

[sl3xd]

My view: Far too many people had what their Star Wars universe was. Then when Lucas didn't give them exactly what they wanted (all 300 million versions of 'exactly what I wanted'), the results are predictable.

Here's a news flash: Episodes 4-6 were every bit as bad as Episodes 1-3.

Now go back and read it again.

It's just nostalgia that keeps many fans from admitting that episodes 4-6 were a long way from the best movies ever made. They had fantastic special effects, sound effects, and an even better musical score.

Yet movie reviews at the time blasted episodes 4-6 as being effects-coated bad movies. Just like Transformers 2 or Battlefield Earth...

The critics need to take their rose-colored glasses off, and realize that the original Star Wars trilogy is not, and never was the deep universe critics imagined in their heads. Most of the "depth" was written in the decades that followed the release of the movies, and most of that was also "non-canon."

Lucas discarded much of the well-liked but non-canon lore that was written between the two trilogies. This upset many a fanboy.

Now I liked the entire Star Wars saga. But I also liked it for what it was - a family dinner at McDonalds; not fine dining at a five-star restaurant. You can have a good time at both. But nobody should ever mistake Episodes 4-6 as being in the same league as the greatest movies ever made.

Re:You don't like them because they aren't for you

[Anonymous Coward]

this is incredibly insightful. nobody here at all had already figured this out 10 years go. ;o)

Re:You don't like them because they aren't for you

[frenchgates]

This is the oldest apologia for the prequels and has been well debunked. Watch the 70 minute review and see for yourself how idiotic it is to assert that they're all equally good/bad. You know, for kids!

Good reviews of Star Trek too.

[biglig2]

His reviews of Generations and Insurrection are good too: besides the obvious flaws in the plots of both, he knows the TV series well enough to find the non-obvious continuity flaws. Intercutting the plot of Insurrection with footage of Picard chewing Wesley a new one for doing exactly (and I mean EXACTLY) the things that Picard does in the film is exquisite.

The review is good without worrying about Jar Jar.

[Zaphod-AVA]

One of the best things about this review is that it doesn't get stuck on how awful Jar Jar is, or the poor acting, it attacks the fundamental building blocks of the film.

For those that don't want to slog through all 7, I recommend just watching # 6, it has some of the best content.

Dead horse.

[Buzzsaw5]

Ten years later and people are still whining about the movie not being what they wanted it to be. I honestly don't think it's that bad anymore. Jar Jar and "young Anakin" served their purposes- to attract a new generation of children to the franchise, and to show Anakin's initial innocence.

Re:Don't look now

[Temujin_12]

Just, as a child, you saw the film *once*, then bought the toys, and had a ton of fun playing with the toys in the schoolyard, making up your own adventures. That is where your fond memories lie.

True, true. Growing up, I didn't have Star-Wars action-toys. But if by "toys" you include X-Wing and Tie Fighter computer games then, yes, I had Star Wars toys.

You are disappointed because you are no longer a child, and can no longer revel in your imagination, and are upset that Lucas can't replace your lost youth.

My playing with my son seems to prove you wrong on this point. Having kids is a great excuse to become a kid again.

Re:Don't look now

[schon]

All of the films sucked.

Sorry, but no.

My wife was 27 when I met her in the 1990s. Although she was a huge movie fan, she hated science-fiction, and hadn't seen the Star Wars movies at all. It took some convincing, but she finally agreed to watch them with me. We rented "Star Wars", and watched it together. She liked it so much that she insisted we go rent the other two the same day.

Detach yourself, and watch any of the films with a critical eye. They are all awful.

Done, and it turns out you're completely wrong.

compared to episode 4,5,6 ...

[farble1670]

the original star wars movies are pretty equivalent taking into account the time difference. painful acting, nice special effects. they both have the same story line, so i don't see how anyone can complain there. if anything, episodes 1,2,3 gave me more details, enough for me to really get into the star wars universe.

i think the real problem is that so today's critics are the ones that says episodes 4, 5, 6 when they were kids, and when they had a less critical mind to all of the same problems that exist in 1, 2, 3.

Re:compared to episode 4,5,6 ...

[Dan667]

are you sure you watched them? I don't recall any nascar announcers in the original Star Wars movies like episode one.

Re:compared to episode 4,5,6 ...

[farble1670]

do you remember luke whining like a 5-year old baby when he couldn't make stuff float around the first time he tried it when yoda was training him? do you think walking talking teddy bears are any less child like than cheesy two-headed pod racer announcer? how about the silly teenager-ish sexual tension between han and laia? i can go on and on if you like.

in all forms of storytelling, be it movies, books or verbal, you have to put some effort into it. there are always some thing that don't seem right and places where you need to let your imagination fill in the blanks. you are just lazy and impossible to satisfy anyway if you can't do that.

Re:compared to episode 4,5,6 ...

[16K Ram Pack]

"i think the real problem is that so today's critics are the ones that says episodes 4, 5, 6 when they were kids, and when they had a less critical mind to all of the same problems that exist in 1, 2, 3."

That's a poor excuse for some poor films.

I can critically dismantle films as an adult, and while there's a couple of glaring plot holes in Star Wars, it works as a heroic myth. The Phantom Menace just doesn't have that. It has no main protagonist. It has poorly written characters. It has a convoluted, inexplicably complex plot.

Summary in one paragraph:

[Hurricane78]

It was written by a 12 year old George Lucas, putting his childhood dream to paper. Those inner feelings were his, and his alone. They can’t be transported to a 50 year old Lucas, by helper writers, by a production studio, and certainly don’t fit the minds of 30 year old geeks with expectations as high as the sky. What did you expect??

It should have been a children’s movie, from a child, to children. It would have been nice and funny and fittingly childish. But tell that to a guy sitting in his basement for a decade (no offense, as I can sympathize), waiting for it to come out. ;)

Call me a f-ing idiot if you want but

[Anonymous Coward]

I liked the movie. I thought it was bad ass. And yes, it is the only Stars Wars movie I have ever seen. I watched it in the theater with a buddy. Loved it!

Absolutely spot on

[filekutter]

I have to admit I was disappointed with the second Star Wars, and then a disdain took over as the story lines, dialogue, and elements of the movies were more and more dumbed down "for" children. For that reason I never even bothered to pirate/download the phantom menace. I'd been insulted enough times. Well done and more entertaining than the movie you reviewed! Thank you!

+ 5 Insightful

[Anonymous Coward]

Mods are fanboys...

Ewan McDonald?

[Trogre]

I stopped watching at this point. I'm amazed I made it that far, actually.

Re:Ewan McDonald?

[amaupin]

I stopped watching at this point. I'm amazed I made it that far, actually.

Woooooosh!

(Well, if you had kept watching you'd have seen he intentially screws up every prequel actor's name. And a few words, too.)

Re:Ewan McDonald?

[tkrotchko]

It's okay. One person on here thought that perhaps the constant references to hookers in the basement might've been disturbing "especially if true".

Made it through 3 minutes...

[EmagGeek]

I don't know if he was trying to be funny by sounding like he was trying to talk with his mouth full, but it was utterly intolerable...

Shortened version

[jwriney]

The movie is terrible. There, I just saved you 69 minutes and 55 seconds.

--riney

Seriously....

[NerveGas]

"So you might like the characters.... you know, if you're stupid."

Funny and smart. This guy is good.

The best the Internet gave us in 2009

[Xipe66]

10/10 for content and delivery. Thank you!

The final light saber duel in Revenge of the Sith

[NotSoHeavyD3]

told me how much of a hack Lucas is at times. I mean you basically have Obi-Wan tricking Amidala into taking him to where Anakin. Then letting her come out first and then obviously coming out of the same ship so that Anakin can see how he got there.(And winning the duel since Vader would go into a blinding rage since he thought Amidala had completely screwed him over.) At first I thought Lucas wanted to show the moral dilema with the light side of the force being so rational and emotion less. (Since from a rational point of view using Amidala to get you there in the first place and then using her again to convince Vader that he can trust absolutely no one would be a very effective tactic. It'd be an utterly dick move but if you're emotionless about it then it makes loads of sense. If the evaulation is use some stupid love sick tart to take out some master of potential evil and you're some emotionless dick like Ben well there's a kind of sense in that tactic.) Instead of doing that it's just another fight and it ends up with Ben winning because he's 2 feet higher. (Really, he could have done a reference to Vader losing before the fight began then realize after the fact how peverted he'd become by blindly following the light side since it was totally ok with all of his tactics since they may have been brutal but they were definitely cold.) Anyway that's the most blatant example of Lucas being a complete hack but I know, way too many to mention.

