So if darth vader and the evil empiree is Bush and the neo-cons, that must make Obe wan Kenobe Osama bin Laden. That's a good reason to join the darkside and fight the islamo-facists.

Come to think of it, there are a lot of parallels that could be drawn between followers of 'the force' and Islamo-Facism.

If you're looking for serious science fiction, try Isaiah.

Regarding hiding Luke on Tatooine with his family, I agree it wasn't the wisest choice, but I *think* we're supposed to believe that Anakin thought Padme's baby (he didn't know it was twins) died with her. He would therefore have no reason to go looking for him. That's why, presumably, they made her corpse look pregant at the funeral.

Ace-

I agree with your comments, but I think the political angle deserves more coverage.

The story is naturally very pro-Bush (Good vs. Evil and all that), and Lucas has to put it through some really stupid contortions to make an anti-Bush statement.

Regards,

W.C. Varones

Dave has a point - at that point he presumably doesn't even know that the baby/babies are alive. And maybe Tatooine is a good choice in the sense of being (a) at the ass-end of nowhere and (b) the place where his mother was killed in AoTC; I think that was supposed to kind of put him off the place in general, so it's unlikely he'll be dropping by to visit the stepsibling he's barely exchanged two words with and revel in memories of watching his mother snuff it.

Of course, that doesn't explain the really major inconsistency of: Why the hell is it that can Leia remember their birthmother and Luke can't? I mean, that was just insulting. (Like Jar-Jar wasn't, but you know what I mean).

Ace: "Santa Clause"???!

Could be the margaritas talking, but I don't think it's spelled that way...

I can't believe the fixation with these god awful films. I've got bad news for you: it isn't going to shave off twenty years from your age, geezers!

I agree the action parts were kinda sucky. Just a lot of waving light sabers around really quickly. They still managed to be good at times though.

The anti-Bush political part was just a few tacked on lines and didn't damage the movie any for me.

I thought the movie worked great as drama. Watching Anakin f-- up his life and go over to the dark side was great, even if I knew it was going to happen before it happened.

Your points 6 and 7 are really just nitpicky.

100% agree on the 'bring balance to the force' prophecy being one of the weakest parts of the plot. First, Lucas HAD to inject a 'religious' miracle birth to explain Vader's greatness. How subtle is it to basically state that this kid is the 'Jesus' of Jedi? We know how powerful he is already. Wouldn't it have been more powerful storytelling for an ordinary, though gifted, untrained slave to to burst into and shake up the Jedi Order? OF course, you can't have a messiah without prophecy, and this one's the worst.

The first time I heard it, I had the same thought you did Ace, the Sith have been dead for a thousand years, the Jedi rule the day, who the hell would want to balance that? Fortunately, I chalk this up to just really bad ideas Lucas thought up, not another psuedo-liberal msg that its wrong that one side have all the power, good or not.

"Did this stupid green puppet Yoda ever once consider the possibility that you don't want "balance" when your side is clearly winning?"

Obi-Won is the only person who seemed to take the prophesy thing very seriously.

Your points 6 and 7 are really just nitpicky.

"Well, that's just nitpicking, innit?"

-Sonetka,

I haven't seen the movie yet, but nobody's said that Leia remembers her birthmother. After all, she doesn't know she's a foster-kid until two minutes after she is asked about what her mother was like. I assume the mother she tells Luke about is Bail Organa's wife.

So does Jar jar get killed or not? Because that's the only reason for me to see it.

SPOILER ALERT

Jar Jar appears to be mortally wounded at one point, but later returns as Darth Jar Jar.

Woah!

Anikin *did* save the day, bring balance to the force, and destroy the Sith. He did it in "Return of the Jedi", remember? The only thing the phrophecy skipped over was the whole wiping out the Jedi stuff. Oops. Silly prophets.

I'm not sure R2 knew diddly. Threepio knew all the good stuff and it's not clear that he told R2 what he knew. Also, R2 may have kept quiet because he saw what happened to Threepio, but now I'm just being a dork and trying to justify the artistic decisions made by a billionaire hippy.

The action scenes wern't that bad. Though I will maintain the best lightsaber fights were in Phantom Meanace. Ray Park kicks ass.

But God. Dear sweet merciful God. The dialogue was awful. Has there been worse romantic dialogue in a mainstream movie? Even if you include the stuff made in the 70s, I think the Star Wars prequels get the turkey award for that category.

Yep. That suck movie really got my mitichlorians boiling.

