What America needs is a change in the public school system. The immense amount of pressure placed on schoolchildren encourages them into rebellion upon adolescence. During the recent spring break, four suicides occurred near my area due to the massive amount of pressure.
But it's not really the pressure that is the problem. The libertarian Charley Reese observed that "Boredom is the devil's workshop" -- school is way too boring, and such boredom leads to rebellion: slacking. If it could be made more fun, and if teenagers were treated like adults, perhaps the pressure problem would float away.
Another cause for the slacking may be that school attendance is compulsory. I've always found that I am more encouraged to finish projects to their completion if I chose to do the project voluntarily; perhaps if school were voluntary, the total, helpless idiots would just be kicked out (which would make class more challenging), and the people who do choose to educate themselves will be the most motivated, and thus, more successful.
Now, where in Article I, Section 8 is Congress given the power to establish near-universal broadband? Is the government a corporation?
It's just more socialism coming from one of the anti-American parties. Don't expect any better from the Republicans though; they're just as socialistic.
Well you've started to just pick away at random things that you don't like about Star Wars, almost as if you think that you know more about Star Wars than George Lucas does. You're probably right. But George Lucas still managed to imagine, create, and realize a fairy tale world. Its greatness has only led you to pay attention to Star Wars; you could poke a great deal more fun at anything else.
[Why is Obi-Wan depicted in the original trilogy to be one of the best Jedi?]
He wasn't. He just happened to be one of the only ones left.
That makes him great, does it not? I think it's logical to assume that the stronger you are, the more likely you are to survive (survival of the fittest). And plus, his teachings seemed pretty strong to me and many fans as were Yoda's. (Besides the fact that the novelization said that Darth vader said that Obi-Wan is the greatest of the Jedi, which is why he must confront him; this is irrelevant to the movies but still true to the SW Universe.)
[Why is Chewie a famous wookie?]
He wasn't. Chewie was the co-pilot of a derelict smuggler who dumps his cargo at the first sign of trouble.
Technically he is a famous wookie, but ignoring that, he's famous in the minds of lovers of the original trilogy. That is enough for a film franchise to put him in.
And all of this is besides the fact that you sound as if you prefer stories to be isolated, unrelated to anything or each other, no interesting ties or connections. Sounds dull. Star Wars is exciting.
Ebert, unlike most reviewers, understands that a movie is not what the movie is about--it is about how it is about what the movie is about.
May I also remind you that Ebert gave A.I. 3 out of 4 stars. That movie has to be one of the biggest disasters in the history of cinema. I enjoyed that movie. It was decent. I agree with Ebert.
He also gave all the Matrix movies high marks and one of the sequels higher marks than the original. People like The Matrix. Isn't that the point of entertainment? Ebert tends to be right. In fact, I enjoyed the higher-rated sequel more than the others, though I would have pulled "Revolution"'s score down to 2.5.
Ebert's a shill for a select segment of the industry. He doesn't matter any more as far as I'm concerned. He's another hollywood whore. He isn't worthy to be in Gene Siskel's shadow - whom I thought was the consumate critic. I agree that Gene Siskel was the man, but Ebert really is quite a good reviewer; he is the best out there today.
Would it have hurt the story to have had Mace Windu (or some other Jedi) be the one who discovers the clone factory in Ep 2, instead of Obi-Wan being the only Jedi who ever does anything that matters? Did it really need to be Boba Fett's dad who was the genetic source of the clones? Did Chewie really need to be in the Wookie battle scene at all?
You miss the point of the entire Prequel Trilogy. It is the backstory to the Original Trilogy, not just the story that came before the Original Trilogy.
Why is Boba Fett from the original trilogy the best bounty hunter in the galaxy? His dad was once the greatest; he happened to be chosen to be a source for clones.
Why is Obi-Wan depicted in the original trilogy to be one of the best Jedi; what accomplishments led him to this title? Back in the day, he did this, that, and some of those things.
Why is Chewie a famous wookie? He fought hard back in the Battle of Kashyyyk, his name known all around.
Why did Lucas think that all of these little "wink wink" connections would make the films more entertaing?
They are the connections that tell us why we love the characters from the original trilogy so much: the Prequel Trilogy is their story.
Intelligence is useless when paired with complete ignorance.
My own personal review (IMHO):
The love scenes were bad bad bad, but oh, we have the rest of the movie to see...
Anakin did a better job in ROTS than in the last two films; he was good in most parts except for the love scenes.
Obi-Wan Kenobi did good in most scenes.
I loved Mace Windu. Overall all of the actors portraying Jedi did a good job showing the attitude and personality of a Jedi according most to the Jedi Code (first line: "There is no emotion; there is peace."). It takes great actors effort to actually look bad, but then people like me realize that it is how it should be according most strictly to Star Wars plot.
Yoda was superb as usual. This time we even heard him speak wise, thought-provokotive words. (Do I need to mention that how incredibly hard it must be to create the CGI Yoda, and how incredibly well they delivered?)
Special effects were magnificant, imaginative, and just wonderful. The action was great; my only complaint was one or two parts where I could tell that they had replaced a human character with CGI to do a stunt.