Re:Why a video

[jitterman]

I did too, and know of several others who did as well. Not taking you to task, but you asked. And there are a couple of parts that are, ermm, creepy funny, so I urge you to watch for fun!

And yeah, sjbe nailed it with everything in his/her post. You can see Lucas himself practically admitting some things suck but trying to self-justify, while all of his yes-people clearly don't want to say anything negative. Text and video each have their proper places, and this one was well done.

Eh, we had the older skywalker

[SmallFurryCreature]

He was a whiny teen. Luke Skywalker just accepts his fate. In an ACTION movie, that is important. Leave the shallow soul searching for MTV. The problem with the movie is that Darth Vader it truly and wholy evil. The "saving" at the end of Return of the Jedi was already bad enough (in the books and expanded universe it is made clear that he can't cross over nearly as easy, hence the reason to burn the corpse where Yoda and Obi-wan just faded away) but it still doesn't sit well with the hero ending of the bad guy being blown away, but is excused because it is different enough to be seen as original.

But he AIN'T a hero character. And in the first three movies you are supposed to care about this guy who really is not going to end up saving the day. It would be like making a movie about Adolf Hitler's youth and expecting people to root for him. Sorry, no. And there was a remote possibility that we could have cared, if we had seen him fighting the dark side only to be tricked fatally in the end in a way nobody could forsee. But the entire 3 movies are like a Punch and Judy show, with the audience screaming "look out behind you" and punch looking the wrong way and saying "where". Hilarious when 4 year olds see it done in a good puppet show, but the political antics were beyond young kids and below adults. Where were those supersmart jedi, were was the mastermind of the emperor. No action hero to save the day, no intense manipulation by unseen puppeteer masters who turn wheels within wheels. Just... well just the 3 prequels which told a story that could have been told in a simple expanded universe book in a way that would not have focussed on the villain but on a new hero whose path crosses that of the villain.

There is a reason this guy takes 70 minutes to tear the movie down, because the prequels are really that fucking bad. Not the kinda bad that you get when a producer gets his hand on something he doesn't understand (Uwe Boll) or the producer just can't direct (Plan 9 from outer space) but the kinda bad that arrives when a lot of very talented people forget just what the fuck they are good at doing.

The simplest example of this is the CGI battle on the grassy plane. What did CGI do well in those days? Tech scenes, hard corners, steel and concrete. So what did they render, lush grass land. It looks fake! They managed to get a green lawn which you can shoot for real on any golfcourse looks horribly fake.

And if you think 20 minutes is 1/3 of the movie, then your brain must have carefully restructured itself to shut out the most damaging memories, memories that if they were to surface would turn you into a bliddering murderous psycho.

Proof, you think the movie could be fixed. Amazing healing capacities the brain has. I can remember it all, but I am sane! Ain't I Mr. Fibble?

Re:Eh, we had the older skywalker

[coaxial]

The "saving" at the end of Return of the Jedi was already bad enough (in the books and expanded universe it is made clear that he can't cross over nearly as easy, hence the reason to burn the corpse where Yoda and Obi-wan just faded away) but it still doesn't sit well with the hero ending of the bad guy being blown away, but is excused because it is different enough to be seen as original.

Really? I just always assumed that it was because he was "more machine than man now." Ben and Yoda's clothes didn't disappear. Why would Vader's helmet and armor? I just figured that if you took off the helmet before lighting the pyre, there would be nothing there.

But he AIN'T a hero character. And in the first three movies you are supposed to care about this guy who really is not going to end up saving the day. It would be like making a movie about Adolf Hitler's youth and expecting people to root for him. Sorry, no. And there was a remote possibility that we could have cared, if we had seen him fighting the dark side only to be tricked fatally in the end in a way nobody could forsee.

EXACTLY! The new trilogy should have been about Obi-Wan. How he tried to rush things, go for the brass ring, and screwed up royally. Thus setting up not just Vader's death-bed conversion, but Obi-Wan's redemption by finally correcting his mistake through Luke. ("I thought I could train him as well as Yoda. I was wrong.")

And why does Qui-Gon Jin even exist? Yoda was supposed to train Obi-Wan. ("There you will meet Yoda, the Jedi Master who instructed me.") Yeah, sure you can have multiple teachers, but it's a master-apprentice relationship. You may have other teachers besides your main advisor, but you're never considered those other teachers' "student."

Don't even get me started on how Akosha figures in as Anakin's student in the Clone Wars cartoon. Does she turn evil? Does Ani kill her too? Why does he have a student at 20, when Obi-Wan was still a padawan at age 30? (Still, the Clone Wars cartoon is actually good. In all honesty, I think it's because Lucas has nothing to do with it.)

Re:Why a video

[16K Ram Pack]

Here's the thing: It's actually a higher piece of art than The Phantom Menace. Sit and watch the 1st ten minutes and then see if you want to watch more. I literally watched the whole thing straight from 1 to another.

The guy made me laugh and when I was tired laughing, delivered some really interesting points about things like script, character, that sort of thing.

Let me tell you

[Iceykitsune]

I'l say what I said on the gizmodo page, Do you hate the prequel troliogy because of the fact that it is not a new hope remake? or is it something else?

Re:Why a video

[jeremyp]

It was actually pretty good, in fact, quite a bit more entertaining than The Phantom Menace.

I get your point that the written word is often a better medium but that doesn't mean there is no room for these videos as well.

What, after all was the point of the film The Godfather when we already had the story already written down? I'm not saying this video is The Godfather but it's pretty good.

Re:Why a video

[MrPerfekt]

The inflection in the reviewer's voice is half the fun. Don't be a party-pooper until you give it a chance! Do you think sarcasm translates perfectly over text too? It's a satirical and humorous but has some serious (from a nerd's point of view) points.

You're missing out but to each, their own.

Patton Oswalt

[Anonymous Coward]

does a stand-up bit about exactly this topic.

http://www.comedycentral.com/videos/index.jhtml?title=patton-oswalt-star-wars&videoId=103167

Different Universe

[bill_mcgonigle]

Older Skywalker (Lets get him in his late teens)

Let's be happy they didn't.

ObiWan is far to young in the so-called prequels for them to be part of the same Universe as the first three movies.

Remember, "surely he must be dead by now?" when talking about a man who looked to be 80 in non-Jedi terms (they age more slowly than normal humans). Yet, 'Old Ben' is not even forty when Luke is born in the prequels. And he meets Luke 16 years later in ANH? No, different universe, does not apply.

To those who enjoy, well enjoy

[DannyO152]

As for me - I watched most of part 1 and a snippet of part 2 - I found the inclusion of personal "details" disturbing, especially if they are true. I understand that with the internet, ratcheting up the rude is de riguer but, I was hoping that perhaps film criticism could withstand the tenor of the times.

As for his specific critique of Episode I regarding character arc, I think his argument that Annakin Skywalker could not be the protagonist due to late arrival point in the film is not particularly compelling. Episodes I-III are the rise and fall of Annakin Skywalker. Episode I, being an origins story, necessarily has to introduce the major characters for the trilogy and establish relationships. Even though we think we understood the Republic, in fact, there had to be tedious exposition regarding the politics so as to explain the crisis and motivate the major characters.

On balance, I like Episode I, but I acknowledge the flaws, which are plain to see. In its defense, I liked the restaging of the "Ben Hur" chariot race. The production design of Nabu alluded to some of my favorite artists and for my money, nobody tops Lucas and team for art, sound design, conceptualization and creation of a universe, even if particulars are derivative. I also think that it could be argued that some of the flaws in the first Episodes come from the revisiting of the "universe" at a point 30 years prior with film technology that was advanced 20 years. With "Star Wars" and "American Graffiti, Lucas had already shown a predilection for parallel action sequences, fast editing, and dense visuals. Well, Episodes I-III were even more so because the CGI enabled it. It's a fair criticism that there was too much visual density and to little point and I wonder if that made the exposition even more dreary. Still, when the drone army deployed from the carrier, I thought that looked cool, and especially because the numbers made an interesting visual pattern.

