Subject:
|
Re: TPM Rules
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.starwars
|
Date:
|
Thu, 1 Jun 2000 03:46:40 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
705 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.starwars, Thad Jantzi writes:
> To all you TPM naysayers... I say go see the movie again. This time go in
> without a bee in your bonnet. Look at the things that are truly wonderful and
> Star Wars about the movie, because they ARE plentiful.
I've seen it enough--and without any bees nor bonnets--to form my opinion
without gushing and without undue negativity. Some facts remain, though, that
keep me from embracing this film as lovingly as you do:
1) The oft-mentioned "she's a decoy?!" nonsense. Played differently, the
surprise-Padme's-the-queen device could have worked, but it was fumbled.
2) The even more oft-mentioned JarJar, about whom enough bad things cannot be
said. Did he have any dramatically redeeming characteristics?
3) The acting, or more specifically, the character direction. Again, no one
anywhere believes George is an able character direction, and if he has any
sense he'll hire a director for Part Deux.
4) The characters. None, with the possible exceptions of Shmi and Palpatine,
showed any depth or dimension. Obi-Wan got close toward the end, when Ewan was
actually allowed to convey some emotion, but for me it was too little, too
late.
5) Journey to the Center of the Sea: What purpose did this underwater sequence
serve, other than to allow ILM to wow us with nifty effects? None, as far as I
can see, beyond giving JarJar further time to be annoying onscreen.
6) Ham-fisted "comic" relief. Do we really need a feces gag *and* a fart gag?
Not to mention JarJar's borrowing of dialogue from Wayne's World. And that
unspeakable two-headed announcer?! "That's gotta hurt"? If you're going to
create a pointless cartoon character to throw in your world, at least give it
original lines. I'm surprised it didn't raise the roof or high-five itself.
Now that I think of it, didn't Anakin's It's-so-wizard friend and Li'l Greedo
exchange a high-five after the podrace? I'll have to check again.
7) The Eggs-In-One-Basket Gambit.
a) Does it make any strategic sense to have an entire army controlled from
one staging point? Whether or not the Naboo fighters had any hope of
penetrating the ship's shields, it seems idiotic to base one's entire army on a
single control platform, no matter how "invulnerable."
b) During the Queen's escape, Naboo is orbited by numerous Trade Federation
ships, all but one of which vanish for the final assault. Were the others on
shore leave?
c) Why would the Battle Droids have those handy serve-yourself blaster
rifles that can be easily salvaged from disabled droids, when an integral
weapons array would be just as useful and could not be used by an enemy?
8) Ineptitude = Valor JarJar, in his clumsy panic, wipes out a sizable chunk
of the droid army. Anakin singlehandedly destroys an otherwise impregnable
ship. These may fall under item 6, but the ability of the most inexperienced
characters to undue the mightiest makes the effort and suffering of the more
capable fighters seem stupid. I know George is probably trying to send some
"even the tiniest can make a difference" message, but there are more
dramatically satisfying and sensible ways to execute it. Why, for instance,
would jumping on a droid's chest make it shoot it's gun. While I'm at it, why
would a ship have it's main reactor so readily accessible from the hangar?
9) Save the prisoners for later: As I asked in another post, why, when faced
with a decoy and the real Queen, did the viceroy stand there waiting for them
to attack? Why not kill the supposed decoy immediately? Similarly, why would
the Naboo pilots be held in the hangar except to provide a convenient way for
them to escape and strike back? Why, when threatened, did the Battle Droids
guarding the prisoners not execute all of them before Obi-Wan even got near
them?
I could go on, but it's getting sort of late. It may seem that I'm
nitpicking, but these things really bothered me while watching the film. I
know George is selling to the N64 generation, and he's not concerned with
nebulous issues like strategy and logic, but come on, George!
Oddly, I enjoyed the film more than Return of the Jedi. During the JarJar
scenes (which in themselves account for 90% of my complaints) I simply thought
of a happy place.
A final question, and this is less of a nitpick than a technical query: why
did Darth Maul bother to pull his lightsaber out rather than simply slicing
sideways or up? Was he hoping to allow Qui-Gon a cool death scene?
Dave!
(still a fan, believe it or not)
|
|
Message has 3 Replies:
 | | Re: TPM Rules
|
| (...) <snip> (...) Well I actually agree with both of you in some places and disagree too. First I am just as big a Star Wars fan as anyone and they are my favorite movies. I still remember going to see the origional back in 77 when I was 8 and (...) (24 years ago, 1-Jun-00, to lugnet.starwars)
| | | Re: TPM Rules
|
| (...) Lots of reasonable questions - see my other post ('what's wrong with TPM' thread) for the long version of why I see all these questions and criticisms as moot. I really think that considering the movie as a film is erroneous, and it should (...) (24 years ago, 1-Jun-00, to lugnet.starwars)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | TPM Rules
|
| Yes, Jar Jar sucks. Yes, the Neimoidians are irritating, goofy, and would have been 100 times better with Jabba-esque subtitles. But... let's look at what George did right. 1. Darth Maul: one of the coolest characters in any of the SW films. Just in (...) (24 years ago, 1-Jun-00, to lugnet.starwars)
|
20 Messages in This Thread:
  
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