"Fortunately, I chalk this up to just really bad ideas Lucas thought up, not another psuedo-liberal msg that its wrong that one side have all the power, good or not."

More like the pseudo-liberal line of thought about how there is no real "good" or "evil", shades of gray, "Only Sith think in absolutes", "one man's freedom fighter...", let's find a middle ground (with Darth Freaking Vader) yada yada yada.

ROTS is definitely the best of the prequels (by a long way), and it's probably better than Return of the Jedi too (I hate those fucking Ewoks like death itself). Still, there was plenty of Lucasian groaners throughout. Lucas is great at action and special effects, but asolutely pluperfectly shitty at directing actors.

Also, I have a huge problem with the opening battle: half the people in the theater were probably wondering what the fuck was going on and what in the hell this Grievous character was all about. If you hadn't seen the Clone Wars cartoons, this whole fucking 20-minute episode made no sense at all.

Still, I found the cinematography and effects absolutely first-rate, and the action scenes well-handled. I'd put it in line just behind Star Wars and Empire Strikes Back.

Ace's point 7 is well taken. I remember thinking the same thing myself. "We must hide this child where the Empire can never find him! Hey, I know! Let's put him with his family on his father's home planet and use his real name!" I mean, how fucking stupid would Darth Vader have had to be not to follow up on that?

From all I've heard about RotS, I'm not going to wait for the DVD, I'll wait for a pirated copy, since I refuse to pay for left-wing propaganda.

Ace, as long as we're all nitpicking, how about you spell Anakin's name right for fucking once?

I've read countless posts from you referencing Star Wars, and each and every time you misspell Anakin.

I don't know if this is some sort of lame protest of the prequels, but you wouldn't call Luke "Looke," or Chewbacca "Ward Churchill."

Loose shit, my little green friend.

As for ROTS, I agree with most of what you said. . . but I still liked it. Go figure.

By this point, I treat Star Wars as pizza. Even when bad, it's still better than everything else that I eat. Would I want it to be the very best Chicago-style pizza I've ever had? Of course I would. Alas, it isn't that, for a number of reasons-- some inevitable, some very unfortunate.

ROTS was still better than 95% of the shit that passes for an action or a science-fiction film these days. Oh, so it's nowhere near as good as The Empire Strikes Back? Boo fucking hoo. You know what, *nothing* is as good as The Empire Strikes Back. I wished the prequels were as good as the original movies, but they're not. Oh well-- I'd still rather watch flat acting and flatter lightsaber battles than any shit Michael Bay throws up on the screen.

Gee, I can't wait until Mr. & Mrs. Smith. I'll buy all the action figures and bedsheets. And spend another twenty years wondering what the backstory of the Smiths' marriage was. Did it involve Jennifer Aniston? Is Angelina Jolie really a he-she that had her penis burned off in a lavafall? I hope Starlog does wall-to-wall over that one.

With the prequels, we all wanted something transcendent, to match our youthful memories of the originals (not to mention our imaginations of what the Clone Wars looked like, or The Duel-- which, BTW, managed to look and feel exactly as I had thought it would look and feel like for 20 years. So, ROTS had *that* going for it. You're right, the rest of the three movies were padding, all leading up to the only moment we all cared to see).

But instead of something transcendent, what we got were average movies. Damn it, I'm suing. In fact, I smell class-action, who's with me?

Bottom line: I was entertained, it was better than the previous movies, and in the end I'll probably still watch slices of the film on DVD, skipping chapters (like I do with the original movies).

Hey, I'm okay with settling in my old age. It keeps me from being disappointed in life.

Because life is shit.

Cheers,
Dave at Garfield Ridge

Monty,

It could be a matter of trusting to the audacity of it. It's so obvious that nobody thinks anything of Luke Skywalker on Tatooine.

Alternatively, I believe David Brin (author) speculated that Luke was set down there with the Skywalker name, on his uncle's farm, as a trap for Vader. Vader comes to claim the boy, Obi Wan confronts him, karate explosion. Leia was Plan B in case Obi Wan doesn't have what it takes to whup Vader.

It got so bad that we were making up jokes throughout the movie.

Did Padme really have to show up with honey buns in one scene just to throw a reference to Leia?

Does that mean that Leia was born with honey buns on her head?