There's no denying that Lucas had lost some of his story telling bravado in his late middle ages, as evident from re-editing Han to shoot later. Han shooting first came out of Howard Hawks' manual - you may read in Bogdanovich's book exactly why Hawks had his heroes shoot first - and maybe the ultimate point is that Lucas should have either stuck with his masters or thought harder about how to replace them. In "Phantom Menace" we had a John Ford door framing, we had a tableau which echoed Kurosawa's "Throne of Blood," but, we didn't have the cutting-edge bravery, as in Episode IV and taken from Kurosawa's "The Hidden Fortress," to tell the story from the point of view of minor, reactive, characters.

Good points nonetheless, Episode I is only marginally better than Episode VI and I fully understand those who hate both.

Resisting the temptations of Lucas

[mnmlst]

I find it a bit weird, but I have known some people who heard TPM was so bad they just refused to see Episodes I, II, II perhaps as a way to avoid spoiling their image of Star Wars.

Personally, I saw Star Wars as an 11 year old and was pretty much knocked to the floor. Episode V was great, but Episode VI disappointed. TPM was so abysmal it took about 4 years before I could muster the stomach to see it again. I still can't believe they cast Jake Lloyd over Haley Joel Osmont who was spectacular in "The Sixth Sense" and "AI". Things were looking up a bit with Episode II, but I kept my expectations at immediate post-TPM levels before seeing Episode III. Honestly, I think Episode III is my favorite now. The FX are incredible and to finally close the loop to Annakin's descent was very very satisfying. Ian McDiarimid's performance was mesmerizing.

If you've never seen it, find the short video clip "Lucas in Love" for some good laughs. Like "Shakespeare in Love", it is intended to show where the Big Ideas came from. When do we get Episodes VII, VIII, and IX, Mr. Lucas? Can you please let someone else direct them?

What has George Lucas actually made?

[HockeyPuck]

I headed over to IMDB to see what George Lucas has actually made and it sadly boils down to two franchises and one great movie.

He made Star Wars, and should have stopped at ROTJ.
He made Indiana Jones, and should have stopped with Last Crusade (1989)

Oddly his best work might have been American Graffiti (1973).

He had other crap like Howard the Duck and Captain EO. He should just retire and stop making toys.

Re: The Definitive Evisceration of The Phantom Men

[Tetsujin]

I hope I don't have to wait 10 years for the The Definitive Evisceration of The Definitive Evisceration of The Phantom Menace.

No, what's going to happen is you're going to keep thinking about this: and then, ten years from now it'll hit you: "Hey, nobody's ever really said anything bad about this thing, and it's been ten years, ten is a nice, round number that coincides with how many fingers I have, and I think it's time the truth be told about this turkey!" You, yourself, are destined to someday write this definitive evisceration. Accept this burden, for it is your fate. You are the Chosen One.

Hehe

[SmallFurryCreature]

It is so bad, that NEW star wars games were set in another universe, just to get away from it all.

Amazing.

Actually, it has the trinity

[SmallFurryCreature]

All good stories have MULTIPLE characters, to appeal to our different tastes.

The hero is Luke, he is the guy you know you should wannabe like. He is the guy your sister knows she should want to date.

Han Solo is the guy you want to be, and the one your sister/mother REALLY liked. You can see that in part 1 of the review, the guys describe Han as a wannabe womanizer. The girl describes him as a succesful ladiesman. He can jump her hyperdrive anytime.

And Leia, Leia is the girl you wanted or the one your sister wanted to be.

While Obi-wan guides them until they are old enough to stand on their own feet. It is classic stuff. Kirk/Spock/McCoy. The Fellowship of the Ring. It works, because one person can't appeal to the entire audience or even one person.

But in the end, it is Luke in Star Wars who is the real hero, we just like to pretend he isn't because we want to be cool. But in the end, it is Luke whose struggle we follow. Luke who we see grow up from anxious teen farmboy to Jedi Knight who confronts the emperor and his past.

And that, as this review points out best in part 6, is missing. We don't care. Characters are not making sense and fights are about acrobatics.

I totally agree with the reviewer when he states that if you thought the prequels were okay because of the fights, then you don't get it. The slow fight between darth vader and obi-wan was never about swords-play. This is NOT a swashbuckler movie. And that was missing. The prequels are a Jackie-Chan movie. Very nice moves, but that is all there is. Early Jacky Chan movies don't even have an epilogue, they cut to credits the moment the boss bites the dusts.

At the time you had a lot of kiddies wowing about Darth Maul, but who or what was he. He was no Darth Vader. Rather amusingly, George Lucas is quoted in the review as saying that CGI is nothing compared to story telling. Boy did George forget that lesson.

What the review is wrong about is focussing on the story plotholes. The original got tons of them too, perhaps even more, but it don't matter because the core is solid. The CGI and even the story don't need to be good if their is a heart beating in the middle of it all. And that is ultimately what the prequels lack. There is no soul.

Re:Actually, it has the trinity

[MightyMartian]

It's the odd thing about Lucas, considering how huge a fan of Kurosawa he is. You can see the Kurosawa's style of humanity, the rebels defying the established order for decency and liberty, in the first trilogy. But that Kurosawa style of humanism is gone from the prequel trilogy. The humor, the humanity, which made even Lucas's stinky dialog and plotting clunk along, was gone, and what we were left with was, well, Lucas's stinky dialog and plotting, but with ten times the visual effects and utterly implausible fight scenes.

Re:Actually, it has the trinity

[Anonymous Coward]

Nice analogy, except Jackie Chan movies had actually good humour and believable acting. The phantom menace had an annoying little wanker of a kid and Jar-Jar Binks.

Re:Actually, it has the trinity

[Rary]

But in the end, it is Luke in Star Wars who is the real hero, we just like to pretend he isn't because we want to be cool. But in the end, it is Luke whose struggle we follow. Luke who we see grow up from anxious teen farmboy to Jedi Knight who confronts the emperor and his past.

Actually, I always had a problem with Luke as the hero because to me Star Wars was about the Rebellion, not about Luke's little family squabbles. While Luke was wanking off with his dad and the Emperor, Han and Leia and Lando and all the unnamed real heroes were out there actually winning the damn war.

Re:Actually, it has the trinity

[rantingkitten]

What the review is wrong about is focussing on the story plotholes.

It wasn't just about the plotholes. Those were usually asides, like "Why is there a child-sized helmet and goggles in the cockpit?" The narrative was illustrating how completely incoherent the plot was, in its entirety. The first movie was about a real, tangible enemy -- Vader, the Death Star, the Empire at large -- whereas Phantom Menace is about some idiots squabbling about tax rates. No one cares, and even if we did, the argument makes no sense, the goals make no sense, the plans and actions to obtain those goals make no sense, and we have no real idea what the motive was behind anything that happens. As such, we stop caring about the story or the characters.

Nitpicking plot holes is fun, but that wasn't what this guy did. He was pointing out that the first three movies were fantastic because the plots were relatively simple, identifiable, easy to understand, and the characters were fleshed out in a way that you knew why they were doing what they were doing, and they had distinct personalities.

The prequels in general, and Phantom Menace in particular, have none of that. The plot of Phantom Menace is a long, droning, boring bickerfest about votes and trade negotiations that don't even make sense, and the characters are all idiots. It's rather like watching CSPAN.

Another thing that annoyed me about the prequels, which the guy just kind of touched on but didn't really get into, was the total overuse of CGI. I know that's been discussed to death. But really, if you look at, say, the sail barge scene in Return of the Jedi, the actors are actually standing on some kind of prop. It's worn, charred in places.. the thing's clearly seen use. And so it looks real, and I found myself thinking "How are Luke and his friends going to get out of this?"

On the other hand, watching the CGI eye candy on the prequels just made me think "Wow! Awesome special effects!" Not a thought about the story.

Re:Actually, it has the trinity

[hkmwbz]

The rebellion would have been crushed if Luke hadn't kicked evil Sith ass.

