Google apps
Main menu
1 – 23 of 23
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I think that Annie also destroyed the universe because he hadn't got a promotion at the office. At least I think that was part of the termoil Christenson was so incapable of delivering.
I have to confess though that I didn't notice him not getting the promotion, just Padme consoling him about it during one of his long pauses. Some idiot dragged me to see this film at midnight after inducing me to drink beer, so I might have slept through that it.

For what it's worth, the first section is pretty incoherant. Was there any attempt to explain why there was a war on?

I rather liked the 'and all over the galaxy, the Jedi suddenly find the Stormtroopers turning on them' bit.

Sunday, 12 June, 2005

Anonymous Anonymous said...

This is the kind of medical science which can glue new arms and legs on as a routine procedure, but has somehow neglected gynecology.

::Sighs:: But 'twas ever thus. We appreciate you noticing, though.

Monday, 13 June, 2005

Anonymous Anonymous said...

So when are you gonna do an exegesis of Knights of the Old Republic? Lots of people say both games were more interesting than the last three films. There's lots of things to comment on. How does it fit in with the rest of the Star Wars mythos? Was the plot twist good? Was the British accent of that scold you rescue on the first planet convincing? Which is better, two lightsabers or a double-bladed one ?

Monday, 13 June, 2005

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Still not seen the film, but do I gather that the one major character from the three older movies who doesn't get so much as a juvenile cameo in the new stuff is Han Solo?

If so, I think that about says it all about where Lucas got lost up his own anatomy and lost track of what made the first lot somewhat fun. Or perhaps it's just his revenge for "You can type this shit..."

Monday, 13 June, 2005

Anonymous Anonymous said...

(I don't think that there were any gungans.)

Both Jar Jar Binks and Boss Nass were in the funeral procession; you just didn't recognize them because they weren't capering or making squelching noises.

Monday, 13 June, 2005

Anonymous Anonymous said...

You can't condemn someone for being a moral relativist in one scene, and then blame them for being a moral realist in the next.

The truly egregious thing about these scenes (apart from the fact that "From my point of view, the Jedi are evil!" is possibly the worst like of dialogue in any film ever) is that I'm fairly sure Lucas has admitted that all the "You're with me or against me!" "Only the Sith deal in absolutes" thing was fairly explicit "political commentary" about the War on Terror - supposed to echo "Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists"

I'm fast approaching the conclusion that, more than his foreign policy, homeland security policy, or policies on abstinence only sex education, the thing I *really* resent about George W Bush is that he's managed to convince every idiot with a typewriter and left wing sensibilities that they can do "satire".

If you want to know why "Revenge of the Sith" fails as a move, then look no further than this scene.

Absolutely. So much of the film was just Lucas "explaining" where thing in the original trilogy "come from". The disfigurement of Palpatine annoyed me for similar reasons, it felt like Lucas was trying to "reveal" why the Emperor was so hideous.

On the subject of Mace Windu versus Palpatine - it kind of irritated me that Windu lost it so much, once again it looked kind of like Plot Driven Stupidity. Windu randomly comes over all "For you shall know that I am the LORD when I lay down my vengeance upon you!" because otherwise there's no reason for Annie to turn against him.

On the other hand there was some stuff I thought worked well. I liked the slaughter of the Jedi - I don't care that I didn't recognise the planets, because I recognised the Jedi Masters from the council scenes, so it was reasonably clear what was going on.

A slightly fanwankish piece of ongoing mythic resonance that actually *does* "continue" into Return of the Jedi (and one I only picked up on the day after I saw the movie is this:

Anakin Skywalker turns evil because he cannot accept that Padme is going to die. (And because he's a petulant brat and the Jedi won't make him a master, and because of his anger issues and for a bunch of other reasons that unfortunately make him seem inconsistent rather than complex). He can't come to terms with the idea that death is a natural part of life and turns to the Dark Side as a way to overcome that.

And of course his last exchange with Luke Skywalker is (roughly, from memory):

"Take off my visor"
"I can't! You'll die!"
"Nothing can prevent that now... I want to look at you, with my own eyes."

Actually, thinking about it even more, I can kind of see why it was a good idea from this perspective to have Padme actually die in childbirth rather than to be explicitly killed by Annie. Anakin needs to accept Luke as "his son" rather than "the thing that killed his Padme," he has to look on him with his own eyes.

Monday, 13 June, 2005

Anonymous Anonymous said...

