quote:

Deepity is a term employed by Daniel Dennett in his 2009 speech to the American Atheists Institution conference, coined by the teenage daughter of one of his friends. The term refers to a statement that is apparently profound but actually asserts a triviality on one level and something meaningless on another. Generally, a deepity has (at least) two meanings: one that is true but trivial, and another that sounds profound, but is essentially false or meaningless and would be "earth-shattering" if true. To the extent that it's true, it doesn't matter. To the extent that it matters, it isn't true.

Bongo Bill posted:

The prequels are good. I'm sorry that you can't see it.

Bongo Bill posted:

The prequels are good. I'm sorry that you can't see it.

Vegg220 posted:

Vegg220 posted:

I disagree Goon Sire.

Spacebump posted:

In 10 years we are going to have at least three factions of Star Wars fans. People who enjoyed/grew up with the originals and think the prequels/sequels are bad. People who enjoyed/grew up with the prequels and think the sequels are the worst. People who are growing up with the sequels and love all Star Wars. (other factions will exist that like them all, only ot/sequels, etc)

Serf posted:

Sorry Tezzor, wrong again.

Mc Do Well posted:

Jar-Jar was probably going to have a much larger role than the cameo arc that was in the final films. That CGI frogman was gonna have gravitas in 3 dammit!

Spacebump posted:

In 10 years we are going to have at least three factions of Star Wars fans. People who enjoyed/grew up with the originals and think the prequels/sequels are bad. People who enjoyed/grew up with the prequels and think the sequels are the worst. People who are growing up with the sequels and love all Star Wars. (other factions will exist that like them all, only ot/sequels, etc)

Vegg220 posted:

Contemporary reviews were better for the films than retrospectives. The general opinion had largely turned against these films each within one or two years of their release, and the excuse to see the next one was implicit in criticism of the last ("Attack of the Clones has Obi-Wan in it more and Anakin isn't a kid," "Revenge of the Sith is darker and gets rid of the childish crap," etc.)

Washington Post posted:

You will hear that this sequel to "Star Wars" is part of a vast new mythology, as if it were the Oresteia. Its originator, George Lucas, has revealed that the pictures are actually parts of a nine-part sage, as if audiences will some day receive the total the way devotees now go to Seattle for a week of immersion in Wagner's complete Ring Cycle.

Nonsense. This is no monumental artistic work, but a science-fiction movie done more snappily than most, including its own predecessor.

[...]

[the film] has no plot structure, no character studies let alone character development, no emotional or philosophical point to make. It has no original vision of the future, which is depicted as a pastiche of other junk-culture formulae,

New York Times posted:

I'm not as bothered by the film's lack of resolution as I am about my suspicion that I really don't care. After one has one's fill of the special effects and after one identifies the source of the facetious banter that passes for wit between [the male and female lead] (it's straight out of B-picture comedies of the 30's), there isn't a great deal for the eye or the mind to focus on.

The Chicago Reader posted:

the characters take a definite backseat to the special effects, and much of the action seems gratuitous, leading nowhere

Guy Goodbody posted:

OK, I get it. The prequels are like mirrors of the originals. The originals were fun space adventures with likable characters, and the prequels were no fun and full of weirdos and assholes, and that was intentional and good.

Zoran posted:

I have never heard a single criticism of Jake Lloyd's performance as Anakin that isn't "I didn't want to hear Darth Vader say, 'Yippee!'"

His character is a sweet, good-hearted, slightly impulsive little boy with a touch of deep-seated anger over the injustice of his situation, and that's what he delivers. Lloyd is vivacious, emotive, clear, and convincing. But somehow it's just agreed that this was an embarrassing take on the character? Because Darth Vader's supposed to be a stone-cold badass? (Did anyone else notice that in the end he was just a sad old man in a suit who had lived a lifetime of regrets?)

Yaws posted:

Jake Lloyds line delivery was bad. The kid couldn't emote effectively and everything he said fell flat.

Zoran posted:

Got any examples?

Schwarzwald posted:

The originals were also full of wierdos and assholes.

And yeah, those wierdos and assholes were entertaining as hell.

Vegg220 posted:

"George Lucas did everything in the Star Wars prequels intentionally" is a deepity. On one level, this is true. Lucas did do everything in these films intentionally, in the sense that he did not throw toy letters on the ground to name characters or pull plot points out of a bingo roller or spin a wheel to determine camera position. This is true but trivial. The other meaning of this claim, the one that sounds profound and would be earth-shattering if true, is that Lucas did everything intentionally, in the sense that it was all part of his master plan to deconstruct heroism and the presuppositions of which that we are still to this day unpacking. This would be earth-shattering if true. Because remember, it's not just everything in the films that he did intentionally. His and others' statements on the commentary tracks that do nothing to support this theory and in fact undermine it at every turn? Part of the plan. All those clips of him looking like a fat dumbass flying by the seat of his pants? Those are acting, or deceptive editing, or our mortal brains being unable to truly comprehend. So let's say that's all true. Now we run into issues of theology. He did everything intentionally. So he intended for Little Anakin to be a hated embarrassment, knowing how the audience would react, probably as some kind of metacommentary about how we hate Darth Vader or fuckin whatever. But as a result of his intentional plan to choose a bad actor and write and direct him badly on purpose, poor Jake Lloyd was bullied incessantly, which may have contributed to his problems later in life. Lloyd was probably not aware of this intentional plan, nor were his parents. Isn't it unethical to knowingly set up an innocent child to be bullied literally halfway to insanity? Or what about Ahmed Best or Hayden Christensen? Did they sign up to have their careers destroyed and be laughingstocks as a result of Lucas' devious plot to make their characters lovely on purpose? Was throwing a hissy tantrum and quitting Star Wars because people criticized him also part of the plan? Why or why not?