The first third of the movie on Grievous' ship reminded me of the fun I had as a child watching The Phantom Menace. The second third was obviously weak in the love scenes but very strong whenever you saw Palpatine in the scene (which I guess balances it out to medium quality). The last part of the movie, from entering the Chancellor's office to the end, was perfect for me.
The weakest thing about this is the anticipiation: many of my friends felt that it was less than what they expected (they liked it anyway), but I saw past the fog of anticipation. I enjoyed it thoroughly. I shouldn't have read the book, I should not have read spoilers, I should not have seen the trailers, and I should not have thought about it.
And finally, I believe the plot to be flawless.
____
It seems that all of the negative reviews that I have read were completely blinded by the fog of anticipation. I remember one review that didn't like how short the Battle of Kashyyyk was. Well... maybe if you weren't expecting better you wouldn't even know or care!
In support of Ebert: he doesn't anticipate; he tells us how it is, how it really is. He was right about The Phantom Menace, mostly right about Attack of the Clones (though part of his negativity was from the blur from a film projector), and he is right about ROTS.
((Since when is ROTJ bad? I love that one... and the Prequel Trilogy just makes that moment when the Emperor falls so much more dramatic. Even more of a tear-jerker than ROTS, for me. ROTJ even has the crown of "best space battle."))
Single reviewers are often unreliable, having bias and agendas of their own. If you want a more objective approach to the popularity of a film, you should look at sites that provide an overview of all reviews for a given film.
Unfortunately most reviewers try too hard to be a critic and fail to tell us how the movie is. Ebert makes it absolutely clear that this new Star Wars is heavily flawed, but you will be overwhelmed so by everything else that you will not care. I have agreed with Ebert's opinions on every movie that I have seen, including the fact that the point of Episode I is not the plot or dialogue or acting, but the visuals; while Episode II concentrates too much on dialogue and fails miserably. He's not just another slick reviewer giving you the low-down on acting, dialogue, special effects, etc.; he is telling you that you will probably enjoy it.
(I also trust Ebert so much because he has been reviewing movies longer than most of those reviewers trying their hand at the art.)
I believe, but have little ways of proving, that the Universe is part of a Multiverse that is a part of a Higher Dimension, containing at least 11 dimensions. Each Universe is a membrane; each membrane is about one millimeter apart, but we can't see the other membranes because our strings (String Theory) are tied down to our membrane and the other membranes exist in different dimensions. This is somewhat explained in "The Elegant Universe."
Slashdot Mirror
What America needs is a change in the public school system. The immense amount of pressure placed on schoolchildren encourages them into rebellion upon adolescence. During the recent spring break, four suicides occurred near my area due to the massive amount of pressure.
But it's not really the pressure that is the problem. The libertarian Charley Reese observed that "Boredom is the devil's workshop" -- school is way too boring, and such boredom leads to rebellion: slacking. If it could be made more fun, and if teenagers were treated like adults, perhaps the pressure problem would float away.
Another cause for the slacking may be that school attendance is compulsory. I've always found that I am more encouraged to finish projects to their completion if I chose to do the project voluntarily; perhaps if school were voluntary, the total, helpless idiots would just be kicked out (which would make class more challenging), and the people who do choose to educate themselves will be the most motivated, and thus, more successful.
Article I, Section 8 of the US Constitution explains all the things which Congress has the right to do with your tax money. Here is a transcript of the Constitution: http://www.archives.gov/national-archives-experien ce/charters/constitution_transcript.html
Now, where in Article I, Section 8 is Congress given the power to establish near-universal broadband? Is the government a corporation?
It's just more socialism coming from one of the anti-American parties. Don't expect any better from the Republicans though; they're just as socialistic.
Well you've started to just pick away at random things that you don't like about Star Wars, almost as if you think that you know more about Star Wars than George Lucas does. You're probably right. But George Lucas still managed to imagine, create, and realize a fairy tale world. Its greatness has only led you to pay attention to Star Wars; you could poke a great deal more fun at anything else.
[Why is Obi-Wan depicted in the original trilogy to be one of the best Jedi?]
He wasn't. He just happened to be one of the only ones left.
That makes him great, does it not? I think it's logical to assume that the stronger you are, the more likely you are to survive (survival of the fittest). And plus, his teachings seemed pretty strong to me and many fans as were Yoda's. (Besides the fact that the novelization said that Darth vader said that Obi-Wan is the greatest of the Jedi, which is why he must confront him; this is irrelevant to the movies but still true to the SW Universe.)
[Why is Chewie a famous wookie?]
He wasn't. Chewie was the co-pilot of a derelict smuggler who dumps his cargo at the first sign of trouble.
Technically he is a famous wookie, but ignoring that, he's famous in the minds of lovers of the original trilogy. That is enough for a film franchise to put him in.
And all of this is besides the fact that you sound as if you prefer stories to be isolated, unrelated to anything or each other, no interesting ties or connections. Sounds dull. Star Wars is exciting.
Ebert, unlike most reviewers, understands that a movie is not what the movie is about--it is about how it is about what the movie is about.
May I also remind you that Ebert gave A.I. 3 out of 4 stars. That movie has to be one of the biggest disasters in the history of cinema.
