twooffour

Tyrphanax said:

twooffour said:

but I somehow hadn't thought of the fact that TPM doesn't have any decent main character, which is a main contributing factor while it's so... "flat".

I never liked that argument of his.

I don't think a movie needs a single "main character" to be considered good. There are a lot of good movies with multiple "main characters;" The Seven Samurai springs immediately to mind, and even the OT has something of an ensemble cast.

I just think the failing with TPM was that they tried and failed to pull it off; none of the characters are well-defined enough to warrant an ensemble cast, and that makes it seem like it's a movie full of secondary characters that's missing a main character.

That was actually his point ;)

A lot of people seem to misunderstand that part. There is NO MAIN CHARACTER. Not MANY MAIN CHARACTERS.

Oh God...

whoever made this picture



FUCK YOU! :D

Ruined forevah...

CO said:

The idea of having 2 actors play Anakin 10 years apart was a bad decision by Lucas, because youre asking the audience to like 2 different actors, and it is jarring at the beginning of Episode as you get used to an older Anakin.

LOL, that reminds me, I've once seen some EU book cover, or something like that, with some face morph picture on it, of Anakin between I and II. He looks like both of them :D

Hehe, CG can make any child-adult transition believable ;)

Gradually over the course of the years, I guess - by the time I watched the first Plinkett review, I thought they were pretty lame, character-wise.
But the reviews added some significant perspective, I'd say - perspective I should've gained myself, but whatever. For example, I've always felt that the characters and acting were "flat", but I somehow hadn't thought of the fact that TPM doesn't have any decent main character, which is a main contributing factor while it's so... "flat".

You can see it when feeling the tiny remnant of an urge to root and cheer for the characters when they overcome the baddies - when Padme corners Gunray, when Anakin wins the podrace/spacebattle, when the Jedi kick some robot ass, etc., and you can imagine how much more involved you'd have been, had those characters had a decent characterization, arc and actual determined motivation (rather than sheer dumb luck) behind their accomplishments.

The most rewarding moment is probably when Obi-Wan pwns Maul, but up to that moment, he's pretty much just been a snarky to boring side kick with very little character, or role.
Seeing Sebulba owned is more rewarding than seeing the space ship being blown up, because Anakin actually puts some effort into that - and that part's just filler, padding and basically a fun subplot at best.

Ugh.... sorry, this is just something I have to do... Jesus...



hooh..


on the other hand, f*k it



Swet dreams, everyone :P

I'm not gay, but I know what I like:








Charismatic Tankian, is Charismatic.



Evan Stone's cool.









And can't believe anyone hasn't brought up K-Mac yet...



I mean...



... oh.




And this ain't "handsome", just hilarious:



You axed for it. :P

Missing and Open Range both came out in 2003. I think they were both kinda "Western revivals" at the time, but other than that, they have little in common.

Open Range is the typical gritty-antiheroes-shooting-the-baddies-invading-the-village, while Missing is about a mystical Shaman who's abducted Cate Blanchett's daughter.

zombie84 said:

As far as it being a "pile of silly fun," yes, I think many fans of TPM would say that TPM shares this quality with MIB. I think that is also one of the greatest attributes of the original Star Wars film--like Independenec Day or Men In Black, it doesn't take itself very seriously, has good characters and good natured humour, excellent special effects and action scenes, and you feel good at the end of the picture. Which is a point you continue to miss. He didn't compare it to MIB in a general sense, but specifically in these qualities.

Well again, Troll 2 is a pile of silly fun, when you watch it, so how much is this label really worth?

"it doesn't take itself too seriously"
Well, not "too seriously" in terms of over-inflated self-importance, maybe, but apart from the "comedy stuff", I'd say it's pretty straightforward - the two Jedi are serious (apart from a few moments), the council is seirous, the politicians are serious, Amidama and her staff are all serious, the Sith villains are all serious, 5/8 of the action climax at the end is epic and serious, and... well, that's quite a lot, isn't it?
Whereas in Independence Day, you've got a wise-cracking Will Smith (or any of the equally quirky supporting characters) at almost every turn. There are a few serious moments there you can count on your finger, like the Pesident's wife dying, the fire holocaust, and maybe when the alien breaks out in the secret base, but other than that?

As for MiB... um, dude... it's a COMEDY. Not only doesn't it take itself "too seriously", it ISN'T SERIOUS TO BEGIN WITH. It's funny, witty and goofy almost through its entire duration.
I think there are no jokes when K explain to J how a mass of people is a bunch of morons. Any other scene?

Hey, I'll make this easier for you - how about you compare Indepence Day to... Mars Attacks!? In terms of "silly fun", I mean, not just "generally"? I'll just let this question hang in the air.


"has good characters"
Um, what? You've just destroyed your whole entire argument.
Let's just say, if every main character in TPM had been conceived as a Japanese robot, they would be slightly less lively, and slightly less interesting.

