The Phantom Menace - general discussion thread — Page 3

I'll have to disagree. For the same reason that people look at Rocky as a classic, and realize it had a bunch of sequels that are silly to varying degrees. The original Rocky film is upheld in a different manner than Rocky V or whatever.

The other thing is that there won't be this type of Star Wars stuff forever. If you asked people about the Rocky series in 1992 they'd probably roll their eyes, because Rocky IV and V were fresh in people's minds. Cut to 2000 and the sequels are just the sequels, but the original film is remembered as a classic of American cinema. Same thing with Superman--does Quest For Peace make any difference to Donner's original? But in 1989, people would have said about the Superman series was overplayed. Today, they separate the sequels and the first two films, or the sequels and just the first film.

Also, Star Wars was always thought of a kiddie movies; they just happened to appeal to adults as well. In 1978 there was the Holiday Special; in 1983 there was Return of the Jedi; in 1984 there was Ewoks Caravan of Courage; in 1985 there was Droids and Ewoks. Etc. But people still realize the original film is a classic--it was inaugerated in Congress' National Film Registry in 1989 after all, right after when all this kiddie stuff reached its apex.

So, like I said, right now all this kid stuff in everyone face, but at the end of the day, the original trilogy survives as a classic. Even now, I don't even know how much average people are even aware of stuff like Clone Wars, they might see the DVD box in stores but I think people just generally think of the films. There's always been SW merchandizing aimed at kids--in fact, most of it is.

The Clone Wars series is actually quite adult most of the time, as much and sometimes more so than most of the prequels, and with stuff like Force Unleashed as well I'd say this is actually the most adult-oriented the franchise has ever been.

ray_afraid said:

ray_afraid said:

 

This is very interesting. But here's something to be considered- none of the sequels to those films were popular- much less top grossing films. With the  exception of the Rocky flicks, they were mostly over looked and forgotten within a decade. This isn't the case with the Star Wars prequels which still have a very strong following. I'm really afraid Star Wars will be "kiddie movies" for the rest of time.

I realize I'm one of the most ignored people on the boards, but I'd like to hear someones opinion on this. Anyone agree? Disagree?

 Ray, sequels/prequels will always be looked at differently by a diehard fan then the casual fan.  For instance, I love the Rocky Series, and think Rocky I is the best, but I enjoy II, III, IV just as much even though IV is bordering on ridiculous.   If you asked the casual fan, they will say Rocky I is the only truly movie that is memorable.  So just because I enjoy the sequels (except V) doesn't demean the original movie among the masses.

As for what you hear on the internet from PT or OOT fans it is all jibberish, as the internet is a small % of all SW fans.  So whatever TFN or OT.com say, I don't take it as a true representation of what the fanbase is thinking. 

I enjoy coming here because you guys care about the OOT as much as I do, but I got news for you most of my friends are what I call "SW moderates.":

-Love the OOT, but can live with the SE

-Thought the PT was OK, went to see them opening weekend, still think they are inferior to the OT.

-Will probably buy the BluRay Saga Set (depending on if they own a BluRay player,)

-Would love if the OOT was included, but not a deal breaker.

-Havent thought of SW that much anymore, and just enjoy the OT movies when their on Spike and  enjoy watching them once in a while on DVD.

CO said:As for what you hear on the internet from PT or OOT fans it is all jibberish, as the internet is a small % of all SW fans.  So whatever TFN or OT.com say, I don't take it as a true representation of what the fanbase is thinking. 

I enjoy coming here because you guys care about the OOT as much as I do, but I got news for you most of my friends are what I call "SW moderates.":

-Love the OOT, but can live with the SE

-Thought the PT was OK, went to see them opening weekend, still think they are inferior to the OT.

-Will probably buy the BluRay Saga Set (depending on if they own a BluRay player,)

-Would love if the OOT was included, but not a deal breaker.

-Havent thought of SW that much anymore, and just enjoy the OT movies when their on Spike and  enjoy watching them once in a while on DVD.

 

 CO gets an A+ for this.

ray_afraid said:

I realize I'm one of the most ignored people on the boards...