Just wondering

Thanks Ace for the review. I haven't seen it and have been debating on whether or not I want to give Lucas any of my money for a ticket. I was 10 when SW came out and grew up with the original trilogy like so many of your fine visitors. I've got a lot of great memories from those years and Lucas' political tirades in the movie and at Cannes has really pissed me off. And it's not even the anti-Bush dialogue in the movie that bothers me. Lucas is lucky enough to be an American and live in a country where he can say whatever the hell he wants to without the fear of being bound and gagged and shot in the head and thrown off the side of a building. What bothers me is his anti-American rant in France of all places. Those idiots are like a sponge to anything anti-American. Especially when he made the statement that "even bad people think they are good." To me it's 10x worse than what the Dixie Chicks said in England and I trashed their cd's after that happened. Still can't stand to hear them. Yes, yes, ROTS is JUST a movie, but that's not the point. It's another example of just how much Hollywood hates our President and in my opinion, this country and I don't care to donate any money to the effort.

The Hutts and the Empire had an uneasy truce, which is why Tatooine was a good place to hide him. Snooping too much was not allowed.

I know so much of the backstory that when I see it I'm sure I'll understand it. Many of the random critisizms I've heard can be simply answered, I'm just too lazy to answer them all.

I'm gonna go see it once either tomorrow or tuesday, and I'm going to enjoy it for what it is. I'd rather someone other than Lucas was in charge of the series, but until he kicks the can I have no choice but to watch his crap.

To anyone avoiding ROTS due to some imagined leftist tilt: don't sweat it. Seriously. If there is a leftist tilt to Star Wars, it's been there all along. In fact, I consider the basic storyine to be such a confused mess that you can draw almost any "tilt" you want out of it.

Star Wars is space opera of 1930's vintage (readers of the Lensman books by E. E. "Doc" Smith will know how much Lucas cribbed from it). It follows the conventions of the space opera -- rebels vs. empire, political intrigue, warfare, and romance. I don't really think there are any current-event digs in the film, regardless of what Lucas bloviates about in interviews.

Dave - VERY well said. The pizza analogy is on the spot.

Ace, for this not "meriting a full review", I must say your take-down is pretty thorough.

If it's such a shitty movie, why did you all go and pay money to see it? I bet you paid money to see 9/11, too. Geezers.

I'll borrow from another aging, liberal hippy for my review...

Shit sandwich.

#4 is exactly right. I can remember the scene progression of Star Wars IV even though I haven't seen it in maybe 10 years, in part, cause each scene built on the one before it. The mattered to the whole. And the whole? Well, we all knew, cumulatively, they were leading to a big showdown over that Death Star thing. Just had to. (It could destroy planets!) So... the good guys blow it up. Bang! Perfect. Hand out the medals. (Oooh, Han got one too!) Roll credits. I had just been told a story.

Each of the new ones was merely a jerky "oh gee look at that alien race" hodge podge of settings, propped up by the requisite three tent pole, battle/lightsabering sequences. But, what was the point of any of it? Why were they fighting again? Something to do with... galactic senate filibustering? Jedi Council maintaining independence from... an overpowered executive branch?

That is so not a Death Star. Intrinsically uninvolving political maneuvers spread out over three childish movies. He'da been better off just blowing up 3 more death stars, (just like he did in 2/3 of the original series.) Anything else.

He wasn't locked in to this. These movies didn't have to be about councils and senates. He was only required to show us Vader becoming Vader. The rest could have been... anything. But they weren't. They were boring. Just very boring.

Last time, I said:

This can't be the view-from-the-fringes underdog story of the original movies. Lots of fans still haven't come to grips with that.

But more interestingly, so is Anakin. He just wants to whoop some oppressor ass and live forever -- like, well, every pop culture hero. Problem is, he's born in a situation where the big, powerful, shadowy establishment is actually the only hope for good. Sound familiar?

But the wild cheering for Vader's appearance and -- especially -- that final shot, suggests sympathy for the idea that it all was worth it to bring Luke that satisfying chance to kick oppressor ass as his father wanted to do.

That's Hollywood in a nutshell. They don't care if we're destroyed, as long as they can make money off portraying us as oppressors. Because they can't get away from pop culture's oppressor/underdog formula... And they're too international (and leftist) to push the oppressive-Islam line.

Lucas has, perhaps unwittingly, made a movie about his own ultimate failure -- and his industry's. He is Anakin, just as he was once Luke. Same impulse, different eras. There's something profound in it.

(I can just hear lauraw seething, It's just a fucking movie, you geeks! Duly noted.)

My disappointment with the prequels can be summed up this way: they pussified Darth Vader. In the original movies, Darth Vader was an iconic villain, a bad guy for the ages. He was bad, he knew he was bad, and he enjoyed being bad. He was the kind of bad guy who'd break your fucking neck for some small mistake and then promote some flunky in your place.