MiB? Independence Day? :D


"good natured humor"
Um... okay, as I said, whatever rocks your boat, but you'd actually have to spell out loudly that you found Binks, Boss Nass, "ouch time" and "yippee" good-natured and genuinely funny.
Please do that and we'll talk. Or rather, we won't :DD


"and you feel good at the end of the picture"?
Oh RLY?
Let's compare how I feel at the end of each of those three movies:

Independence Day: "hehe... lol"
Men in Black: Wow, that was GOOD! ROFLMFAO!!!!
TPM: Um...

TPM has some amusing moments, a few you could call tear jerkers or heartwarming, and quite a good bunch of "epic" action stuff and elements that could be described as "menacing" or "foreboding".
But then again, lots of its "silly" elements actually don't work in its favor (which is I think the point YOU've failed to grasp until now) - Jar Jar is annoying rather than funny (with a few exceptions, I guess - still not as bad as Drop Dead Fred, I guess), just as the rest of the Gungans with their baby talk, the Neimoidians' pathetic ineptness and lame facial movements don't serve the film well, either.
C-3P0 is lame at best, Shmi should've been heartwarming but really just spouts saccharine, and Ani... well... the least said about him, the better.

Watching the last parade scene, with obnoxiously merry music playing, kiddies throwing confetti from the balcony, and everyone grinning at each other, is probably the singlest surest way of getting instant diabetes. Permanently.
The only thing worse than that is the 100 kiddie cartoon musicals reviewed by the Nostalgia Critic, which, I guess, are "silly fun" as well.


And comparing that to an actually great comedy film? Again, Drop Dead Fred is silly, how does that fit into the picture?

There was a third thread named like this, where I wrote down a lot of points. Can't find it anywhere though... oh well.
Nice thread :)

Agree with most of that - the prequels sucked as overall movies, but it's nice to point out little aspects,, elements and moments in it that were decent to pretty damn amazing.

What does that even mean? :O

....


All joking aside, I would very much like to believe that my contention to the OP is both obvious and understandable to everyone reading this.
Hardly anyone here would say that TPM could be compared to MiB, as a movie. So what's deal? ;D

Meh, I was playing the Matrix Online when it was still up - all I remember is how everyone was pissed at SOE for fucking up SWG, and doing this to MxO as well :D

Never played it, but all the best and all ;)

TV's Frink said:

So you're back...and nothing's changed.  Thrilling.  :-/

Well what has you expected? ;)

zombie84 said:

twooffour said:

Moth3r said:

greenpenguino said:

twooffour said:

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). 

You should add that 'Lost in Space' Remake to the heavily laden cgi list

 

 

*mutters* Although I do like that film more than TPM *mutters*

Ask someone to name a sci-fi film of the nineties that is heavily laden with CGI effects, and I suspect that very few would remember name Lost in Space.

And Men in Black is no less a giant pile of silly fun as Independence Day or The Phantom Menace.

Consider also Terminator 2. The original Terminator film was, in my opinion, a classic, even with it's low budget special effects and mono sound mix. The big-budget sequel doesn't particularly gel with the original (in my opinion - I know many would disagree). It is nonetheless a pretty decent sci-fi flick which is great fun to watch on its own merits, if you are able to temporarily forget that there was another - superior - film that preceded it.

I feel the same way about TPM.

Well, in that case something's clearly wrong with you.

Equating MiB to Episode I, simply because they're both "silly", is BEYOND absurd and displays a complete lack of thinking ability.

MiB is "silly", by the virtue of being a COMEDY. It has a funny protagonist, a well-structured storyline, a comical over-the-top villain, and tons and tons of funny one-liners, GAGS and slapstick.
Is it ever boring? Does it ever come off as uninspired, wooden and lazy?

Okay, let's look at TPM - it's mostly a "serious" action adventure movie, mostly lighthearted in its tone, but generally less comedic than even ANH.

Its attempt to be comedic is almost exclusively condensed in Jar Jar Binks - now how funny that one was in comparison to Will Smith, Edgar the Bug and Jack Jeebs, I'll leave to you.
Aside from that, it's largely boring, lifeless, has no relatable main characters, and ends up being child-like, sappy and annoying at its worst when little Ani comes into play.
Can you say the same about Mib? Or EVEN Independence Day?


I'd probably put Sebulba on par with any hilarious MiB alien -that one was a really neat creation.
All the "awesome technology and funny gadgets" in TPM is quite cool (even though nowhere as refreshing as in MiB), and it has some amusing alien cameos in the podrace.

But being on par with MiB as a movie? PLEASE.

 He said the movie is "a pile of silly fun." Not "it's a comedy," you moron. MIB is silly fun because its an sci-fi action-comedy that's fun to watch, ID4 is silly fun because it's an over the top disaster film that's fun to watch, and TPM is silly fun because it's a lighthearted children's adventure fantasy that's fun to watch. None of them are in the exact same genre, but they all came out around the same time, they all are sci-fi to some degree, they all have a lot of CG special effects, they all have elements of silliness in them, and they all are considered a generally fun ride, if not by consensus than at least by Moth3r. As he said, "It is nonetheless a pretty decent sci-fi flick which is great fun to watch on its own merits". Read the whole post before you make an over the top response.

"... before you make an over the top response."
"..., you moron."