I've got seven people ignoring me here, beat that!

;-)

ray_afraid said:

 

I don't think people roll their eyes at the prequels as much as they accept them. At least that's my observation from talking to people about it. Clone Wars is very popular, and unlike the kiddie Ewoks cartoons in the 80's, it's strengthening peoples view of the prequels and this current era of Star Wars. I really don't know much about what people on the net are saying as this is the only Star Wars site I visit and I realize that we are a very small sect of unusual fans, but the majority of people that I talk to about it all seem to feel that nothing has changed and Star Wars has always been hokey kiddie stuff and the new stuff is just as good or bad as the original or even better. I hope I'm wrong!

 Ray, I have never met a person over the age of 12 years old that really likes the PT.  In fact, I have been saying for years, I would love to meet a person over the age of 12 years old who defends the PT.

EVERYONE I have talked to has the pretty much the same view of the PT, they have their moments, but aren't as good as the OT.  Now as I said, I'm sure there are fans that can enjoy the movies the same way I enjoy Rocky IV, but I would never say that the movie is even 1/2 as good as Rocky I. 

I always believed that the fans on the internet who defend the PT are doing it to make it seem legit.  The reason I say this is because I would talk to many of the TFN PT Gushers off the record to get their true opinions.  Many of them would admit that the PT wasn't as great as the OT, but they  were tired of the bashers bashing Lucas, and felt they had to defend the guy.

I met an adult that liked the prequels once, but she also spent her lunch break playing D&D so I'm not sure if she would be considered an average person.

zombie84 said:

The one thing I will give TPM much credit for is it's design and imagination. As Roger Ebert said, there really is this genuine sense of wonder in every scene. I mean, the story and the characters aren't very imaginative, unfortunately, but the world itself is quite captivating. I guess this is complimenting the art department rather than Lucas himself, but just visually, the film is to this day quite breathtaking, even if sometimes the CG is a bit hokey. Actually, there is something weirdly charming to the sorta-perfect-but-not-quite CG and digital composites, compared to the slicker, more seamless stuff of today, maybe like how the early model and stopmotion work has its own charm. It has a character that the other films lack, and part of it I think is that it's still archaic in some ways--shot on film, still had big sets (Theed hanger), lots of big location shooting (Mos Espa), more model work than ROTJ, wasn't finished digitally but photochemically, filmed in the old English studios rather then the new Australian ones, etc.

Maybe when people say it has a more OT feel, this is subliminally influencing them.

Nice point with the CG.

Donno how it's with you or others, but my perception of SFX is somewhat similar to how I look at dialogue and plot:
There are all kinds of different levels of realism, from almost completely believable, to somewhat too perfect and otherwordly, to fantastical, to corny, to comically cheap absurd. 

Suspension of disblief can be bent and regulated according to the material, and just as I can, say, buy a world that's kinda like ours but with fantastical elements, I can buy a look that's aesthetic and kinda realistic, but still obviously fake.

Most of AOTC probably falls into that category: the graphics are shiny, pretty and even, and ultimately recognizeable as fake - but still, they're colorful, pretty, "realistic" in terms of general movement, lightning, texture etc., so that I can easily suspend my disbelief and perceive it as a "shiny prettified reality", just like laid-back, but structured dialogue (gotta love Alien on that).

The only environment I truly despise in that movie, is the Jedi Temple.

Kamino is a somewhat funny one - the inside looks dreamy and surreal like in an alien abduction experience (which is what they were obviously going for, judging by the looks of the aliens etc. - not that I found this idea to have made much sense in the context), the outside looks like an evil, stormy fortress of evil from a Tim Burton movie or something.
 
But the very moment you're okay with it and agree to accept this Kamino place as a somewhat surreal cartoon place (they're Cloners, after all) - they shoot the scenes on the landing platforms on a set with real, artificial rain, and it looks completely realistic :D

Fuck you, Jorge. 

none said:

wwdarth wrote: My biggest problem with TPM (besides the obvious objections mentioned above), is that the characters were impossible to relate to.