The camera seems to linger on her abdomen; the womb of heroes.

I had assumed the lingering shot was meant to emphasize the fact that Padme's abdomen is still swollen. In other words, as far as anyone - Palpatine and Vader included - is concerned, her unborn child(ren) died with her.

It does make you imagine a sort of Six Feet Under in a galaxy far, far away, with Obi-Wan explaining to the confused mortician what he has to do...

Lirazel is right, by the way, about gynecology being a neglected science in the real world as well. But really, how seriously are we supposed to take an imaginary world in which one can travel faster than light but not know how many fetuses a woman is carrying?

-Abigail

Monday, 13 June, 2005

Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Squid Lake"? Really?

Monday, 13 June, 2005

Blogger Andrew Rilstone said...

"Squid Lake"? Really?

It's in the screenplay published as "The Art of Revenge of the Sith", which is okay, because only some totally deranged fanboy would buy it.

The script books also reveal that Amidala's aging advisor in "Phantom Menace" is called "Councilor Bibble", although it doesn't say if he ever wears a frog on his lapel. The tall thin Jedi Master is called "Yazrael Poof."

But then, Tolkien once nearly had an elf called Tinfang Warble, so I suppose even Homer nods.

Monday, 13 June, 2005

Anonymous Anonymous said...

And, on another note entirely, I was unimpressed by how quickly every Jedi that wasn't Yoda or Obi-Wan died to Clone Troopers. Especially after having fought a few billion droids for the last n years.

This actually didn't bother me. Maybe it's a reaction against the roleplayer mentality I'm so used to, but I'm extremely sympathetic to the idea that just because person A would beat person B in some or even most circumstances, that does not mean that person B can never beat person A.

The Jedi, as you observe, are Samurai or Knights-Errant. They're noble, honourable warriors, and if there is one thing that they are going to be vulnerable to, it's treachery.

Tuesday, 14 June, 2005

Anonymous Anonymous said...

The "Jedi getting gunned down" scene[s] reminded me of a "Nemesis the Warlock" cartoon from "AD 2000" -- a war going on simultaneously on a profusion of alien planets, one with giant flowers, etc. I actually found it quite moving. Maybe because almost all other deaths in SW are either (a) heroes dying nobly (with enough time to be cradled in the arms of, and give noble last words to, their son/padawan), or (b) not really "deaths" at all, but Jedi ascending to sainthood, or (c) rather comic, with faceless helmeted drones (droids, Stormtroopers, Jango Fett) getting dispatched in amusing or exciting ways.

Wednesday, 15 June, 2005

Anonymous Anonymous said...

The Jedi, as you observe, are Samurai or Knights-Errant. They're noble, honourable warriors, and if there is one thing that they are going to be vulnerable to, it's treachery.

Something else which is fine for idealists on mountain-tops, but not much use among professional cops.

Wednesday, 15 June, 2005

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Something else which is fine for idealists on mountain-tops, but not much use among professional cops.

Except that the Jedi *aren't* professional cops. They're a holy order of warrior mystics.

Wednesday, 15 June, 2005

Blogger Andrew Rilstone said...

"Guardians of peace and justice" sounds a lot like "police" to me. And Annie and Obie behave like cops in "Attack of the Clowns." ("Gangway, Jedi business" etc etc.)

Wednesday, 15 June, 2005

Anonymous Anonymous said...

At the risk of making some sort of unintentional point on that Grand Myth structure of the substitute father/teacher figure, Luke has some familiarity with Ben during his youth on Tatooine - which could either be blamed on Lucas's lost material for some cut scenes on Tatooine, or Brian Daley's work with Lucas for the NPR radio plays, which apparently qualifies as your aptly-named Extruded Universe - it seemed reminiscent of a Gandalf/Frodo sort of relationship. Ben was a hermit who did interesting, if crazy hermit-like things, possibly involving myserious and crazy magic, saved his ass once or twice when he was a, er, youngling, and had a brush or two with Uncle Owen being annoyed at his general crazyness, rather than Li'l Luke's pint-sized misadventures.

It still doesn't explain the whole massive wealth of remarkably vague Jedi knowledge and carmeraderie Ben bestowed on him in the confined of a cramped spaceship, but it did seem to provide just a small morsel more of why we, the hapless viewer, should feel a twinge at Luke's reaching for the first person to teach him he could reach for more, and not finding him there. The rescue from the Tusken Raiders was really another one of the same "Damn kids, get off my lawn - aww, don't cry, I'll take you home, do you want a choccy biccie before you go?" incidents in the life of a Tatooine farming kid.