Vader was a great bad guy. But then the prequels came along, and all of a sudden Vader wasn't an awesome bad guy any more. He was a whiny, temper-prone asshole with a weak chin. He had "anger issues" and "authority issues" but deep down he was just a big loving lunk of a guy. If everyone had just listened to him and understood his pain--!

Pfagh. Darth Vader was cool; Anakin Sywalker is just a tantrummy pussy.

I watched the first Star Wars and found it reasonably vapid and boring. I have always thought Yoda looks tremendously stupid, Princess Leah was ugly for a Major Role Princess, although there was chemistry between her and what's his name, and that orange monkey rivals Yoda in stupid looking. The only thing mildly cute in Star Wars were the little robots, but nothing compared to the delightfulness in the book version of the Hitchhiker robots. In short, Star Wars was a drabby little film concept from the beginning. Recently I watched a total of 15 minutes of the Clones sequel ( or prequel - whatever it is) on TV, in between switching channels to more interesting stuff. I would never pay to go to the movies to watch whatever Lucas and his boring imagination came up with now. And to think this lame little sequences of flicks broke all the box office records... ah the state of the world...

Monty, regarding 'pussy Vader'
1. In the third non-prequel he killed the emperor and saved Luke. So, if thats pussy, it wasn't all just in the prequel. Even in the second picture he was trying to reach out to Luke
2. (SPOILER WARING)
He killed all those Jedi children. And you're gonna call him a pussy? Thats some brutal stuff right there.

The word pussy goes through these comments fine but yester day doesn't because it contains the word t e r d. Whats up with that?

Ace,

Sorry you didn't like it.

I gotta disagree with your "wait for DVD" recommendation. This is a "big screen" movie if ever there was one. If you really think it's that bad (and I don't), then you should just recommended not seeing it at all.

As for the "bringing balance to the force" thing, I also thought that was totally stupid when it first was uttered in Episode I. Since then, though, and this is a failing that it wasn't made clear in the movies, I've heard it explained that the force was out of balance in such a way that bad things were happening. Bringing it back into balance would change it back into a more positive, er, force for good. It's not a balance between good and evil, it's that an unbalanced force leads to things like the rise of the Sith.

And I also heard it explained that the prophecy has been misinterpreted and that it referred to Luke all along. Again, you can fault the movies for not making this point more clearly, although Yoda does at one point say something about how the prophecy could have been misread. Also, how in the prequels could you explain that the prophecies must have referred to Luke?

As for Luke going to live with his family under his own name, that doesn't bug me that much, since Vader completely believes Padme and "the child" died, so they wouldn't necessarily be looking for Luke, and Padme's sibling having a child around that age wouldn't necessarily arouse suspicion. What bugs me more is they put him with his family who doesn't raise him as their son! They actually honestly tell them that he's their nephew! Now that is beyond stupid.

RE: Jedi children. . . I'm at a loss as to why so many people find Anakin's killing of the "younglings" proof of his evil.

They're armed combatants in military training. If the United States put a rifle in a 7-year-old's hand, a 7-year-old American soldier would be a legitimate target.

This brings to mind one of my biggest issues with ROTS, and the prequels as a whole: the way they rewrote the mythology of the original trilogy after-the-fact.

If you go by the original trilogy, the Dark Side is evil, the Empire is evil, the Rebellion are good guys, end of story.

But if you watch all six films, you're left with. . . what, exactly? Both sides being more or less equal. If anything, the *Jedi* come off looking much worse. Their arrogance sowed the seeds of their destruction. And, I can't say it's undeserved.

As for Anakin and Palpatine, sure, they're evil. . . but how, precisely, is that so bad for the rest of the galaxy? The Republic was corrupt, it couldn't even resolve a trade dispute. Ol' Palpy comes along and brings order. Good bargain.

As for the Clone Wars, guess what-- they're fought between a lot of clones and a lot of robots, with the Jedi mixed in. Outside of the planets where the war is fought, it seems as if the galaxy doesn't really care about the war all that much. Hell, the biggest space battle of the war occurs above the *capital of the Republic* and nobody bothers to stop rush hour to head to the bunkers.

Later, when the Jedi Temple is destroyed, Coruscant blissfully chugs along, not a car in the world.

In fact, I'm hard pressed to find any unambiguously evil acts at all committed by the Empire.

