|
Waffles Inc. posted:Why is this a bad thing? I don't think the average moviegoer is really that dumb I have actually never met anyone else who saw the Jedi this way. The most common thing I've heard is that they were heroes that only fell because Anakin betrayed them. But that perception of the Jedi inevitably never comes from the prequels themselves, but are based on Obi-Wan's lines in the OT.
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2016 19:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 05:36 |
|
|
Waffles Inc. posted:Why is this a bad thing? I don't think the average moviegoer is really that dumb What I see as flat dialogue and acting, you take as aloof and detached characters. I don't think either of us is going to change our certain points of view.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2016 19:08
|
|
|
Basebf555 posted:Like the whole slavery issue, a film shouldn't have to explain the concept of bureaucracy from the ground up to make a point about it. From real world experience most people in the audience should be able to make these connections because we all, at least in this country, have experience with the failings of bureaucracy. This is the core then of the entire set of arguments. There are probably a large number of arguments about the state of the world that the film seeks to make. What I argue is that too many of these arguments are implicit and rely on the viewer watching the film a tonne of times to see and due to their incredibly implicit nature they then come into significant dispute because people have different readings of the film. So for example, I just don't think the films show sufficiently that the Republic is a bad thing that can't be saved. At best it's value neutral in that it just lets people do poo poo and doesn't interfere (Ep 1) or value positive because it at least presents some sort of forum for concerns to be aired. So any arguments about the destruction of the Republic being positive fall flat. This also then colours my view of the Jedi's actions. Given my belief that the Republic is value neutral at worst, I view them as superior to the Trade Federation who are shown to want to starve a planet for tax money. So given a value neutral bunch of dudes and a value negative bunch of dudes going to war, you should probably defend the guys who are value neutral. So any arguments about how the Jedi fighting the war is unjust then also fall. The argument then runs that slavery on Tatooine portrays the Republic as value negative because they don't do anything to stop it, but absent any knowledge about the resource cost that would be incurred to stop that trade I can't say whether the Republic should intervene or not. This opinion is informed by real world knowledge of conflict and how for example, the U.S. invading Somalia to stop the slave trade there would be a stupid idea. So the Republic remains at worst value neutral. You can see then that subtlety of ideas has led me to a radically different position on the movies than a lot of people in the thread. At the point where the Jedi are just a bunch of good dudes (with admittedly stupid views on how to deal with attachment) who get screwed over a lot of the ideas behind why they're indistinguishable from their opposition fail. So logically now these films don't have a grand message for me and come down to whether I like and engage with the characters and I really don't apart from Obi when he's busy being detective Obi. That's why I think they're bad.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2016 19:16
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:The Jedi are presented as pagan gods atop a Mount Olympus, looking down on the rest of the universe. Yeah, this is done pretty explicitly in Man of Steel as well. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2016 19:17
|
|
|
Smgs last two effort posts have been such reaching bullshit. Mother fuckers can't sit in a round room without it being them looking down on people under them
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2016 19:27
|
|
|
Serf posted:I have actually never met anyone else who saw the Jedi this way. The most common thing I've heard is that they were heroes that only fell because Anakin betrayed them. But that perception of the Jedi inevitably never comes from the prequels themselves, but are based on Obi-Wan's lines in the OT. Alec Guinness does more to characterize Anakin and the Jedi Order more in 2 minutes of his wistful thinking out loud than three prequel films do in a total of nearly 7 hours.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2016 19:29
|
|
|
rear end Catchcum posted:Mother fuckers can't sit in a round room without it being them looking down on people under them Not really, no.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2016 19:31
|
|
|
As usual, it's an ideological thing. The Jedi are presented as pagan gods - surrounded by the trappings of power, choosing to grace those who curry their favor, etc. When a Jedi shows up on the battlefield it's like "may the power of Ares be with you!" or whatever. Fans simply buy into that, and worship the Jedi as gods. The Star Wars films have always been against this pagan bullshit of course, but are frequently misinterpreted. Fans often take Yoda at his word and worship the Force as a Gaia spirit, for example. So, the prequel films clarify the issue. They are blatantly Christian, blatantly anti-pagan films. The Jedi are presented as nothing more than psychic mutants, detached from the people beneath them, oblivious to what's really happening and - importantly - unable to think in Christian terms. They are not wise, though they act wise. They are merely humans. For a paganist this is obviously a mistake because, from a pagan point of view, paganism is 'supposed to be' great. For a paganist, paganism is the default. So the 'commonsense' assumption (against all evidence) is that George Lucas is a paganist at heart, has always wanted to promote paganism, and has simply failed to promote paganism because he's subhuman.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2016 19:33
