|SolRo - 2010-12-02 |
This would have blown my mind if I were 8 years old, decent movie otherwise.
|sosage - 2010-12-02 |
...the 8 year old in me keeps trying to forget these movies happened.
|Billy the Poet - 2010-12-02 |
George Lucas was around 60 when he wrote this. He had his entire adult life to think up the note he wanted to go out on.
|Senator_Unger - 2010-12-02 |
The problem is, everyone watches them in the wrong order. Everyone goes IV-V-VI-I-II-III when you should watch them I-II-III-IV-V-VI. That way, each movie is a little better than the last.
Yeah the problem is we aren't time travelers. V is the best btw.
I wouldnt let my kids watch them 1-6, it would ruin the vader = lukes father mind fuck.
so it had too much action and not enough action?
No, ya big lug; the issue wasn't whether it had the right amount of action. An action sequence can be a lot of fun (see: George Lucas in "Raiders of the Lost Ark" with diarrhea-stricken Harrison Ford running thru town), or it can get boring because it is visibly overindulgent (see: George Lucas in "Return of the Jedi" with speeder bikes).
Jet Bin Fever
I had a really cute little spitfire of a girlfriend who had never seen Star Wars and didn't know any of the spoilers about paternity and such, and she flipped her shit when she saw Empire. I only wished that I never had older brothers, so I too would know her joy/shock.
It would ruin the Vader-Luke reveal but it would make the Luke-Leia sexual tension and kiss on Hoth, really, really creepy so you take some good, you take some bad.
Watching the prequels first not only ruins the Father-reveal, but it also changes the story direction completely.
It becomes much less about Luke's journey to adulthood/Jedi mastery and more about Vader's redemption.
God the prequels are awful. Oh and RIP Irvin Kerschner.
About the Darth reveal: I was a kid when I saw it in the theater, and to me it felt like reheated soap opera nonsense. I did not understand why everyone else was so pumped up by it, but evidently I'm the only one who rolled his eyes, so I must be the problem.
|craptacular - 2010-12-02 |
i remember the entire theatre, in unison, groaning when this happened.
That's what happened when I saw it too, a clearly audible "ggaauuufff"
There was a great deal of exasperated laughter in my theater.
|Riskbreaker - 2010-12-02 |
Plinkett's review is taking too damn long. The myth that this is the good movie of the prequels needs to die, fast.
what, phantom menace was better?
but they were all enjoyable on some level, wish people would quit bitching.
This movie was pretty decent, by far the best of the prequels. At least it had cool duels and shit.
Ya'll are trippin'. Phantom Menace has some cool moments in a Muppets In Space kind of way but really each one of those films is more dire than the last. I honestly can't think of a worse movie than the third one.
Also I checked the Dorling Kindersley cutaways book and there's no toilets in the entire Star Wars universe. Think about that!
The audience is the toilet.
Episode II was painfully awkward to watch. Episode III was total shit, but somewhat entertaining.
|Oktay - 2010-12-02 |
Star Wars (1977) is Best Star Wars.
Star Trek is better than Star Wars.
I used to love The Simpsons, now it sucks.
Radiohead is the best band in the world
Kirk beats Picard.
Emacs beats vi.
PCs beat Macs.
XEmacs beats Emacs.
Linux beats Windows.
Star Wars is not Science Fiction.
OpenBSD beats Linux.
Anyone who disagrees with me is worse than Hitler.
You can take out all the scientific elements and replace them with conventional or fantastic elements without hurting the story. Plus spaceships that fly like airplanes, a galaxy that spins visibly, a central computer that commands a robot army (the destruction of which causes all robots to go inert) etc, are just bad science. It's Fantasy to me, not SF.
Dread Pirate Roberts
Star Wars is typically thought of in a "Space Opera Western" kind of way.
The term "Science Fiction" typically defines a production that focuses on technology and the possibilities of that technology in whatever world they are being utilized in. Often they'll explain how it works, why it works, and why that technology is good or bad. Minority Report is a great example of "Science Fiction". Also, "Star Trek" is typically able to fall under this genre, although the recent 2009 movie by J.J. Abrahms altered the lens on the ST universe.
As Oktay said, if you take the entirety of the story of Star Wars and translate it into a new setting, it remains the same:
Young man or woman is currently living their life the way they always have. Along comes fate and whisks him/her away on an epic quest to prove a truth or defeat an evil, or both. Along the way, he meets a kind mentor, a swashbuckling rough guy, a damsel... etc. In the end, he/she wins the day, but only because of the journey he/she took, and the people they befriended along the way.
Does the above sound like Star Wars or Lord of the Rings? You can bet your ass I wasn't describing Star Trek: Search for Spock.
It's the Hero's Journey outline to the story, and the focus on that story, rather than the components of the world that define what genre a production should fall under. While Star Trek and Minority Report may be good productions, they are most notably Science Fiction because of the way their production focuses on the world's technology and the story within it.
Often Science Fiction is used as tool for exploring the moral and/or philisophical questions around a technology (such as time travel).
On the other hand, the "Action/Adventure" genre that Star Wars is likely defined under, puts it on the other end of the spectrum, having the focus being on the story, and leaving other components, such as space ships, faster-than-light travel, laser swords, etc.... up to the imagination as it why it works the way it does.
Believe me: if Star Wars was a science fiction movie, it'd be about forty times longer.
| Register or login To Post a Comment|