Re:Actually, it has the trinity

[Anonymous Coward]

"What the review is wrong about is focussing on the story plotholes."

Er..... The review focuses on the lack of characters and the lack of a story.... What review where you reading, it's not about plot holes, it's about there being no plot to have holes.

If you call the characters and story the "heart", then the review focuses EXACTLY on the lack of heart or "soul".

Re:Actually, it has the trinity

[Rary]

The rebellion would have been crushed if Luke hadn't kicked evil Sith ass.

Impossible to say for certain, but unlikely.

The simple fact is that Han and crew shut down the shield generator without any help from Luke, and Lando and crew destroyed the second Death Star without any help from Luke. If the Emperor hadn't been killed by Vader, and Vader subsequently died, they both would've been killed anyway when the Death Star blew up.

Luke was busy fighting a self-indulgent personal battle that had nothing to do with the rebellion.

3 was good?

[SmallFurryCreature]

What right reasons? What exactly about killing kids was good? What was his motivation, why did he believe a single word, why did he need palpatine alive. Why did he not trust anyone.

If you think episode 3 explained this, then either you saw a different movies or you have very low expectations of story telling.

And if you think this is just about old people hating the movies (which can be explained because we already knew the movies because we had imagined them ourselves) then why do the kids hate them too?

Oh, merchandise sells, for a bit but it ain't the absolute hit the originals were. I remember the toys coming out and people buying the stores empty in hours, with the prequels, the toys were just another toy.

Where are the kids playing Star Wars out. Where are the quotes from the kids who saw TPM and are now in their teens? The movies sold, but they did NOT become the absolute cult hit that the originals were. Star Wars A New Hope must be mentioned in any serious discussion of the history of movies. The prequels are just another blockbuster hit, of which there a dozen each year.

But I see you ain't got a clue. You call Star Wars tacky sci-fi. Really, do yourself a favor and read a book, for once. Star Wars ain't tacky sci-fi. It is fantasy. Learn to know the difference. Blade Runner is Sci-Fi. Flash Gordon is fantasy. Just because something has spaceships does not make it Sci-fi.

Re:3 was good?

[calmofthestorm]

But midichlorians...it's science...ok not really;)

Yeah it occurred to me I should have said fantasy not sci-fi after I posted but don't generally like to self reply. I'm well aware of the difference, I assure you, but didn't want to get into the sci-fi/fantasy debate on star wars as most people seem to think it's the former.

But I do think that the explanation was reasonable. The kid had a tough upbringing, was afraid of loss, and let his paranoid fears and dreams run away with him. He went insane. This does not strike me as inconsistent with human nature; with the horrible things people do out of jealousy, fear, etc. He let his fears go out of control and was willing to do anything to get the help Sidious was stringing him along with.

I'm not crazy about any of Star Wars (possibly because I first saw the old ones in college, when the newer ones came out), but I do think that ep III can stand with them as well as the rest of the extended universe on quality and enjoyability.

Re:3 was good?

[hkmwbz]

What right reasons? What exactly about killing kids was good? What was his motivation, why did he believe a single word, why did he need palpatine alive. Why did he not trust anyone.

Did you watch episode 3? He was a rebel, and the Jedi held him back from his full potential, and that caused him to not be powerful enough to save his mother, who died. This along with other things put him on a path of hatred towards the Jedi. Palpatine played of his insecurity and anger and promised to make him powerful so he could save anyone (like, duh, his GF?). He snapped.

Re:3 was good?

[spindizzy]

Except there is not redemption from any ethical view point I'll recognise. Saving your own son by murdering another, especially after voicing the hope that said son will join you in a crushing rulership of the galaxy does not redeem for what appears to be a responsibility for millions, if not hundreds of millions murdered at your own hand/orders. Vader got off insanely lightly and the message it sends is twisted beyond belief.

Re:3 was good?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah right http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/images/ep3_tot1.gif :D

Re:3 was good?

[Doctor Faustus]

I wouldn't call it redemption, either, but I think that's kinda cool. Anakin never cared a whit about ideals or even much about power. He cared about the people who were close to him, and was driven by that all the way through.

Re:3 was good?

[Narcogen]

Did you watch episode 3? He was a rebel, and the Jedi held him back from his full potential, and that caused him to not be powerful enough to save his mother, who died.

This is bogus. His mother would have lived if he had returned home to free her from slavery at *any point* in the intervening decade or so between TPM and AotC. Even failing that, she was alive when he arrived; so leaving days, hours, perhaps even minutes earlier may have saved her life-- none of which have to do with the Jedi holding him back or him not being "powerful enough". What was required to find his mother was getting up off his butt and going to talk to Watto and ask where she was, which again has nothing do with the Jedi and nothing to do with the Force.

This along with other things put him on a path of hatred towards the Jedi. Palpatine played of his insecurity and anger and promised to make him powerful so he could save anyone (like, duh, his GF?). He snapped.

This is correct, but problematic. It makes Anakin a much less sympathetic character. He desires power and is driven by ego, and Palpatine manipulates him by offering those things. This is sensible and logical (one of the few sensible elements of the prequels' collective plot) but not good or sympathetic.

As for saving his GF... she was never in any serious danger *except from him*. I suppose if Lucas wanted it to be absolutely clear that she was destined to die in childbirth unless Anakin saved her, he shouldn't have had him attack her just before she goes into labor. Even then, it's a pretty weak connection. It would have been much more satisfying if the Jedi had been far more responsible for her death-- even indirectly so-- in a way that would make it seem more just for Anakin to blame them.

Even then, it doesn't wash-- Anakin has turned to the dark side, betrayed Mace Windu, saved Palpatine, and executed children *before she is ever put in any danger whatsoever*. The only danger is from Anakin's own dreams, and if his dreams are accurate, he is himself the cause of her death-- not the Jedi.

The entire clusterfudge is compounded when Palpatine tells Darth Vader that he is responsible for Amidala's death. That makes no sense whatsoever. It would have been emotionally authentic, at that point, for Anakin to want to kill himself, or to kill Palpatine-- to blame himself, his ego, his ambition, and that of the Emperor, for her death.

If Palpatine wanted to motivate Vader to go on a galaxy-spanning hunt to kill all the remaining Jedi, why not tell him that Kenobi killed her? Why not tell him that, having turned away from the Jedi and supported the Emperor, the Jedi considered his children to be a threat (true) and had her and them killed in order to protect their own interests?

By and large the prequels are huge steaming piles, but it's amazing how some tiny editorial changes could have made them much more logically consistent and emotionally authentic. Shifting the blame for Amidala's death from Vader to Kenobi would have been such a change-- the major problem with it is the need to retcon the original trilogy.

Even so, I'd say that ANH simply doesn't support the ending that Revenge gives us. "When I left you I was but a learner, now I am the master" is not what anyone would say after what happened. Anakin's point where he consciously departs from the Jedi leadership comes in the confrontation between Palpatine and Windu-- Kenobi is nowhere around, and it has nothing to do with his position as a student.

The actual break between the two of them comes during the climactic battle-- in which Anakin doesn't leave anything-- Kenobi leaves him, burned and limbless, on an island amidst a lava flow.

Then Kenobi fails to show any mercy, by saving his errant comrade from death and rehabilitating him once he's no longer an active threat-- nor does he take the final action necessary to eliminate that potential threat for all time by killing him off. Kenobi's great failur

Re:3 was good?

[hkmwbz]

Except Anakin wasn't thinking rationally, and he was being held back by the Jedi, causing animosity.

Re:3 was good?

[hkmwbz]

It makes Anakin a much less sympathetic character. He desires power and is driven by ego, and Palpatine manipulates him by offering those things.

Er, isn't that kind of the point? A lot of things come together to turn him into this badass motherfucker, including being manipulated, his own anger and despair, etc.

Re:3 was good?

[Narcogen]

It makes Anakin a much less sympathetic character. He desires power and is driven by ego, and Palpatine manipulates him by offering those things.

Er, isn't that kind of the point? A lot of things come together to turn him into this badass motherfucker, including being manipulated, his own anger and despair, etc.

Then the ending of RotJ has no meaning. Darth Vader was a badass motherfucker who was revealed to actually be a good person who made some bad choices. Then, the prequels reveal that he was really just a selfish whiny jerk after all.