|
|
|
Red posted:Alec Guinness does more to characterize Anakin and the Jedi Order more in 2 minutes of his wistful thinking out loud than three prequel films do in a total of nearly 7 hours. Yep, and the prequels reveal that nearly everything he said was bullshit. Which is awesome, in my opinion.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2016 19:33
|
|
|
Yorkshire Tea posted:This is the core then of the entire set of arguments. There are probably a large number of arguments about the state of the world that the film seeks to make. What I argue is that too many of these arguments are implicit and rely on the viewer watching the film a tonne of times to see and due to their incredibly implicit nature they then come into significant dispute because people have different readings of the film. You're hitting on a good point, but you're not quite there. The reason why these terrible things don't seem so terrible to you is that you live in a society where terrible things happen all the time. You live in a place where governments are corrupt and sold to the highest bidder. If you live in the US, you've had a war sold to you under false pretenses within the last 15 years. That's one thing to get you to think, and it is one thing that a lot of audiences will miss: The Republic as shown in the PT is just like modern society, and the Republic is also fundamentally flawed. This is not a contradiction or a failure of explanation.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2016 19:34
|
|
|
Serf posted:Yep, and the prequels reveal that nearly everything he said was bullshit. Which is awesome, in my opinion. And The Clone Wars then shows that everything he said was true. Given Lucas also agrees with The Clone Wars as being an accurate representation of his vision, he wrote episodes of it, which Lucas is correct and why? As a secondary question, if Obi Wan isn't lying is the story better or worse as a result? computer parts posted:You're hitting on a good point, but you're not quite there. The reason why these terrible things don't seem so terrible to you is that you live in a society where terrible things happen all the time. You live in a place where governments are corrupt and sold to the highest bidder. If you live in the US, you've had a war sold to you under false pretenses within the last 15 years. I live in a world where these terrible things happen all the time, fine, I agree. Here's the issue: I don't buy that there is a simple solution to these things and I believe that working within the system is vastly more productive than not doing so. Again, this is premised on my lived in experience of the world, where I've recently seen gay marriage legalised within the U.K. against public opinion for example, which is a positive change that has been achieved through a parliamentary system. If Lucas wants me to disregard this opinion, he should show a world where getting ANY change done is completely impossible. I understand he attempts this in Ep. 1. but a single planet providing unsubstantiated claims of a blockade and being objected to does not mean the democratic system is broken. If you show me the Trade Federation buying out the media on the sly, then I'm buying in more. If you show me people in Theed sick in the streets because of a blockade that is being ignored, I buy in more. My problem is, if you rely on just my experience of the world, then frankly I think the Republic is flawed but okay, in the same way that I view Western Liberal democracy as flawed, but okay. Given this, despite its flaws the Republic is still a net good in my eyes and this is a failure in Lucas' storytelling because of implicit assumptions on the opinions of the audience.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2016 19:50
|
|
|
Yorkshire Tea posted:I live in a world where these terrible things happen all the time, fine, I agree. Here's the issue: I don't buy that there is a simple solution to these things and I believe that working within the system is vastly more productive than not doing so. There's the fundamental disagreement, since Star Wars has always been about revolutionaries and how working within the system doesn't work. You see this in ANH when the Senate is dissolved and you see it in TPM when the Trade Federation is allowed to continue unabated.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2016 19:56
|
|
|
Yorkshire Tea posted:And The Clone Wars then shows that everything he said was true. Given Lucas also agrees with The Clone Wars as being an accurate representation of his vision, he wrote episodes of it, which Lucas is correct and why? As a secondary question, if Obi Wan isn't lying is the story better or worse as a result? Granted I'm only 1 season into Clone Wars, but I have yet to see Obi-Wan act like anything other than a smug rear end in a top hat to Anakin. I mean, I love that, don't get me wrong, but if they're intended to be friends with an antagonistic dynamic I'm not picking up on it. Clone Wars Obi-Wan is accurate to the movie version completely so far. And, at least to me, the story is better when you realize that Obi-Wan is a liar. I mean, I figured this out as a kid when we found out that Vader was Luke's father. I've always evaluated his past lines with this new perspective in mind, and then the prequels really showed how inaccurate his crap was. I've said it before, but Obi-Wan may not even know he was lying. He could be a broken man who views the past through a distorted lens, and maybe even mentally doesn't associate Anakin and Darth Vader. He could be totally telling the truth as he believes it. Doesn't change the fact that it's still wrong.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2016 19:57