I always thought this was on purpose.  To show how the Republic got corrupt by having those in charge being relatively stoic and unable to relate to the problems right in front of them.  Much like how people react to real world politicians.  They are often seen as saying one thing to get in power then doing another.  Where I think the PT lacked is there's no sense of the 'General Public'.  Everything is warrior/army/police types up against politicos.  There's no common man represented.  But having this dynamic between the PT and OT builds the story.  

 

Non Sense.

It's okay if you've got a few boring politicians in a few political scenes (even though a good chunk of real politicians actually have personality and entertainment value - so don't overdo it with the "stoic" part) - but having EVERY SINGLE MAIN CHARACTER behave in that way?

Padme is supposed to be a proactive, caring person - how come she's probably the most boring and emotionless out of all the main characters?
The government at Naboo is probably the most stoic, uptight group of people ever put on cinema, certainly out the Prequel Politicians... does THEIR apathy lead to the Empire, as well? What's up with this uptight, tradition-hugging Geisha nonsense?

It's interesting to note that, in the OT, while the obvious intention was to portray the rebels as human and diverse, and the Imperials as uniform and bland, NONE OF THE NAZI OFFICERS IN THOSE MOVIES WAS BORING, or the same, in the slightest.

I like me some stoic empty blanket characters in some genres - the old Mission: Impossible series comes to mind. The single agents were somewhat memorable, but they were basically just doing their job the whole episode, and the less actual emotions, inter-character relationships or ironic smirks after fooling another enemy pawn, the usually better.

In this case? Nah. 

Moth3r said:

... 1990s sci-fi film, heavily laden with CGI special effects but enjoyable and entertaining nonetheless.

See also Independence Day (1996), Starship Troopers (1997) and Men in Black (1997).

Discuss.

Nah.

Independence Day is cheesy and stereotypical, but a giant pile of silly fun. It's got Willi Schmidt, Jeff Nerdbloom and a wacky Jew with a beard, for Christ's sake.

Men in Black... WHAT? You troll (and forum administrator). 

Weird. I was on rotten tomatoes looking at reviews for tpm. (I have no life)

But the reviews (sorted by date) kind of reflect how I felt about the film. It looks like when the movie first debuted most reviews were good. As if the hype and the fact that it's star wars made people want to believe that it was good. Then the good reviews become more scattered. Then literally three straight pages of bad reviews as reality sinks in.

Just thought that was interesting.

twooffour wrote: Padme is supposed to be a proactive, caring person - how come she's probably the most boring and emotionless out of all the main characters?

She's proactive, caring and semi-emotional as a Senator.  She like most of the characters in the PT is emotionally stunted as an individual.  So when she's in the Senate pleading the case about the invasion of Naboo.  Portman acts.  The scene works.  (until you attempt to figure out why no one had a camera and took a picture as proof of the invasion)  Padme for most of these movies is shown dealing with interpersonal relationships which she's not good at.  She's been playing politico all her life all these characters have.  They've been locked in a system and it leads their personal life to faulter.  This is a guess, like the camera thing above, you set up a logic system and something simple breaks the system.  and there's just so much time to spend trying to rationalize it all.

but having EVERY SINGLE MAIN CHARACTER behave in that way?

George is making some kind of statement.  Part anti-organized religionous indoctrination, part anti-life time politicians.  Not saying this is right, correct or truth, or if I agree or not.  Just a guess.

none said:

twooffour wrote: Padme is supposed to be a proactive, caring person - how come she's probably the most boring and emotionless out of all the main characters?

She's proactive, caring and semi-emotional as a Senator.  She like most of the characters in the PT is emotionally stunted as an individual.  So when she's in the Senate pleading the case about the invasion of Naboo.  Portman acts.  The scene works.  (until you attempt to figure out why no one had a camera and took a picture as proof of the invasion)  Padme for most of these movies is shown dealing with interpersonal relationships which she's not good at.  She's been playing politico all her life all these characters have.  They've been locked in a system and it leads their personal life to faulter.  This is a guess, like the camera thing above, you set up a logic system and something simple breaks the system.  and there's just so much time to spend trying to rationalize it all.

but having EVERY SINGLE MAIN CHARACTER behave in that way?