(Had he not been there at all, ironically, Luke could have, unintentionally, joined the Empire - the 'Academy' he whines of to Uncle Owen and Aunt Beru was apparently the Imperial Academy, used as a front to draft n00bs into the fight against the Rebellion. One way of explaining where they got all the fumbling, incompetent Admiral Expendables...)

Wednesday, 15 June, 2005

Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Guardians of peace and justice" sounds a lot like "police" to me.

[Insert "cynical" comment about the police here]

Possibly, but to my mind it sounds a lot more like the Knights of the Round Table; an organisation not famed for their hard bitten cynicism.

And Annie and Obie behave like cops in "Attack of the Clowns." ("Gangway, Jedi business" etc etc.)

True, but that strikes me as more a flaw in the portrayal of the Jedi than anything else.

Wednesday, 15 June, 2005

Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Guardians of peace and justice" sounds a lot like "police" to me.

Quite. Of course, part of the incoherent romantic conservatism of something like the Star Wars saga is the idea that peace and justice can be effectively guarded by a holy order of warrior mystics sitting on mountain-tops, when in any sort of believable reality, they have to behave at least a little like cops.

(Sure, they might be cooler, more efficient, more morally perfect idealists than 99.5% of real cops, exact figures depending on your personal opinion of real cops - but they still have to investigate crimes, deal with perps, and so on. Which requires a strong practical sense and a degree of pragmatic cynicism about human nature.)

In vaguely coherent myths, you may get the Knights of the Round Table, who may be established to strive towards the ideal of a holy order of warrior mystics, but who in practice live in the real world, struggle with moral paradoxes, and are generally interestingly flawed - or you may get the actual holy order of warrior monks, who mostly live on mountain-tops and avoid entanglements with the world, because they know full well that if one goes off to America to find one's parents, or if one takes up Green Destiny to avenge the slayer of one's teacher, one will end up entangled with the moral complexities and shades-of-grey of the world, and quite possibly badly compromised. The only way your warrior monks can manage both perfection and effectiveness is if you assume some kind of simplified, objectively measurable morality (see, Lensmen and Doc Savage). Which looks a bit clunky these days (possibly because the people who tried to put such ideas in practice in the recent past were usually working for Pol Pot or Heinrich Himmler). And it doesn't sound like Lucas has squared that circle.

Thursday, 16 June, 2005

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Quite. Of course, part of the incoherent romantic conservatism of something like the Star Wars saga is the idea that peace and justice can be effectively guarded by a holy order of warrior mystics sitting on mountain-tops, when in any sort of believable reality, they have to behave at least a little like cops.

Not really.

If by "believable reality" you mean "realistic simulation of a functioning intergalactic Republic in which the Jedi function as a literal police force" then you are quite correct. If by "believable reality" you mean "myth cycle" then you aren't really.

The argument I essentially object to is that it is somehow "unrealistic" or "inconsistent" for the sudden betrayal of the Clone Warriors to have caught out the Jedi, because "they were supposed to be professional cops". Which they weren't. They were supposed to be the "guardians of peace and justice."

The Knights of the Round Table, although flawed, did not act remotely like policemen.

Thursday, 16 June, 2005

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Sorry for double-posting...

The only way your warrior monks can manage both perfection and effectiveness is if you assume some kind of simplified, objectively measurable morality (see, Lensmen and Doc Savage).

Simplified, objectively measurable morality like, say "there is a Light Side, which is Good and a Dark Side, which is Evil."

Which looks a bit clunky these days (possibly because the people who tried to put such ideas in practice in the recent past were usually working for Pol Pot or Heinrich Himmler). And it doesn't sound like Lucas has squared that circle.

Are you genuinely saying that the concepts of Good and Evil, even as thematic constructs in a work of fantasy, are somehow obsolte? I genuinely don't think that's the case. If it was then the Lord of the Rings movies would have bombed. For that matter, if there wasn't still some merit to the idea of "Good and Evil", then your own references to "the likes of Pol Pot and Heinrich Himmler" would be meaningless. If we reject any simplified notions of objectively measurable morality, then Pol Pot and Himmler are just people whose opinions I happen not to share.

