twooffour

TV's Frink said:

I know this won't be a popular opinion, but...

Is it possible that Ledger's performance is overrated due to the timing of this death?  I say yes.

It would be absurd to claim that it didn't hype it up to a mythical status - not just the timing itself, but the fact that this was an actor taking a surprisingly different, untypical role for the first time (as far as I'm aware), preparing for a month in an isolated hotel room, and giving so few interviews about the role (certainly none after the release, or on the DVD, as there usually are most of them), AND how convincing and powerful it ended up being.

The artist who, you could say, puts up a completely unexpected feat of brilliance and then suddenly vanishes - of course that boosts the hype, and the bias towards his performance.

But I'd say the praise it gets is deserved.

And spake Darth Sidious for persuasion, "there shall be Iquity upon our Vasion!"

Double in quality, double in tender.

But you think they're rather fine, which makes me lift my eyebrow to say the least :D

TV's Frink said:

twooffour said:

Ziggy Stardust said:

Not funny twooffour.

It's funny with the "*flees*" at the end ;)

No.

Yes.

Actually if you think about what Ford, in his, role had to put up with for the most of the shooting, it's possible to sympathize ;)

In the logical and moral sense, not what the attorneys say.

ESB was, as far as I know, directed by Kershner with very little interference by Lucas, and ROTJ he didn't do, either.

He may own the "rights" or whatever, but there is no reasonable justification for him to say that these are "his" films so he can do whatever he wants.
If they were, we'd have to start bringing up those arguments.

ferris209 said:

Plus, by the time this one came out, I was in the full swing of puberty, so Michelle Pfeiffer hold a nice leathery place in my heart as a result of this film.

What, no more fire in the oven? :p

That's a lot of Batmans...

TV's Frink said:

His usual wall of text is weeping in shame.

Well, someone might contest that statement, and then you'd need a wall of text ;)

Just to make it clear, my emoticons were referring to the RLM quote ;)

I love RLM :D

Puggo - Jar Jar's Yoda said:

Bingowings said:

Protecting art and culture is probably something that you just can't trust to a free market.

Very important point.  The "it's his he can do whatever he wants with it" argument presumes that ownership is the be-all-end-all of society. there are many cases where society places restrictions on what you can do with your stuff:

• it's my car I can drive it however I want
• it's my house I can make it look however I want
• it's my kid I'll raise her however I want
• it's my historic structure I'll tear it down if I want
• it's my money I won't pay taxes if I don't want to
• it's my lab I'll make whatever substances I want
• it's my life I'll travel wherever I want

Most artists aren't so ridiculous with their own masterpieces as Lucas is, so society hasn't had to deal with this issue yet when it comes to art.

I think those questions don't even begin to play a role here, as the OT is to 2/3 NOT, in fact, "his".

;) :D

The problem is, in many cases they neither show nor tell ;)

It's hard to tell, but probably Dark Knight and Batman Returns.

At the end of the day, for its performances and dialogues.
Batman Returns had Danny De Vito, Pfeiffer and The Walken hamming the hell out of Got-ham, and exchanging hilarious, ambiguous quips with each other and Keaton whenever he felt to join in.
It also had lots of Burton-esque surreal magic and eccentricity, like the circus gang or the icy panorama shots.

Dark Knight obviously for Heath Ledger. I like how it creates dilemmas for the characters and asks moral questions, but ultimately, it's done too simplistically, and resolved too easily, all the while beating you over the head with its messages.


Can't say I liked Batman Begins all too much - Katie Holmes was simplistic and patronizing, it relied on rather boring repeated catchphrases like "why do we fall", Qui-gon Jinn was a boring villain... it was just meh.

Bale probably puts up a more versatile performance than in the sequel (especially like the drunk scene), Cilian Murphy is a slick snake, it has atmospheric stuff like Batman's "theatralics" or the hallucination gas... but ultimately... I thought meh.
The character arc was too simplistic and obvious for me to care about.

Well, the prequels and explanations... they don't explain what the TF wants, they don't explain what Separatists want, they don't explain the Syfo-Dias nonsense or whatever... they're just really sloppy about providing exposition where it's needed.

In this case, I'd say the IMPACT made up for the lack of unambiguous technical explanation - we had the strong impression (at least from this movie, not ESB) that the Emperor had a strong mental power over Vader, holding his will captive and bound.
We can gladly leap to the conclusion that the Emperor's death (along maybe with the physical injuries inflicted) drained some life-force from him.

In fact, leaving it open, hanging in the air as a suggesting interpretation is even better - on one hand we don't get a silly line like "my life was bound to his, and now I die" (FUCK YOU, ROTK, FUCK YOU), on the other hand there's some magical, mythical quality to his death and redemption that may go beyond "Vader had to die because a few bits of lightning accidentally touched his helmet".

I'm not trying to convince anyone to not like a movie, but yes, the reasons are flawed. They often are.

So what's your problem?

TV's Frink said:

Bingo, it's his world, we're just wrong in it.

:D ;) :p :/ :z :d :afdkl;j

A lot of my own opinions on various movies and other things, have been shaped by being challenged by others.
I write something, someone responds, and BAM, that actually makes sense, didn't think of that.

Where would I be if, instead of listening to objections, I'd get uptight and annoyed at how someone dares question my OPINION?
Probably getting offended at negative remarks about a religion I admittingly have no clue about.

