Subject:
|
re:TPM RULES (long reply, skip if you're in a hurry...:)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.starwars
|
Date:
|
Thu, 1 Jun 2000 15:42:14 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
520 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.starwars, Dave Schuler writes:
(snipped into pieces, to make reply "more readable")
I first must say that I take it for granted that those of you that dislike TPM
like the first movies and thought TPM was bad in comparison. I must also
point out that while I am going to post somethings that may show dislike for
the first movies, all movies in the Star Wars saga are my favorites (I can't
choose which I like better... I love 'em all.) Now, without further ado...
> 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.
This was not supposed to be a "shock" on the scale of learning that Vader is
Luke's father... it was simply used to explain how and why the queen would
have been doing "unqueenly" things, such as journeying into Mos Espa. It also
makes sense from a financial standpoint. Without it Lucas would have had to
cast two women to play two seperate parts... one queen, and one Padme...
they're both important characters, and the story would not have worked
(without major adjustments) unless both were in it. I think it's supposed to
be obvious to everyone, including most of the characters in the film, that
Padme is Amidala. No one but Anakin and a few others seem suprised.
> 2) The even more oft-mentioned JarJar, about whom enough bad things cannot be
> said. Did he have any dramatically redeeming characteristics?
hmmm... Did C3PO? I don't seem to remember him doing much in any of the first
three films. In fact, I remember most people found him quite annoying... and
yet now he's a staple of the Star Wars Universe. He couldn't very well have
been galavanting about in TPM, and I don't think we'll see much of him in the
next two films either. I see Jar Jar as a 3PO replacement... to provide comic
relief as well as something "for the kids."
> 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.
Lucas will hire a director for the next film. Historically speaking, he
directed ANH and then hired directors for ESB and ROTJ. I think he directed
this one to "set the stage" so to speak for the next films.
> 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.
I don't remember much emotion in ANH... In fact, Luke lamented over Obi Wan's
death for about thirty seconds, just long enough to get down the shaft and
start blowing away TIEs with a big stupid grin on his face. And when Leia's
home planet was destroyed... not even a tear. Everyone she knew and loved
died in an instant, but her tear ducts were as dry as a bone. Shoot, Luke
didn't seem all that upset when his hand got cut off in ESB... and you cannot
tell me that the way he reacted to learning that Vader was his father was well
acted...
> 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.
hmmm... I recall a certain asteroid field in ESB that didn't further the plot
any... accept that it gave Han and Leia the chance to "park." I guess it
could be argued that it allowed the Falcon to escape from the Imperials, but
really I think it was just a dazzler.
> 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.
Ah... I guess the Ewok hitting himself in the head with a rock in ROTJ
was "brilliant comedy," and the "let the Wookie win" dialogue in ANH was
worthy of a Shakespearean satire. The point of comic relief in the SW movies
isn't to make you laugh... it's not a comedy after all. The point is to break
up the seriousness with a bit of whimsy. Besides, I liked the two-headed
announcer.
> 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."
Does it make any strategic sense to have a giant battlestation (Deathstar)
with no support from smaller capital ships and only a handfull of fighters?
Sure it does, if you're not expecting a threat of an attack. Hindsight is
20/20 my friend... The Trade Federation, and Darth Sidious were not expecting
an attack to be successful, and neither was Tarkin in ANH. In fact, the
attacks would not have been successful if it wasn't due to lucky "accidents"
(Anakin piloting into the "right" hanger bay, Luke's missles going down the
shaft, respectively.)
> 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?
All of the ships were there to launch and support the ground army. Once the
planet was occupied by a ground army, there was no need for a space blockade.
> 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?
I agree with this point, but the Battle Droids do have more functions than
just infantry. The Droidekas had built in weapons...
> 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?
Well... Luke was able to drop the missles down the port in ANH, even though
several other pilots died trying... besides, pitting the strong against the
strong and having the strongest win isn't very entertaining. It doesn't have
that "David and Goliath" effect.
> 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?
See Austin Powers and Austin Powers II... :) The "heros" have to be placed in
escapeable situations, otherwise they can't escape. Take for instance the MF
in ANH... why wasn't it destroyed immediately when it came near the Death
Star? For that matter, why wasn't Princess Leia killed immediately
after "giving up" the location of the Rebel Base? Why didn't the gunner on
the Star Destroyer destroy the escape pod that 3PO and R2 were in... Because
there weren't any life forms? So what! Shoot the dang thing! If Jabba knew
that Leia as Boush was there to free Han, why didn't he stop her? Why didn't
they execute Han, Luke, and Chewie with blasters instead of deciding to throw
them in the Sarlac? The answer to all of these questions is simple: if the
heros can't escape then the story ends. Besides, these things happen in real
life... take for instance some actions taken in WWII... The Japanese should
have waited to bomb Pearl Harbor until all of Europe was secured... Hitler
should NOT have attacked Russia, it was a strategically poor move. It split
his army up and made him fight a war on two fronts. Again, hindsight is
20/20. What was done by the Japanese and by Hitler may have seemed like the
best thing to do at the time, but obviously it turned the war in the favor of
the Allies, which was obviously a good thing for us, but not for the Nazis...
nor for the people in Nagasaki or Hiroshima... but, I digress...
> 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!
Well... the first films were sold to the Atari generation... <G> The games on
the N64 are a bit more difficult than those on the Atari... :) There's alot
of things in alot of films that could bother me... but I try not to analyze
them that way. It's not my job after all, I'm not a movie critic. I just
like to sit back and enjoy the story... unless the story is poor... but I have
never been dissappointed by the story in a Star Wars movie.
> 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?
Slicing sideways or up would've been more gory and less dramatic... it
would've been great for a "Lightsaber Massacre" movie, but it wouldn't really
do well in a Star Wars movie.
> Dave!
> (still a fan, believe it or not)
I believe it! Just remember that Lucas is just a man, he's not a god... he
does make mistakes. I know that people build up a lot of expectations for SW
movies, and when it doesn't turn out just the way they expect it's
dissappointing... but all in all TPM is a good movie, and is a good addition
to the SW Saga. Now that I've seen it so many times, I can't really imagine
it being any different.
-Bryan
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: TPM Rules
|
| (...) 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 (...) (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
|
|
|
|