I do think you're right that Lucas fails to square the circle between "Good vs Evil" and "Moral Relativism," but I think that the problem is of his own making. The Jedi of the original trilogy - Samurai Paladins who followed a never-particularly-defined philosophy of generic goodness - I could believe in as Guardians of Peace and Justice. The Jedi of the prequels 0 a bunch of Buddhist FBI agents - clearly make no sense. This isn't because the ideas of Good and Evil are somehow bankrupt in the modern world, it's because Lucas lost track of what he was doing.

Thursday, 16 June, 2005

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Okay, I'm talking myself into a corner of precise definitions here, and it's my own fault for being unclear... But the point I was trying to make is about good and evil as instantly verifiable absolutes - things which can practically be measured with a scientific instrument.

Sure, the Jedi evidently believe in Good and Evil (as do I, yes, but as adjectives rather than nouns). But I don't get the sense that a Jedi would generally look someone in the eye, read his mind, diagnose him as evil, and kill him on the spot. They're a bit too wishy-washy liberal for that; they believe in reform, and at least wait until the bad person does something seriously bad before slicing his arm off.

A lensman, on the other hand, can determine that somebody is Evil with such precision and certainty that capital punishment automatically follows. (And none of yer namby-pamby gradations of guilt!)

And I suspect that one of the things that made people twitch so much about the midichlorians was the idea that Jedi spiritual perfection was somehow something that could be measured by a blood test. Once you've got that - well, can you execute somebody because his zero midichlorian count indicates that he's incapable of spiritual development, and hence is a born criminal?

Anyway - as you say, the Jedi as we all vaguely envisaged them (not so much samurai or paladins as Taoist sword-saints, I suspect) probably wouldn't have been very systematic about their protection of good. But when they saw some great and unambiguous evil rising, well, they'd go out and stomp it in a virtuous fashion - then go back to their wanderings and meditations. (They'd be very prone to "crusades" in that respect.) It's not a great way to run a galaxy, but it's kind of stylish. (By the way, the last episode of Dr Who had a nice scene about why this isn't a perfect way to bring goodness to the cosmos.) When you set them up as the Mystic FBI, though, you're stuck with a body that has to deal with petty evils and ambiguities, and which ought to have a clue about things like betrayal.

Thursday, 16 June, 2005

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Right, with you. I think we're on the same page here:

When you set them up as the Mystic FBI, though, you're stuck with a body that has to deal with petty evils and ambiguities, and which ought to have a clue about things like betrayal.

True, but to my mind the problem arises because prequels!lucas set the Jedi up as kinda like the FBI, rather than because original!lucas set them up as guardians of order.

Essentially I see nothing wrong with a Legendary Fantasy like Star Wars or Superman following a paradigm where complex social ills can be solved by beating up named villains. It's unrealistic, but it's also time honoured and genuinely powerful.

Within the Legendary Fantasy paradigm, the Jedi really can control the crime rate by beating up Sith. The Sith represent Evil, so by standing against them, the Jedi stand against all the evils in the world. If you want to get all energy-science about it, you can come up with some handwavy rationale about how everything is tied together through the Force, but basically it's just a genre convention.

Friday, 17 June, 2005

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Dan wrote: The disfigurement of Palpatine annoyed me for similar reasons, it felt like Lucas was trying to "reveal" why the Emperor was so hideous.

Reading that comment, I flashed on a discussion we've been having on another blog about Davros.

Andrew will know about Davros, and so I expect will many of his readers, but for the rest of you, I will explain that Davros was a plot device used in 'Doctor Who' to simplify and compress a generations-long backstory into a much shorter event that the audience could watch happen before their very eyes. Many people have enjoyed watching the result, but many people (some of them the same people) feel that the change was not ultimately an improvement.

Palpatine's transformation is like that: maybe there's something to be said for it happening before our very eyes, but I think the original idea that it was a gradual process of degradation made for a better story even if we never got to and could never get to see it.

Sunday, 19 June, 2005

Anonymous Anonymous said...

I think the original idea that it was a gradual process of degradation made for a better story even if we never got to and could never get to see it.

And that, in essence, is why backplot makes bad cinema.

The backstory for a situation can evolve over years (or indeed even centuries); trying to condense it into a movie (or even a movie trilogy) will always cheapen it.

It's almost as if Peter Jackson had decided to follow on from Lord of the Rings by doing the Silmarillion.

Monday, 20 June, 2005