Um... ok, when did I ever claim he said "it was a comedy"? I don't understand... it was *I* who said MiB was a comedy while TPM was not, it was *I* who insisted on distinguishing between an intentionally goofy, well-made comedy and a sci-fi adventure movie with inept, wacky elements in it, rather than throwing them all in the pot of being "silly fun".
So what, are we now going to lump in "The Naked Gun" together with "Troll 2", because both are "silly fun"? Okay, so they are, but one is a brilliant parody film, while the other is an awfully inept horror failure. Can they even be compared to each other, simply because they're both "silly" and "fun"?

Please... I've already made it clear in my response, TPM does have some entertaining, genuinely funny elements in it, but it also has stupid, annoying mis-attempts at comedy, and all of this in the context of a fairly sincere, and extremely dull sci-fi opera.

Now we can all discuss whether kids will still like it, but let me ask you this:
If we have, on one hand, a
1) genuinely entertaining comedy film, with good acting, funny dialogue, good structure, and on the other
2) a boring failure with one or two cool alien cameos,
does it make ANY sense to say they're somehow comparable in quality? Just because you can "enjoy the ride" that is TPM despite the almost complete lack of characters, does that mean you can compare it to an actually good comedy film that is held together by a competent comedy duo and almost not a single gag attempt that ends up being obnoxious and annoying?

But hey, as I already said, if you actually find any of the cartoons in MiB anywhere as obnoxious and wrong as Jar-Jar, or vice versa, then hey - whatever rocks your boat, whatever turns your crack. I think I'm more or less done here.

Jesus H. Christ, some people here are just looking for an argument :D

So yea, TPM is on par with Troll 2, they're both silly fun. The case is made, quod erat demonstrandum, demonstratum nao est. I think that's it, basically.

toho-scope said:

there is a facebook group which is to be seen to believed

http://www.facebook.com/home.php?sk=group_156566601079156&ap=1

...

... thank GOD I don't know any of those 12 members! :D

Moth3r said:

twooffour said:

Please explain how this image relates to The Phantom Menace or adds value to this discussion?

May I say dunce?

S_Matt said:

... that the blu ray sets coming out in September will sell by the million, further validating Lucas's revisionist versions and giving an entire new generation of Star Wars fans the wrong impression of the films?

I find it rather sad.

Reading an old, old complaint taking up a whole 90 page thread dedicated to it acting as the newest and freshest thing in the block, makes me sad.

Moth3r said:

greenpenguino said:

twooffour said:

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). 

You should add that 'Lost in Space' Remake to the heavily laden cgi list

 

 

*mutters* Although I do like that film more than TPM *mutters*

Ask someone to name a sci-fi film of the nineties that is heavily laden with CGI effects, and I suspect that very few would remember name Lost in Space.

And Men in Black is no less a giant pile of silly fun as Independence Day or The Phantom Menace.

Consider also Terminator 2. The original Terminator film was, in my opinion, a classic, even with it's low budget special effects and mono sound mix. The big-budget sequel doesn't particularly gel with the original (in my opinion - I know many would disagree). It is nonetheless a pretty decent sci-fi flick which is great fun to watch on its own merits, if you are able to temporarily forget that there was another - superior - film that preceded it.

I feel the same way about TPM.

Well, in that case something's clearly wrong with you.

Equating MiB to Episode I, simply because they're both "silly", is BEYOND absurd and displays a complete lack of thinking ability.

MiB is "silly", by the virtue of being a COMEDY. It has a funny protagonist, a well-structured storyline, a comical over-the-top villain, and tons and tons of funny one-liners, GAGS and slapstick.
Is it ever boring? Does it ever come off as uninspired, wooden and lazy?

Okay, let's look at TPM - it's mostly a "serious" action adventure movie, mostly lighthearted in its tone, but generally less comedic than even ANH.

Its attempt to be comedic is almost exclusively condensed in Jar Jar Binks - now how funny that one was in comparison to Will Smith, Edgar the Bug and Jack Jeebs, I'll leave to you.
Aside from that, it's largely boring, lifeless, has no relatable main characters, and ends up being child-like, sappy and annoying at its worst when little Ani comes into play.
Can you say the same about Mib? Or EVEN Independence Day?


I'd probably put Sebulba on par with any hilarious MiB alien -that one was a really neat creation.
All the "awesome technology and funny gadgets" in TPM is quite cool (even though nowhere as refreshing as in MiB), and it has some amusing alien cameos in the podrace.

But being on par with MiB as a movie? PLEASE.

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..

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. 

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. 

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). 

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. 

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. 

RedFive said:

Davnes007 said:

Doing drugs isn't illegal......Possession of drugs is illegal.

Quoted for truth and also ridiculousness.

Star Wars under the influence is pretty cool too.  It makes the PT a LOT better; the images and music are phenomenal, and the story and acting kinda take a back seat.  

I still sometimes like to throw in a DVD of EpII or Matrix Revolutions once in a while, and I usually have no problem with the "story and acting taking a backseat" anyway..

but hey... you know, like, different strokes... duuuuuuuuuuude