Mostly it hinges on how hard it was for Palpatine to manipulate Anikin. The easier it was, the less sympathetic Anakin becomes, and the less satisfying the redemption of Vader is. As it stands, it wasn't very hard at all-- the choices Anikin makes are not merely bad or wrong, they are nonsensical, and Palpatine's attempts at manipulation are childish and ineffectual, but they work anyway because Anikin is more than willing.

Except all the old people loved star wars

[SmallFurryCreature]

My mom did NOT have the english novels for her six year old son who wouldn't speak English until several years later.

The movie was NOT a disney hit with parents reluctantly taking their childeren. The movie did NOT only have matinees and maybe a six o'clock showing. The entire idea that the originals were for kids is only because you were a self-centered kid who only saw your own world.

Read a bit more about the movies and their impact on society. They really were a huge event.

But Lucas said it himself (as quoted in this review) CGI without story is pretty pointless. And yet what we get in the prequels in endless CGI for the sake of CGI. Take the underwater chase vs the asteroid flight. We get only action underwater but in space we get the romance between Han and Leia developing between all the action shots. BIG difference.

If you want to see a Star Wars movie aimed at kids, watch the Ewok Adventures. The difference is obvious.

Very very funny. Thank you.

[Torodung]

Jar Jar, you're a genius!

(Just giving back some funny if you haven't seen Darths and Droids yet)

--
Toro

Watch part 6

[SmallFurryCreature]

It drives the point home the clearest, it shows the difference between the light saber battles in the movies. The drama of the originals vs the choreography of the prequels.

As for the point about the characters, it is true. of course you can always describe the characters in a carefully written post, but the point is that if you ask a kid who saw TPM or a kid who saw ANH to describe a character then the kid who saw TPM would say "piss off, that is a kids movie".

And that says it all. Everyone who defends the prequels claims the originals were aimed at kids, when they were not. The merchandising (which only came AFTERWARDS as the powers that be thought it would flop) was aimed at kids, the Ewok Adventures were aimed at kids. But the movies were enjoyed by all ages. As you can see if you watch footage of the era where you see only adults standing for late night showings. The same can be said about TRUE kids movies like The Lion King.

Re:Watch part 6

[ajs]

As for the point about the characters, it is true. of course you can always describe the characters in a carefully written post, but the point is that if you ask a kid who saw TPM or a kid who saw ANH to describe a character then the kid who saw TPM would say "piss off, that is a kids movie".

I'm sorry, but my "carefully written post" was the exact thing that came to mind while watching the video where he was interviewing these friends of his who seemingly could not remember the films well enough to summarize the characters that fell into rather obvious and easily summarized buckets.

The problem that I think the Slashdot crowd has, here, is trying to separate disliking these films from evaluating a poorly constructed set of videos about them.

Eh...

[SmallFurryCreature]

That is called a running gag. It is SUPPOSED to be like that. What next, you cleverly going to remark how Kojak writers sucked because they could never get the lead to eat anything else then a lollypop?

That Columbo was bad because no real cop would always were the same trenchcoat?

Talk about missing the point. If the point was the center of the galaxy, then you would be on the planet farthest from it.

Re: The Definitive Evisceration of The Phantom Men

[Entropy98]

Actually I've just finished watching all 70 minutes of "The Definitive Evisceration of The Phantom Menace" and I must say it's very well done.

From the editing, to the special effects, to the woman he has chained in his basement, and of course his points about the movie(s), a lot of thought went into this and it's all very good. This took more than a weekend to do.

Why George Lucas made a pig's ear of the film

[Anonymous Coward]

"You can write this stuff," Harrison Ford famously complained about the Star Wars script to Lucas during filming back then, "but you can't make me say it."
What saved the first (fourth) film was that George Lucas had not got the special effects that he wanted for the movie he wanted to make so he had to scale back to something credible.

Sigh

[SmallFurryCreature]

30 years after the originals, people still quote the movie and parody it. Nobody does it with the prequels. Popular is NOT the same as iconic. The original three movies are part of culture. If it was music it would like The Beatles and Elvis. It is not just about the movies themselves, but that they changed the industry. George Lucas and all the people who made it happen added a whole new segment to the industry. Some products go beyond just the money they earned. And some, no matter how much they earned, never make an impression beyond their economic lifespan.

Quick example. Michael Jackson vs Mc Hammer. Mc who? Exactly. At the time the guy claimed that he was even bigger then MJ. Eheh.

If you studie movies, then you must study A New Hope and its effects. TPM you can forget about other then its earning figures. It is just another blockbuster, but there are dozens of them each year and I bet you can't even remember the ones from 10 years ago. Be honest, if it wasn't for the originals, would you even remember TPM?

And you can already see how unsuccesful TPM is. Lucasarts swore up and down that AFTER the prequels all future game products would be based on the prequels. That changed quickly enough with "The force unleashed" and even an entire new era being created for Kotor and the upcoming MMO. 10 years after the originals people still wanted more. 10 years after TPM and people want less. Go ask a 18 year old what their favorite movie was. Bet you it ain't TPM.

Re:Sigh

[Anonymous Coward]

. Lucasarts swore up and down that AFTER the prequels all future game products would be based on the prequels.

This never happened. You made this up because you think lying is an acceptable way to make your point.

"My my this here Anakin guy..."

[spaceyhackerlady]

I loved the first batch of Star Wars movies, but have never watched any of the second batch in their entirety. From the excerpts I've seen on TV, they really do blow, and I find it impossible to pay attention to them. Lousy dialogue (just plain lousy, not the original hokiness), no plot, no characters. The whole question, "who are these people and why should I care?", goes unanswered.

I do like Weird Al's take on it, though.

...laura

Fuck it, I loved all the prequils

[RobbieCrash]

None were awful movies, all were entertaining, all had everything I wanted in a Star Wars movie:
Lightsabre fights, space battles, cool special effects, and not all boring'ed up by wasting time with fancy dialogue or plot.

Re:Fuck it, I loved all the prequils

[frenchgates]

Dear RobbieCrash: Your unbelievably low standards must make it fun to live in this often crappy world. I mean every big mac must be like some 12 course ambrosial repast for you, every commercial-ridden episode of Two And A Half Men as good (or better!) than any Shakespeare play. Heck, you probably love the commercials too! In some ways I really envy you, Robbie Crash!

Re:Fuck it, I loved all the prequils

[Anonymous Coward]

Posting from my phone and too lazy to log in:

It is pretty awesome to not take everything too seriously and just let myself be entertained. I see why you're envious.

Re:Fuck it, I loved all the prequils

[frenchgates]

I think you mean "anything too seriously". I suggest people like you should have some kind of symbol by their names indicating your lack of discernment so people can skip your posts in any thread involving aesthetics. Also, I'll save you some money on internet dating services. Here is your perfect match, someone who enjoyed the Star Wars Holiday Special without irony: http://entertainment.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1473900&cid=30388352

Meet other people who are the reason why so much popular culture sucks! partoftheproblemdating.com

Did you like them?

[SmallFurryCreature]

Because my mother sure liked the originals herself.

His voice...

[loshwomp]

sounds like the voice of the serial killer in Silence of the Lambs. "Put the fucking lotion in the basket!" You know, that guy.

Re:His voice...

[blueworm]

This reviewer is definitely a reviewer I don't need to hear any more of. I shut it off after the first ten seconds. The ironic thing is the review itself is more intolerable than the movie it's trying to lambaste.

Re:Why a video

[at_slashdot]

Watching the full 70 min of review was more entertaining than watching the movie.

Re:Why a video

[citizenr]

Have a pizza roll and shut up.

What's interesting about all this...

[roc97007]

Let's go back to 1977. My dad and step-mom go to Star Wars with me. They hate it. They think it's trite, the acting is wooden, the plot is predictable, that if it weren't for the special effects it would have disappeared without a trace. And to a certain extent they were right.

Flash forward to 1999. Us original fans have grown up, but we're still fans and we're lining up to see the first Star Wars film in a decade and a half. And... it sucks. It's trite, predictable, wooden, and leans heavily on special effects.