|
|
|
Serf posted:And, at least to me, the story is better when you realize that Obi-Wan is a liar. I mean, I figured this out as a kid when we found out that Vader was Luke's father. I've always evaluated his past lines with this new perspective in mind, and then the prequels really showed how inaccurate his crap was. How blatantly manipulative Obi-Wan is in crafting Luke as a guided missile aimed right at his own father was probably the most surprising element of the rewatch I recently did of the OT after having not seen it for decades. The smirking glance over to Luke before letting Vader kill him is great. Which, in the context of the prequels, is a trick he learned from Qui-Gon of the secret power for becoming immortal: become a martyr in front of your apprentice.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2016 20:05
|
|
|
euphronius posted:I always love when this pointed out. It never makes anyone admit they were wrong but it's still nice. Same with Mustafar. It's obviously a real place. You didn't even understand what he said. In 1999 in order to transpose a cgi battle onto the landscape the are had to be pretty featureless and flat. This was done in Braveheart too, which he mentioned. No one was saying that Braveheart had completely CGI battles. It's okay to admit that some things were done with technical constraints.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2016 20:11
|
|
bruvs be4 luvs
|
Sir Kodiak posted:How blatantly manipulative Obi-Wan is in crafting Luke as a guided missile aimed right at his own father was probably the most surprising element of the rewatch I recently did of the OT after having not seen it for decades. The smirking glance over to Luke before letting Vader kill him is great. Which, in the context of the prequels, is a trick he learned from Qui-Gon of the secret power for becoming immortal: become a martyr in front of your apprentice. Exactly, and combine that with Yoda's tactic of leaving your empty cloak behind while you disappear through the nearest garbage chute. Yoda's improvement on Quigon's teaching is don't let anyone see you die. Dubplate Fire posted:In 1999 in order to transpose a cgi battle onto the landscape the are had to be pretty featureless and flat. That's obvious nonsense.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2016 20:18
|
|
|
Yeah, Starship Troopers didn't have flat, featureless battlegrounds even if it did use CGI on a large scale in the battles.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2016 20:21
|
|
|
It's not even that; we have a scene in The Phantom Menace itself where herds of CG animals stampede through a dense forest setting: It's hard to tell, but I believe these shots were created through a combination of plate photography, miniature effects (for the vehicles and some of the trees) and CG for the animals.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2016 20:33
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:It's not even that; we have a scene in The Phantom Menace itself where herds of CG animals stampede through a dense forest setting: Interesting. The animals look ... not great. The MTTs, however, have depth and realness to them. Just watching the shadows on them looks great.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2016 21:13
|
|
|
Serf posted:Yep, and the prequels reveal that nearly everything he said was bullshit. Which is awesome, in my opinion. So. By the time A New Hope happens, is Obi-Wan: A. Bitter and Manipulative B. Detached from Reality Somewhat, But Generally Good C. Lonely, Full of Regret, Desperate to Make Amends for the Past
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2016 21:19
|
|
|
Red posted:So. A little bit of all three.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2016 21:22
|
|
|
I too feel that George Lucas was in fact- if you tie your brain into a pretzel- actually a supremely gifted auteur making deep statements with intentional juxtapositions and not in fact just going with whatever looked cool and likely to sell toys best. While I personally encourage you to write elaborate backstories to make sense of lazy (How many of you here thought LOST was going somewhere? How many still do?) pretending they have any importance to society beyond stressing how low the bar for quality writing has sunk is a bit depressing and- perhaps worst of all- serves to retcon cinema history in the minds such self-faithful as to convince themselves that hacks were not in fact barely thinking about their work beyond the paycheck but rather striking (evil)geniuses. It's mostly harmless I grant, but I do urge caution with just about anything that actively takes people away from reality. You might as well be insisting that Jar Jar Binks is actually Darth Plagueis and this was George Lucas' design all along, rather than just a fun pet theory that would have been great for the purposes of making Supreme Leader Snookie's reveal vastly more amusing. Perhaps it holds no great love because it cannot be twisted into a sinister reveal as to the black-hearted nature of all those sheeple who feel no desire to weep over poorly presented imaginary expendables. Unlike a true clear-sighted savant who's heart bleeds for these intentionally doomed souls. Those plebeians just don't get it. In short, I resent anyone rendering Tezzor correct- because I feel I have to ethically acknowledge that- and Tezzor is an idiot. The prequels- they weren't very good. There may have been some good techniques applied here and there- but they were just rather stupid in a lot of places. Point of curiousity- and brief derail- has anyone deluded themselves sufficiently to argue that Iron Man 3 was in fact brilliant art with deep writing?