Schwarzwald posted:

The truly baffling thing is that the person here who has come closest to saying that the prequels are "a work of secret subversive genius" is Tezzor him or her self.

Guy Goodbody posted:

Could you break it down for me, then? The only defenses of the prequels I've ever heard are some form of "whiz bang explosions and lightsabers" and the Ring Theory, which I didn't find very compelling.

Vegg220 posted:

It is true that there are a lot of people who saw the prequels as kids and like them today, but this notion that "you just like whatever you saw as a kid" is reductive crap. There are lots of people who were children when they first saw the prequels and think they are bad. I personally first saw The Phantom Menace when I was 13 years old. Outside the mono-digit age range Lucas was aiming for with the fart frog, sure, but hardly an old man, and I defended it at first too. The question isn't if you saw it as a child, the question is have your tastes improved from the time you thought Lunchables every day was rad

Spacebump posted:

In 10 years we are going to have at least three factions of Star Wars fans. People who enjoyed/grew up with the originals and think the prequels/sequels are bad. People who enjoyed/grew up with the prequels and think the sequels are the worst. People who are growing up with the sequels and love all Star Wars. (other factions will exist that like them all, only ot/sequels, etc)

Gonz posted:

To this day, i'm still not sure why Padme died. Was it from complications due to child birth? And if so, was that due to being force choked?

She just kinda.....gives up.

"Giving Up" is not a cause of death i've ever heard mentioned from a coroner.

Schwarzwald posted:

Vegg220 posted:

She was no longer important to the story and so died immediately after spawning like some species of crab.

Zoran posted:

I have never heard a single criticism of Jake Lloyd's performance as Anakin that isn't "I didn't want to hear Darth Vader say, 'Yippee!'"

His character is a sweet, good-hearted, slightly impulsive little boy with a touch of deep-seated anger over the injustice of his situation, and that's what he delivers. Lloyd is vivacious, emotive, clear, and convincing. But somehow it's just agreed that this was an embarrassing take on the character? Because Darth Vader's supposed to be a stone-cold badass? (Did anyone else notice that in the end he was just a sad old man in a suit who had lived a lifetime of regrets?)

Gonz posted:

To this day, i'm still not sure why Padme died. Was it from complications due to child birth? And if so, was that due to being force choked?

She just kinda.....gives up.

"Giving Up" is not a cause of death i've ever heard mentioned from a coroner.

Yaws posted:

Probably the sudden realization that her husband was an evil malleable retard. Her heart stopped, mercy killing her.

Vegg220 posted:

Are you dumb. Do you see Serf's post on this very page

SuperMechagodzilla posted:

We understand that you are upset, but that it all we understand because you are bad at communicating.

People can tell when you're fronting. By simply writing truthfully and accurately, I have accomplished more than you have. I have changed things.

Serf posted:

Well, probably my favorite part of the prequels are the Jedi. We see the Jedi Order while it is still extant, and we see the Jedi at the height of their power. And the Jedi are not at all like what we were expecting. They are not noble knights defending the Republic, but instead a strange cult that indoctrinates children. They deny core aspects of personhood, act as muscle for the Republic, and show little respect for the downtrodden of the galaxy. Their depiction in the prequels further displays the ways in which Obi-Wan is a liar and a trickster, and also shows us why they were destroyed. They were betrayed, but only because they were too arrogant and misguided to see it coming. If any of them were as wise as Obi-Wan says, they would never have taken in Anakin and allowed him to become a Jedi. Showing the Jedi as the corrupt, blind cult that it was feels like a bold move to me, and a real subversion of fan expectations.

quote:

I also like seeing the Republic become the Empire. They weren't invaded or conquered, no, they became the Empire through shrewd politics and manipulation by a force they were not prepared to deal with. The fact that the Empire operated for almost two decades with little interference is interesting when you see the circumstances of its creation. The people of the galaxy were played perfectly by Palpatine, and his rise to power is a joy to watch.

quote:

And the changing style of the movies visually is great. Transitioning from sleek, clean art deco ships to the stark lines and harsh utilitarianism of the Empire is just so cool. Clearly it was a thing that Lucas worked backwards to arrive at, but seeing the how it coincides with the Republic turning to the Empire is really reminiscent of the rise of fascism in our own world, and the changing art styles reflect the changing landscape of the galaxy. But the time of the OT, the world is dirty, the technology is stagnant, and the soft, elegant ships of the past have been mostly replaced by the Empire's sharp-edged, grayscale warships.