I enjoyed that movie. It was decent. I agree with Ebert.
He also gave all the Matrix movies high marks and one of the sequels higher marks than the original.
People like The Matrix. Isn't that the point of entertainment? Ebert tends to be right. In fact, I enjoyed the higher-rated sequel more than the others, though I would have pulled "Revolution"'s score down to 2.5.
Ebert's a shill for a select segment of the industry. He doesn't matter any more as far as I'm concerned. He's another hollywood whore. He isn't worthy to be in Gene Siskel's shadow - whom I thought was the consumate critic.
I agree that Gene Siskel was the man, but Ebert really is quite a good reviewer; he is the best out there today.
Would it have hurt the story to have had Mace Windu (or some other Jedi) be the one who discovers the clone factory in Ep 2, instead of Obi-Wan being the only Jedi who ever does anything that matters? Did it really need to be Boba Fett's dad who was the genetic source of the clones? Did Chewie really need to be in the Wookie battle scene at all?
You miss the point of the entire Prequel Trilogy. It is the backstory to the Original Trilogy, not just the story that came before the Original Trilogy.
Why is Boba Fett from the original trilogy the best bounty hunter in the galaxy? His dad was once the greatest; he happened to be chosen to be a source for clones.
Why is Obi-Wan depicted in the original trilogy to be one of the best Jedi; what accomplishments led him to this title? Back in the day, he did this, that, and some of those things.
Why is Chewie a famous wookie? He fought hard back in the Battle of Kashyyyk, his name known all around.
Why did Lucas think that all of these little "wink wink" connections would make the films more entertaing?
They are the connections that tell us why we love the characters from the original trilogy so much: the Prequel Trilogy is their story.
Intelligence is useless when paired with complete ignorance.
My own personal review (IMHO):
The love scenes were bad bad bad, but oh, we have the rest of the movie to see...
Anakin did a better job in ROTS than in the last two films; he was good in most parts except for the love scenes.
Obi-Wan Kenobi did good in most scenes.
I loved Mace Windu. Overall all of the actors portraying Jedi did a good job showing the attitude and personality of a Jedi according most to the Jedi Code (first line: "There is no emotion; there is peace."). It takes great actors effort to actually look bad, but then people like me realize that it is how it should be according most strictly to Star Wars plot.
Yoda was superb as usual. This time we even heard him speak wise, thought-provokotive words. (Do I need to mention that how incredibly hard it must be to create the CGI Yoda, and how incredibly well they delivered?)
Special effects were magnificant, imaginative, and just wonderful. The action was great; my only complaint was one or two parts where I could tell that they had replaced a human character with CGI to do a stunt.
The first third of the movie on Grievous' ship reminded me of the fun I had as a child watching The Phantom Menace. The second third was obviously weak in the love scenes but very strong whenever you saw Palpatine in the scene (which I guess balances it out to medium quality). The last part of the movie, from entering the Chancellor's office to the end, was perfect for me.
The weakest thing about this is the anticipiation: many of my friends felt that it was less than what they expected (they liked it anyway), but I saw past the fog of anticipation. I enjoyed it thoroughly. I shouldn't have read the book, I should not have read spoilers, I should not have seen the trailers, and I should not have thought about it.
And finally, I believe the plot to be flawless.
____
It seems that all of the negative reviews that I have read were completely blinded by the fog of anticipation. I remember one review that didn't like how short the Battle of Kashyyyk was. Well... maybe if you weren't expecting better you wouldn't even know or care!
In support of Ebert: he doesn't anticipate; he tells us how it is, how it really is. He was right about The Phantom Menace, mostly right about Attack of the Clones (though part of his negativity was from the blur from a film projector), and he is right about ROTS.
((Since when is ROTJ bad? I love that one... and the Prequel Trilogy just makes that moment when the Emperor falls so much more dramatic. Even more of a tear-jerker than ROTS, for me. ROTJ even has the crown of "best space battle."))
Single reviewers are often unreliable, having bias and agendas of their own. If you want a more objective approach to the popularity of a film, you should look at sites that provide an overview of all reviews for a given film.
Unfortunately most reviewers try too hard to be a critic and fail to tell us how the movie is. Ebert makes it absolutely clear that this new Star Wars is heavily flawed, but you will be overwhelmed so by everything else that you will not care. I have agreed with Ebert's opinions on every movie that I have seen, including the fact that the point of Episode I is not the plot or dialogue or acting, but the visuals; while Episode II concentrates too much on dialogue and fails miserably. He's not just another slick reviewer giving you the low-down on acting, dialogue, special effects, etc.; he is telling you that you will probably enjoy it.
(I also trust Ebert so much because he has been reviewing movies longer than most of those reviewers trying their hand at the art.)
I believe, but have little ways of proving, that the Universe is part of a Multiverse that is a part of a Higher Dimension, containing at least 11 dimensions. Each Universe is a membrane; each membrane is about one millimeter apart, but we can't see the other membranes because our strings (String Theory) are tied down to our membrane and the other membranes exist in different dimensions. This is somewhat explained in "The Elegant Universe."