So, I have to ask myself, is it because I'm seeing Episode I as an adult, with an adult's expectations, and have lost the childlike innocence with which I watched the first film?

That's a fair question. The answer is no. I was in my twenties in 1977. I wasn't exactly brimming with childlike innocence. Besides, Menace didn't have only the flaws of the first film, it was also overly complicated, had incomprehensible plot holes, and didn't have one likable character, flaws that the original Star Wars demonstrably did not have.

But, you know, it's a grey area. I think that to say Star Wars was a character driven film that succeeded despite the absence of digital effects, is misremembering what we were all saying when we came out of the theater that Spring in 1977. "I never thought I'd see anything like that on the screen", not "I really thought Hamill portrayed Luke's spiritual growth in a believable fashion". Star Wars was an effects-driven film that succeeded despite it's flaws. The Phantom Menace was all the bad things in Star Wars, hugely exaggerated. The flaws of the original film and the dependency on effects magnified ten-fold, plus a bunch of new flaws. What was amazing to me was that Lucas did not figure it out from the backlash, and bulled on to make two more unwatchable films.

None of this changes the fact...

[Anonymous Coward]

That faggots like to eat shit out of the asses of other faggots. Prove me wrong. I dare you.

Re:None of this changes the fact...

[frenchgates]

To the extent that your comment is a judgment upon those who enjoyed the prequels, either on their own or vicariously through their easy to please children, your point is well taken.

more improvements...

[jakel2k]

I would also add the following:

• More Natalie Portman, (a gold bikini needs a prequel equal).
• R2 should be a brand new model, already an old droid, give me a break.
• No midichlorians.
• No kids, (no kids were in the first ones).
• Make Skywalker a rebellious late teen or young adult, (the new / old Han Solo)
• Skywalker loved his mother, a single mother, never knew his father, mother doesn't talk about dad, (leave it a mystery).
• Can move stuff and use the force but does know how or why, (uneducated on the Force), still make him the most connected to the force and powerful but don't measure it with midichlorians.
• Make an obvious turning point to the darkside, (2 movies to do this was crap, once his mother died he should have blamed the Jedi for not letting him save her and kicked ass).
• Have Padme die because of child birth, not of a broken heart, (have her fleeing from a battle, go into labor due to the stress, give birth, die and Yoda and Obi Wan hides the kids).
• Make Leia older than Luke, (the shock factor), which also explains why Leia remembers mom but Luke doesn't.
• Darth Maul should have be in till at least the second movie.

Too bad that the Star Wars universe is now so tarnished with JarJar, midichlorians and pre-school Jedi. The movies really fell short of what it could have been.

Star Trek Generations movie review too!

[antdude]

See here: http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&videoid=48519614 (29 minutes video) or http://www.videosift.com/video/Why-Star-Trek-Generations-is-the-Stupidest-Movie-Ever-Made (three parts embedded YouTube video). I wonder if he has any more movie reviews.

Could someone do a youtube criticizing this review

[TheRealRainFall]

It's slow, boring, drags on, and generally promotes more of an Americanization of the movies which i felt were the downfall.

A better idea...

[Estanislao Mart�nez]

The prequels needed a rebel, and simply casting a cool actor to play a stuffy Jedi role doesn't magically turn that stuffy Jedi into a rebel. Realistically, the one who had the most potential to become the cool likable character was Qui-Gon. So Lucas did nothing to flesh out the character, and killed him off in the first movie. Brilliant.

Actually, if you watch the 70 minute video, they have a better idea than that. Basically, you could get rid of Qui-Gon and make Obi-Wan into the rebel character by making him be the one who discovers and bonds with Anakin, and then decides to train him over Yoda's objection that Obi-Wan is not yet wise enough to train Anakin. And have Yoda be right.

That idea might sound familiar, BTW.

phantom menace worse than this reviewer?

[blueworm]

I'm going to have to say that the phantom menace is better than this review video. The reviewer's tone is so boring, so monotonic, that I can't watch more than 10 seconds of the video. George Lucas at least let me get to the end of _his_ film!

Re:Don't look now

[roc97007]

Um, no. I was 21 when I saw Star Wars in 1977. I saw it six times. I don't even remember if there were Star Wars toys in 1977. I remember my roommate made his own lightsaber with an old flashlight, a colored lens, and a lucite curtain rod.

What amazed me about the film was that the pulp science fiction I had grown up with could finally be realized on the big screen. Turns out that largely didn't happen, but that's another story. There finally existed a film that could show what I had to imagine up to then.

That's where my fond memories lie. Not some seven-year-old childlike wonder. I saw Star Wars as an adult, liked it as an adult, and then saw The Phantom Menace as an adult, and hated it as an adult. I think this "childlike wonder" argument is hogwash.

There's another thing we have to understand here -- 1977 turned around a decade-long downer trend in science fiction films. It seemed like there was an ironclad industry rule that scifi films had to have a black or at least frustrating ending. Star Wars, for all it's flaws, turned that around, and allowed you to leave the theater feeling good instead of wretched. Now, perhaps we've gone too far the other way, but at the time, it was what the audience needed.

Star Wars worked in spite of it's flaws. The Phantom Menace was merely an exercise in "more is not better".

Re:Why a video

[merreborn]

Who's going to watch a video review, much less a 70 minute one? Write it up on a web page with some illustrative clips.

I'm not sure why there's this trend to having high bandwidth video for stuff that the simple written word can handle. The Apple site comes to mind with the "Learn Your Way Around the Mac in Minutes" videos, that would take only seconds if it were text. Some of us still remember how to read.

Who's going to watch a movie trilogy filmed 20 years ago, much less a 5 hour one? Write it up in a book with a handful of pictures.

I'm not sure why there's this trend to having high bandwidth film for stuff that the simple written word can handle. Some uf us still remember how to read.

Should be the MMO report guy

[Bryan Ischo]

OK, so I *almost* gave up after about 5 minutes, because the dude's voice was so terrible to listen to. And the interjections of the creepy "the narrator is a psycho killer" stuff turned me off; they were funny in a few spots but overall, I would definitely have cut them. However, the content was *incredible*. I am glad I continued to watch because in the end it was really excellent, and so spot on.

I think it would have been better though if it was voiced by someone who spoke more intelligently and understandably, with a much wittier delivery. I just started watching the MMO report recently, I can't remember the name of that guy, but he would be the perfect guy to do that video.

My conclusion: excellent video, would have been over the top with a better narrator and without the mostly stupid psycho killer interludes.

Great Example of memory Abuse

[Anonymous Coward]

"That is what George Lucas became to his own films. After a great piece of artwork has become culturally accepted, it should be cast in stone, and be preserved as it is."

It is. They're called "memories". The only reason all copies of the original trilogy have been burned is so those memories can go on to have a "rose colored" look.

Re:Why a video

[Anonymous Coward]

because this particular video is hillarious and has many things that could not be conveyed via text. watch the first one at least

Re:Why a video

[WiseWeasel]

Just watch the first one; you'll be hooked. Sometimes, as in this case, video IS the most appropriate medium.

You're only saying that...

[Anonymous Coward]

You're only saying that because I saw you talking on your cell phone while you were driving and I ran you into the f*cking ditch to prove to you that it was dangerous.

And anyway, if you didn't like my tailgating you, then you should pull the f*ck over when it's clear you're more interested in talking on your iPhone than driving.

And no, a Lexus is nothing like a BMW, you f*cking wannabe.

Re:You're only saying that...

[Pikoro]

You're right. A lexus is exactly like a Toyota.

Midichlorines turn magic into biology.

[Fantastic Lad]

I find it interesting that in a Star Trek film, Midichlorines (sp?) would have been not only accepted, but expected. Magic isn't allowed to exist in Star Trek.

In Star Wars, however, Magic is the rule. It's not allowed to be understood or reduced into a discrete and measurable phenomenon. It has to remain romantic and awe-inspiring.

Cross the line, (in either the Trek or Wars story universe), and it is taken as a grave offense. I was annoyed by it as much as anybody. But I do have to stop and ask, "Why?" In fact, I find this little feature of our culture enormously tremendously interesting. -Technology geeks are perfectly happy with magic; they want it, are enraptured by it, but only when it is safely contained and labeled within the fiction box. Outside that box, it is immediately despised and attacked even at the mere suggestion that it might have some bearing on our real world. Yes, this is a bit of an axe grinding, but nonetheless, it remains a point of un-answered curiosity for me.