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2016 21:24
|
|
|
The Snark posted:Point of curiousity- and brief derail- has anyone deluded themselves sufficiently to argue that Iron Man 3 was in fact brilliant art with deep writing?
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2016 21:26
|
|
|
The Snark posted:has anyone deluded themselves sufficiently to argue that Iron Man 3 was in fact brilliant art with deep writing? Why would you do this? In THIS thread? Steve2911 posted:Well it's better than the first two at least... IM3 is the worst MCU film made to date.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2016 21:26
|
|
|
Red posted:So. I can see all three of these in Obi-Wan. A. Because his entire Order was destroyed and his fellow Jedi were murdered by Darth Vader, so he guides Luke into a conflict with him. B. He may indeed believe everything he says, and fighting the Empire is clearly a good goal. C. Of course he wants to make amends. By bringing Luke to his last remaining family and hedging his bets by sending Leia across the galaxy, he has planted the seeds of his revenge against Vader, no doubt part of a plan he, Yoda, and Bail Organa masterminded. Obi-Wan is really a fantastic character, and that is mostly because they got two incredible actors to portray him. E: Wait, Iron Man 3 is easily as good as Iron Man, and both are way better than Iron Man 2. Iron Man 2 is actually the only MCU movie that I would say was disappointing. Serf fucked around with this message at 21:33 on Feb 4, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2016 21:30
|
|
|
Red posted:IM3 is the worst MCU film made to date. As someone that thinks precisely one of the MCU films are really good (not IM3), that's not true.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2016 21:32
|
|
|
I think those vehicles might actually be CGI; this is not based on what they look like (they still do look like miniatures to me) but solely based on the fact that I can't find a direct reference to or a photo of a minature of them online. It matters nothing as they're both composited essentially the same way.
Corek fucked around with this message at 21:44 on Feb 4, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2016 21:36
|
|
|
The Iron Man series is the only one in the MCU I just have no taste for whatsoever, I remember at the time Iron Man was released I was wondering what all the fuss was about. It was ok.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2016 21:36
|
|
|
Steve2911 posted:As someone that thinks precisely one of the MCU films are really good (not IM3), that's not true. It's Captain America 2, right?
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2016 21:38
|
|
|
Red posted:Why would you do this? In THIS thread? Somebody hasn't watched Thor. Or Thor 2. Or The Incredible Hulk. Or The Avengers. Or Iron Man 2.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2016 21:39
|
|
|
Iron Man 3 is the worst. Tony Stark makes a bunch of terrible decisions, including outfitting himself with an untested suit of armor to battle a new villain. Hilariously, this new suit slams into his junk, fails at the worst possible times, and generally, we see Tony do his best to get rid of the thing. Because we want to see an Iron Man film with no Iron Man. Don Cheadle is a terrible, personality-less War Machine. Then, at the end, he gets some miracle surgery to fix his heart thing that... all of a sudden, he can just have done, instantly negating any tension/need for the Iron Man suit in the first place. Also, it's filled with lovely generic scowling goons who are bad actors, there's a completely pointless scene where he saves tons of people who fell out of a plane (with everyone smiling and waving at the end), and the villain sucks. Oh, and Happy somehow figures out the "mystery" crime scene, that the FBI or whoever couldn't, by finding clues in plain sight. The only redeeming part was Ben Kingsley. gently caress Iron Man 3.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2016 21:41
|
|
|
You mean an alcoholic, over-confident idiot makes bad decisions? Wow, what amazing analysis.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2016 21:43
|
|
|
Red posted:Why would you do this? In THIS thread? I am sometimes not a very good person. Iron Man 3 is pretty close to the nadir- though I imagine if you dug deep enough you can probably find worse. The Incredible Hulk with the exploding bubble dogs seems striving rival. I'm sure I don't get the tremendous importance of the exploding bubble dogs, anyone tempted may spare me the correction though. It's OK if you like it, or Iron Man 3. I do get ever so slightly irked when someone chooses lazy crap that was an upraised middle finger to the audience and champions it as simply being TOO GOOD for said audience in a desperate bid to set themselves above others by creating a fantasy of brilliance where there is none. Or, alternatively, the same by virtue of imagining something liked and competent as a vile suppurating rear end in a top hat of moral depravity only they and a virtuous few others can see the truth of. Which, I might note, pretty much sums up SuperMechaGodzilla's commentary career. I do grant though that such elaborate fantasies have an escapist charm and can be quite funny- but not when used as bludgeoning tools. The Snark fucked around with this message at 21:50 on Feb 4, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2016 21:48
|
|
|