You know, part of putting an opinion on a public forum, is that it very easily may be challenged by somebody. Part of having one is that it may be deluded in some way. It doesn't mean anyone is super-smart, or megalomaniacal - it's just normal discourse happening.

So you may as well quit your worthless one-liners, it's getting aggravating.

Bingowings said:

Yes but you replied to his rating based on criteria of your own choosing.

If you were using that system to explain and illustrate your own rating it would make sense but using it to critique a blanket rating post made by somebody else doesn't make much sense contextually.

Oh, I certainly use those criteria in my ratings, but that doesn't mean I can't suggest that someone else's rating is due to not considering these criteria.

Ultimately, you can take any criteria and use them to rate a movie in whatever way - but a lot of criteria and aspects can be missed, and later used to reconsider one's own opinions ;)

Bingowings said:

It is how he rates the movies and not how you rate the movies.

Which is probably why I replied to his post, as opposed to my own.

grisan said:

I wouldn't rate the battle at the sarlacc pit as a pro for ROTJ.

The reason why I rate TPM and ROTJ about the same is because both movies are really similar in its weak and strong points.

Pros:

ROTJ: Jabba, Rancor battle, Leias Bikini, speeder bike scene, 3-way battle scene with space, ground and lightsaber fights

TPM: Darth Maul, Qui-Gon, Watto, Druidikas, Pod-Race, 3-way battle scene with space, ground and lightsaber fights

Cons:

ROTJ: Sarlacc, musical number in jabbas Palace (either one),too many muppets, Ewoks, silly ewok scenes, Vaders death (never understood why a few seconds of force lightning should kill him).

TPM: Jar-Jar, R2D2, C3PO, Midiclorians, too many cgi characters, too much political talk, silly jar-jar scenes

Jake Lloyd as Anakin never really bothered me. He wasn't great but did an OK job. So overall I think both movies are about the same level. I would give ROTJ a slight edge, because it has less dragging in the middle.

 

Just for the record, in case certain others would like to object, you may think what you want, and like movies that you want, but this post is a prime example of poorly thought-through arguments.

Almost all the pros and cons here are superficial observations.
Sure, these things are good or bad for their respective movies (not gonna argue it), but how much do they contribute, and how much do they fuck up?

Pros:

ROTJ: Jabba, [a character] Rancor battle, Leias Bikini, speeder bike scene [doesn't forget about following two main characters], 3-way battle scene with space [where the main character saves the day by pure contrived accident], ground [consisting of nothing but slapstick] and lightsaber fights [while a cool fight, still one with 90% on the duel and 5% on the characterization - 5% because this may be the first moment Obi-Wan turns from a blank side-kick to an actual character a viewer roots for]

TPM: Darth Maul [a cool cardboard cutout with hardly any characterization beyond "evil"], Qui-Gon [a character personally uninvolved in the main plot, aside from Anakin and the final battle], Watto, Druidikas, Pod-Race [an entertaining video game sequences with cardboard cutouts for contestants; you do root for Anakin a bit, though], 3-way battle scene with space [a familiar secondary character fighting to victory], ground [main characters putting it in where it counts] and lightsaber fights [90% characterization, dialogue and emotional involvement, do the math]

Cons:

ROTJ: Sarlacc, musical number in jabbas Palace (either one),too many muppets, Ewoks, silly ewok scenes, Vaders death (never understood why a few seconds of force lightning should kill him).

TPM: Jar-Jar, R2D2, C3PO, Midiclorians, too many cgi characters, too much political talk, silly jar-jar scenes

Darth Bizarro said:

The reviews were funny, yes, and made some good points but I have a hard time having much respect for a reviewer who makes comments like "so you might like the movies, you know, if you're stupid."

It was "characters", and you obviously can't spot a sardonic exaggeration if it bites you in the behind.

darth_ender said:

I think you, my friend, don't know a joke when you see one, not I.  Why did Frink think my statement was so funny?  Because it was humorous.  My style can be dry, but it was intended as funny.  I defended my poinoting out your errors for two reasons: 1) I found it so funny that I'd have hated to let it slide there

Aw well - too dry for my... ahm...

not to get into deep into that, but there is a rather fine (or maybe blurry?) line where dry humour transforms into trolling -- it's when all the visible hints and winks that were supposed to come across and be understood, are gone.
Haven't seen any myself ;)

Perhaps you don't always criticize others' English, but a significant proportion of your posts include criticism of one sort or another levelled at your fellow Star Wars fans.  Please understand, the whole point to this has nothing to do with your English, but everything to do with how bothersome you seem to be.

asterisk8 said:

Drawing I did of my nephew the day he was born.

 

For a moment there I thought he was smoking a joint, LOL!

theprequelsrule said:

- the speeder bike chase

- Ian McDiarmid's performance as the Emperor

 

 

Well, the pod race had a (thankfull) dull and mute Ani and while I do laugh at the funny alien antics there, this kiddy stuff obviously doesn't compare to the rather charming and classic Endor chase.
Having that said, the sound, tempo and visuals in the podrace are extremely awesome - they take the idea from the speeder bike chase and develop it further.

Maybe less is more (CERTAINLY in the overall context), but it's awesome :D


McDiarmid was quite cool as the ambiguous senator, I very much like all the little subtleties he puts in - but that's just another slimy office politician, at the end of the day.
No match for the Emperor :)