Real magic makes many people severely uncomfortable to consider in our day to day lives. The concept of midichlorines, given the general despising of all things unscientific among the tech-geek crowd, should have been applauded by all those who hate the notion of religion or spirituality, etc. And yet, this is obviously not the case.

It is particularly interesting to me that 'real' magic is by no means actual magic, (as I understand it), but rather a collection of rule-driven forces we simply haven't managed to categorize yet. Wanting the concept of the Force to remain in the realm of the purely mysterious makes me think that something else is at play in the collective psyche of the engineer/Sci-Fi geek.

-Just an observation I have kicking around in my head with no formal answer yet.

-FL

Re:Midichlorines turn magic into biology.

[Anonymous Coward]

I find it interesting that in a Star Trek film, Midichlorines (sp?) would have been not only accepted, but expected. Magic isn't allowed to exist in Star Trek.

Are you nuts?? Right from the beginning, the Star Trek universe has included far-out psy stuff like ESP and telekinesis... or did you not see "The Cage" and "Where No Man Has Gone Before"

Even TNG and its successors have embraced magic - there's never any explanation of how Q and his kind manage to do the "magic" they do, no matter how much technobabble they throw in.

Even the implausible things they do "explain" (like the transporter and "phase discriminators") are just magic with some pseudoscientific terminology sprinkled on top.

Re:Midichlorines turn magic into biology.

[Fantastic Lad]

Are you nuts?? Right from the beginning, the Star Trek universe has included far-out psy stuff like ESP and telekinesis... or did you not see "The Cage" and "Where No Man Has Gone Before"

We're all nuts, but some of us have accepted that about ourselves. I don't, for instance, fool myself into believing that I'm not largely a robot driven by automatic/Pavlovian thinking. Though, awareness and observation of this is the first step out of that mire, so perhaps I am less nuts than others. . ?

Anyway. . , the example of Star Trek 'magic' is summed up for me in a quote by Troi's mom where she explained to one of the other characters in a very off-hand manner the nature of Betazoid telepathy. (Using much the same wording that Obi Wan used to describe the Force to Luke in the first Star Wars film.)

But aboard the Enterprise, it was simply unquestioned that all such forces existed within rule-sets which, with enough knowledge, could be manipulated. The technobabble allowed the crew time and again to jerry-rig Federation technology into viable solutions before the timer reached zero, (or whatever). This attitude was what allowed Picard to speak without fear to Q; he may not have understood the nature of the Q's power, but he understood enough about the scientific approach to fit it into his worldview and deal one on one with that alien intelligence rather than fall to his knees and burn goat flesh. -All in all, a very mature attitude for Star Trek. Even the Gods (Prophets) in DS9 were understood on the Federation side to be "Wormhole Aliens", though Benjamin Sisko sort of slipped down the rabbit hole somewhat and became a believer. He was never on the same footing, I felt, as Picard, which in a story sense was probably the reason he was "chosen"; he was easier to manipulate into serving the ends of the so-called Prophets. DS9 was never quite as spiritually mature as Next Generation in this regard. It was that maturity observed on Next Gen which I found most inspiring about the whole franchise, and it is, in my opinion anyway, how the wisest among our race out here in the real world approach the unknown and even the unknowable. Magic is all part of a system, and while that system is astonishing and beautiful, it is remains nonetheless a system. God doesn't play with dice because god can't. Einstein was one smart cookie.

The attitude of tech geeks toward magic reveals, I think, a longing for forces to exist which defy rational thought, a longing in some deep part for a pagan god. The more I think on this, the more I realize that my own negative reaction to the midichlorine idea is just another part of myself which might need excising.

-FL

Re:Midichlorines turn magic into biology.

[Andtalath]

The reason is simple. Star Wars is not, has never been and will never be science fiction. It's an epic space saga. Science fiction is all about understanding the implications of new technology and situations are supposed to make sense and everything is supposed to be able to be understood or have an easily obtainable explanation. An epic space saga is meant to tell an epic story, anything not being a part of the story is irrelevant, you aren't supposed to look behind the curtain, you are supposed to see the wizard. I like both genres, but I loathe it when they intermix since it's like my little pony coming and resurrecting Brad Pitts wife in the end of Seven. It breaks the mood.

Re:Midichlorines turn magic into biology.

[Narcogen]

I find it interesting that in a Star Trek film, Midichlorines (sp?) would have been not only accepted, but expected. Magic isn't allowed to exist in Star Trek.

In Star Wars, however, Magic is the rule. It's not allowed to be understood or reduced into a discrete and measurable phenomenon. It has to remain romantic and awe-inspiring.

Cross the line, (in either the Trek or Wars story universe), and it is taken as a grave offense. I was annoyed by it as much as anybody. But I do have to stop and ask, "Why?" In fact, I find this little feature of our culture enormously tremendously interesting. -Technology geeks are perfectly happy with magic; they want it, are enraptured by it, but only when it is safely contained and labeled within the fiction box. Outside that box, it is immediately despised and attacked even at the mere suggestion that it might have some bearing on our real world. Yes, this is a bit of an axe grinding, but nonetheless, it remains a point of un-answered curiosity for me.

I think a lot of viewers point out the magic vs science angle with regard to the inclusion of midichlorians in the prequels, but I think the real motivation for the objection comes from elsewhere, and it's another area of stark contrast between Star Wars and Star Trek.

The arc of the first trilogy can be seen partially as a repudiation of the idea that the sins of the father are the sins of the son. Luke is horrified at the revelation that his evil nemesis is his father, but he ultimately comes to terms with that (with Kenobi's help), rejects the choice his father made, and ultimately offers his father forgiveness. Luke successfully escapes his father's fate. So while we are certainly led to believe that heredity is a factor in one's ability to use the Force, it is not impossible to escape destiny.

Enter the midichlorians. Anakin is the prophesied one, supposedly the product of a union between some random slave woman on Tatooine and the Force itself, with the highest count of midiwhatevers ever seen. He is *destined* to bring balance to the Force. Yoda and the Jedi Council, however, see bad things on the horizon. I guess they don't see that before things can get better, they have to get worse-- that Vader ultimately *does* bring balance by betraying Palpatine in order to save Luke at the conclusion of the final film.

In a sense it's a rehabilitation of Oedipus. Vader had to do what he did back then, just as he has to save Luke at the end. Without the first, the latter would not have been necessary.

Midichlorians is the magical grey goo in the hypodermic that Lucas uses to extract heroism from the franchise and replace it with destiny.

This couldn't possibly be more different from Star Trek, which is ultimately the world's most perfect meritocracy, where family connections get you nothing and everybody has to stand on their own two feet and make a name for themselves. None of the TNG crewmembers are blood relations of the original series crewmembers. Family members of the crew, if they want active roles, have to prove their worth. Nobody is destined for anything (for the most part, there are exceptions-- it's hard to do as many episodes of as many series, plus feature films, from 1966 to date without being inconsistent).

If the Star Trek universe behaved the way the Star Wars universe did, captaincy of the Enterprise would be hereditary. Picard would be the great-great-grandson of Kirk (or whatever) who was originally drummed out of the service for insubordination, and later on they would meet and Picard would find out that Kirk only disobeyed orders in order to save his family (and HIS ship and HIS crew) and really wasn't that bad a guy after all, just hotheaded, impatient, and... well, a little egomaniacal.

The Skywalkers are a kind of space royalty in a universe where it's who you are, not what you know or do, that counts. Star Trek has no place for such people-- everybody gets an equal opportunity, no more, no less, and it

Re: Kill Bill

[cyclomedia]

Personally I'd like to edit all 6 films into two in the style of kill bill, even keep some of the music from that and have volume 1 end with the I am your father revelation... Most of eps 1/2 would be contained in a few flashback chapters, heck they've both got the same 4/4 character pattern in the titles...

Stop your whining...