cargohills posted:Somebody hasn't watched Thor. Or Thor 2. Or The Incredible Hulk. Or The Avengers. Or Iron Man 2. Thor is pretty simple but fine. Thor 2 is underrated and fun, and actually creates personalities for its characters. Plus, it cuts down on the Natalie Portman horseshit. Thor and Loki are amazing together - Loki is the comic, and Thor is the straight man. Plus, this film correctly portrays Odin as being stubborn and, well, wrong. Malekith and Algrim/Kurse are fantastic too. Incredible Hulk is a mess, but still better than IM3. Avengers is simple and straightforward, but with all its moving parts, is still fun. Iron Man 2 is disappointing, but has its moments, I think. Still leaps and bounds better than 3. cargohills posted:You mean an alcoholic, over-confident idiot makes bad decisions? Wow, what amazing analysis. Eh, Tony "beat" his alcoholism or whatever in IM2, so that's not really valid. Tony's hubris is one thing, but the events in IM3 are stupid to the point of nonsensical. Let's talk about Star Wars in the Star Wars thread.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2016 21:49
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:What people miss is that these grassy hills are designed to evoke the sand dunes of Tatooine And Spartacus. The battle is styled after battles from ancient Greece and Rome, with the droids using anachronistic battle formations. I don't have Spartacus and I'm not sure where my copy of Phantom Menace is so sorry about the image quality, but here's some screenshots.   Romans and droids coming out from behind a hill.  
ThePlague-Daemon fucked around with this message at 00:46 on Feb 5, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2016 21:51
|
|
|
^^^ Look at that CGI! In 1960! The Snark posted:I too feel that George Lucas was in fact- if you tie your brain into a pretzel- actually a supremely gifted auteur making deep statements with intentional juxtapositions and not in fact just going with whatever looked cool and likely to sell toys best. While I personally encourage you to write elaborate backstories to make sense of lazy (How many of you here thought LOST was going somewhere? How many still do?) pretending they have any importance to society beyond stressing how low the bar for quality writing has sunk is a bit depressing and- perhaps worst of all- serves to retcon cinema history in the minds such self-faithful as to convince themselves that hacks were not in fact barely thinking about their work beyond the paycheck but rather striking (evil)geniuses. Let's take this post and remove the following elements: -"It's just bad." -Dismissal of 'low art' as meaningless. (i.e. "It's just bad"). -Extreme cynicism (i.e. "Studios only care about making money." (i.e. "It's low art and doesn't mean anything." (i.e. "It's just bad."))) -Preoccuopation with George Lucas' private 'care levels'. (i.e. "He only cares about making money." (i.e. "It's low art and doesn't mean anything." (i.e. "It's just bad)."))) -Preoccupation with 'depth' and 'importance'. (i.e. private car-levels. (i.e. "It's just bad.") -Simultaneous, contradictory accusations of elitism. (i.e. "'High art' is meaningless." (i.e. "It's just bad.") -Metadiscussion. So we've boiled it down to the actual points of criticism: The Snark posted:Tezzor is an idiot. But, actually, that probably counts as metadiscussion. SuperMechagodzilla fucked around with this message at 22:02 on Feb 4, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2016 21:55
|
|
|
So what is the counterpoint? Some shots were good or evocative of other better things whether it was conscious or not? \/\/\/ There's been... an awakening.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2016 22:06
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:Let's take this post and remove the following elements: Now let's just take some items out of this post. - My position as savant is threatened. And we boil this down to it's core. Or alternatively I can yield that the genius has in fact divined that high and low art is utterly meaningless to me, which is objectively false. Perhaps they are not my reasons for being and certainly they have minimal relevance to my self-worth but I think 'It's all just bad' is something of a gross and self-serving simplification of my opinion there, SMG.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2016 22:06
|
|
|
E-mail my webzone if you want a pizza roll
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2016 22:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 05:36 |
|
|
Iron Man 3 is great, but I'm not sure what it has to do with Star Wars.The Snark posted:I too feel that George Lucas was in fact- if you tie your brain into a pretzel- actually a supremely gifted auteur making deep statements with intentional juxtapositions and not in fact just going with whatever looked cool and likely to sell toys best. While I personally encourage you to write elaborate backstories to make sense of lazy (How many of you here thought LOST was going somewhere? How many still do?) pretending they have any importance to society beyond stressing how low the bar for quality writing has sunk is a bit depressing and- perhaps worst of all- serves to retcon cinema history in the minds such self-faithful as to convince themselves that hacks were not in fact barely thinking about their work beyond the paycheck but rather striking (evil)geniuses.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2016 22:17
|
|