George is making some kind of statement.  Part anti-organized religionous indoctrination, part anti-life time politicians.  Not saying this is right, correct or truth, or if I agree or not.  Just a guess.

Um, okay. With that same logic, they could've made Han Solo a complete bore, and the reasoning would be: "well, he just happens to be a rather boring person - smuggles crap for a living. He's bored. What, is that unbelievable?"

Luke was pretty much fish-out-of-the-water when he was suddenly thrown from a relatively dull, routine, maybe somewhat adventuorous life as a farmer on a desert with speeder bikes and cool pilot friends, into an outright WAR ZONE. 
Hey, how about you throw some average factory worker into the enemy base with a bunch of heavily armed fanatics at every corner, bet they'll act as light-hearted and laid-back and Luke does throughout the first movie.


Basically, if you write a story in a universe full of dull bores, you'll get a boring movie. And I don't see how any of that aids the movie. 

I'll admit that Amidala's speech at the Senate was quite cool, though. Nowhere near Van Damme's in "Streetfighter", but hey. 

generalfrevious said:

No really. I think TPM is a surrealist film in the vein as Luis Bunel. But the problem is that in a science fiction movie, you need exposition to what is going on and how that universe works in order for the film to succeed. TPM does not explain and is governed by no logic- hence a surrealist film.

Um what, are you kidding?

Nothing, absolutely nothing, in TPM, is in any way "surreal" (well, maybe that scene where Qui-Gon meditates in the lightsaber duel) - it's a down-to-earth space adventure movie with lazy exposition and convenient plot devices.

It takes more than a lazy script to pass for "surrealist", sorry. 

twooffour said:

generalfrevious said:

No really. I think TPM is a surrealist film in the vein as Luis Bunel. But the problem is that in a science fiction movie, you need exposition to what is going on and how that universe works in order for the film to succeed. TPM does not explain and is governed by no logic- hence a surrealist film.

Um what, are you kidding?

Nothing, absolutely nothing, in TPM, is in any way "surreal" (well, maybe that scene where Qui-Gon meditates in the lightsaber duel) - it's a down-to-earth space adventure movie with lazy exposition and convenient plot devices.

It takes more than a lazy script to pass for "surrealist", sorry. 

It still did not make any sense. Hence that is why I called it a surrealistic film. I didn't mean that it was good in any way.

Reasons why I like TPM.....

Qui-Gon Jinn

Darth Maul

IMO, it is the most natural looking of the prequels...reminiscent of the OUT.

Design

Audio presentation

These are in no particular order but these things still appeal to me when I watch it.

Also in favor of this film being surreal:

14-year old girls are elected to be the queen of their planet(?)

Aliens that somehow look like early 20th century racist caricatures

A nine year old boy is deemed too old to begin jedi training, and was conceived by microscopic organisms that allow you to jump high and predict the future

Sebulba (enough said)

The main plot is about taxation

Anything else I missed?

^haha, you make it sound like this film was directed by Alejandro Jodorowsky (if only)

I actually like the prequels though I do tend to get eyestrain from all the rolling I end up doing.

You're right; it's not surrealism. It supposed to be science fiction, yet in the movie there are too many unexplained elements about the Jedi, the Trade Federation, Naboo, and Anakin that it gives off a weird vibe that has no logic. So I stand corrected; it is not a surrealist film. It is just an illogical film. Sorry for the confusion.

generalfrevious said:

You're right; it's not surrealism. It supposed to be science fiction, yet in the movie there are too many unexplained elements about the Jedi, the Trade Federation, Naboo, and Anakin that it gives off a weird vibe that has no logic. So I stand corrected; it is not a surrealist film. It is just an illogical film. Sorry for the confusion.

Again, nonsensical plot holes and stupid ideas don't amount to surrealism - I can understand why you like to use big words, though.

So how about I say The Day After Tomorrow is surrealism? Global climate doesn't change this quickly!
I guess Emmerich set out to make a preachy disaster film, but the unrealistic plot devices turned out so unrealistic, it's like unintentional surrealism! I mean, it's got ice chasing people through corridors, that's like some nightmare stuff or shit..