[w2ed]

I'm probably alone in the thought that "The Phantom Menace" did not suck. Granted, it was not the greatest movie everyone, myself included, was expecting, but it's far from the bitch-all-you-want-buffet that people make it out to be. Jar Jar Binks? Annoying, yet necessary - from a comedic standpoint (as R2-D2 and C-3PO had a very small pairing at this point) and from a historical standpoint (as he would prove in the second film as being the nail in the coffin for the war to begin in the next film.) Young Anakin? Again, annoying but necessary - It's hard to understand how someone could become a monster without seeing them at their best. (Note the growing arrogance and carelessness in the latter two films to see how he'd become the monster.) There are many other plot points and story things to complain about, yet these two are consistently the biggest. I get so sick of hearing everyone whine because the film did not live up to their expectations - which is what I really feel is the basis for all of TPM's backlash. Instead of Darth Vadar being a bad-ass and raping and pillaging things like the monster we were expecting, we got a young boy who happened to have excellent skills being noticed by someone who believed him to be the one for their prophecy. We didn't get Obi-Wan and Anakin fighting side-by-side until the latter two films, we didn't get the Darth Sideous we were expecting, etc. It was never going to live up to everyone's preconceived expectations, but the number of people whining about it far exceeds the number it should be. Yes, there are things I will concede to - TPM was, by and far, the worst Star Wars film ever made, and it's stiffness in dialogue and characters leaves a lot to be desired. It's far from the worst movie ever made (I've seen far worse than that!), and it did what it was supposed to do: set the elements up and show the staring points for the events to come. It's time to stop the complaining.

...but they fucked up.

[DrYak]

Older Skywalker (Lets get him in his late teens)

Younger kids identify more and are responsible (indirectly) for many more toy sales.

I just can't understand how could movie producer get this thing that much wrong.
No, sorry. Younger viewers *are NOT*, definitely *NOT* attracted to tag-along kids. And even more so due to the way kids are depicted in movie : They are not just younger as the the other members of the cast, they are often deliberately stupid, clumsy and/or constantly get into trouble in a way which should have Darwin selection eliminated them long before.
How could a *real* kid feel attracted and identify him-/her-self with what is basically a mini-idiot over-the-top carricature of children ? When I was a kid, I certainly was never interested by any of the tag-alon-kids that producers kept insisting on adding to anything which was market to kids.

Young kids want to see role-models, characters that will inspire them. Something that they will want to become themselves one day. And you can't get anymore less inspiring than the "stupid idiotic midget" way with which children are commonly depicted into movies.

I mean, all the makers of Star Wars, Georges Lucas as well as the rest of the crew, should have known better : The older trilogy had enormous success despite having no tag-along children. Han Solo is a much beloved character, who probably left a good impression in lots of the younger viewers even if he wasn't 6 years old. (I certainly liked the character when I was a kid). Some of the people on the crew probably saw the original trilogy as children and should pretty much know that they enjoyed its characters even if no 6-year-old-idiots were involved in the story.

The whole concept of tag along kid is stupid and show that the executive often don't have any idea of how their public actually enjoys movie : By the same twisted logic, every Sci-Fi movie should include one mandatory male overweighted, mid-aged, either balding or with long dirty hair, sucking at sport, with a dubious concept of hygiene, useless character which basiclly just stand in the way of adventurer. So the main geek audience would have someone the can identify more with.

May he rest in pieces

[oravecz]

I thought that was why Jack Black was invented?

The alternate script?

[whitroth]

About the time that came out, a buddy of mine found a 17-page treatment someone had done. I read all of it, and it *was* the movie we'd been waiting for. The author said he'd tried, numerous times, to contact Lucas, and got brushed off.

Anakin's mom was a *much* stronger character, etc, etc. On and off, the last couple of years, I've tried to find that treatment again, and haven't been able to - anyone here remember it?

              mark, also looking for the story of the sysadmin who gets 2 lbs of chocolate-
                            covered espresso beans for the holidays, and the department self-
                            destructs....

I liked the Phantom Menace actually

[axl917]

The problem is that there was a 16-year gap between the originals and the new movie. The vast majority of us were in the 5-10 yr old age range when the original came out, and spent that time playing with toys, reading other Star Wars novels, playing the video games, etc... Filling in the gap with either the derivative/side works or our imaginations, or both.

We grew up over that period of time, but by the time Lucas got around to making the prequels, there was simply no way what he did would ever match what our childhood-borne anticipation and imagination had already created. We also forgot that these films...and film in general...is rarely specifically targeted at a single audience. Lucas didn't make the prequels solely for the 30-somethings; he made them for everyone, which includes the 5-10 year audience of 1999. Kids find Jar Jar antics funny, just as we found R2 and C3P0's antics funny 30 years ago.

I am sick to death of the nerd rage over how "bad" they feel The Phantom Menace is.

Re:I liked the Phantom Menace actually

[frenchgates]

I'm sick to death of this incessantly repeated annoying excuse from apologists who can't tell the difference between shite and shineola. TPM just plain sucks. If you enjoyed it then your standards are too frikkin' low and I thank the force you aren't allowed to create popular entertainment. I also hope for the good of the culture that you are not part of a Nielsen family.

Re:I liked the Phantom Menace actually

[axl917]

Ahh, nerdrage. How precious it is.

Blow me. Oh, and Merry Christmas

[Quiet_Desperation]

Well excuse the fuck out of me, but there *are* people who take this "they raped my childhood" crap seriously. It's impossible to tell anymore with all the pinhead loons walking around these days. Did you see how some folks acted after Michael Jackson died? You'd think their savior had been crucified or something.

Not really

[Quiet_Desperation]

That's nice. I quoted and was responding to the submitter's comment, and not the video, which I didn't watch because it sounded like an astonishing waste of time.

Star Trek First Contact

[antdude]

http://www.videosift.com/video/Star-Trek-First-Contact-is-the-3-967th-Worst-Film-Ever-Made (3 parts)

You lost me at 'surgical incision into the skull'

[Anonymous Coward]

Gah!

Reveiw of a reveiw

[Anonymous Coward]

First off, I think the original Trilogy is superior to the prequel trilogy, and if I meet someone who says I've never seen star wars, I always recommend they watch one all the way through and take it from there. I recommend the first Star Wars (that some might call Episode 4 A New Hope, ANH).

While the review was humorous at parts, I think that in utterly wrong at its core. None of the Star wars movies are bad. The real question is how do you rate a movie? I ask this how entertained were you by the Phantom Menace when you saw it? For me I would say I was enthralled, you might not have been. Most movies I get bored during parts of them. Some times I even start laughing at them or even making fun of them. I was totally immersed in this one. Generally, I call that a good movie. Was this movie a master piece that is just totally awesome. No not at all. However, it is a part of a well done series. Does it leverage on the original IP. Yep, it would not have been made with out it, but Lucas is expanding his Space Opera.

I find it interesting that the author of the 70 minute review compared the way the story was told in the first trilogy to solely the first movie of the second trilogy. If the story would have been told exactly the same way the author would have attacked Lucas for not being original and sticking to recipe.

Actually, honestly, I don't think Lucas could possibly live up to what all fans could want. Here probably the best time to make this point. When the Empire strikes back was released people came out of the theater saying this is not Star Wars. It seems that if you create a fictional world and then change it there is always resistance or someone saying I wish they had not done that.

Another point the Author attempted to compare characters of the trilogies, but asked only to compare their personalities particularly he asks Qway Gon Gin. Alright fine, using only the terms you set out describe there counter parts in the original Star Wars film. Master Jedi to master Jedi. Obi - Won is mysteriously boring, seriously.

We could go on about the points made, but here is the conclusions I would make. Point out that the original Trilogy was not perfect by any means either. Take these movies for what they are worth a piece of entertainment. And I can tell you were entertained if read this post, otherwise you would not have even bothered.

Star Trek: Nemesis

[antdude]

http://www.videosift.com/video/Star-Trek-Nemesis-is-the-Final-Nail-in-the-Space-Coffin

Hilarious reviews by this guy!

Maybe we are looking at this all wrong..

[Veretax]

See I always think back to Ep VI where C3PO Is talking to the Ewoks about their adventures, and thought the prequels could be a highly dramatized fiction embellished by C3PO trying to retell events that have been scrambled in his circuits for some time. If that were true it would explain why certain traits got so accentuated :D