-- Palpatine engineers a galactic civil war to gain power. Yeah, so what? By the looks of the Republic, it was coming anyway. And the Separatists all wanted to cause trouble-- Palpatine just gave them the safety valve they needed. In the meantime, he eliminates them, he gains power, he destroys and discredits the Jedi, and he's home in time for breakfast.

-- Luke's Aunt & Uncle are killed. They were harboring secret military information that if it fell into enemy hands could endanger a major military enterprise. Plus, I bet grumpy Owen probably pulled a gun, "suicide by stormtrooper."

-- Alderaan is blowed up real good, killing millions/billions of innocents. Guess what? So was Dresden, and Hiroshima. In a war of galactic scale involving thousands of worlds with countless trillions of inhabitants, Alderaan's destruction was of minor moral consequence. Even if they were unarmed-- Leia could have been lying about that too-- Alderaanians certainly represented the strategic focus of the Rebellion, providing many of their leaders. Good call, Tarkin.

-- Nothing bad happens in Empire except Vader force-choking a few Imperial officers. That punk Ozzel had it coming, pulling that "surprise" shit.

-- In Jedi, a lot of Ewoks die. And this is bad how?

BTW, I've always loved how Curtis Saxton (the author of those Star Wars Technical Guides) put it on his website-- the Rebellion, by destroying the Death Star II above Endor's moon, inevitably killed *all* the Ewoks. What happens when you blow up an object the size of a small moon that close to a planet? Imagine dinosaur-killing asteroids, times a thousand. Rest assured, those furry shit-eaters all died from a nuclear winter.

Anyway, the moment you think about it, ROTS is really a radical film. Not because it's filled with soapy liberal pap. If it was filled with that, it would have still taken the position that the Jedi, while doomed by their hubris, were still essentially the good guys because their intentions were noble, if not always their means.

Instead, Lucas-- by design, or more likely by creative negligence-- gives us a totally subversive take on the Star Wars universe. The Light and the Dark Sides really are two sides of the same coin. As Ace noted, balance is achieved. . . by eliminating all the Jedi. Real painful way to get what you wanted, but it does have the advantage of rendering the Jedi pure again by the end of ROTJ.

Cheers,
Dave at Garfield Ridge

Dave,

"They're armed combatants in military training. If the United States put a rifle in a 7-year-old's hand, a 7-year-old American soldier would be a legitimate target."

They were no match for Anakin whatever their weapons.

"As for Anakin and Palpatine, sure, they're evil. . . but how, precisely, is that so bad for the rest of the galaxy? The Republic was corrupt, it couldn't even resolve a trade dispute. Ol' Palpy comes along and brings order. Good bargain."

...

"In fact, I'm hard pressed to find any unambiguously evil acts at all committed by the Empire."

For one thing they brought back slavery. Also in SW they mention the empire seizing private property. Was the empire less corrupt? Or just more 'efficient'.

"-- Palpatine engineers a galactic civil war to gain power. Yeah, so what? By the looks of the Republic, it was coming anyway. And the Separatists all wanted to cause trouble-- Palpatine just gave them the safety valve they needed. In the meantime, he eliminates them, he gains power, he destroys and discredits the Jedi, and he's home in time for breakfast."

It might have happened anyway isn't really a great defence.

"-- Alderaan is blowed up real good, killing millions/billions of innocents. Guess what? So was Dresden, and Hiroshima. In a war of galactic scale involving thousands of worlds with countless trillions of inhabitants, Alderaan's destruction was of minor moral consequence. Even if they were unarmed-- Leia could have been lying about that too-- Alderaanians certainly represented the strategic focus of the Rebellion, providing many of their leaders. Good call, Tarkin."

Well I seen arguments that Hiroshima was justified because it ended the war. Alderaan's destruction didn't end the war. I haven't seen any arguments for Dresden just apologetics. Anyway you would still have to make the case that the empire is better than the alternative to justify Alderaan's destruction. I can't see why imposing a dictatorship based on terror is better than allowing a planets govt to separate if that's what it wants.

"They were no match for Anakin whatever their weapons."

Not that day, but someday.

"For one thing they brought back slavery."

Brought back? Huh, I guess Mom Skywalker slipped through the cracks of the Republic's benevolent anti-slavery program.

"Also in SW they mention the empire seizing private property."

Uh, I must've missed that bit in Star Wars. Refresh my memory please, I've only seen the movie 800 times.

"It might have happened anyway isn't really a great defence."

And your email doesn't counter my argument. There, we're even :-).

"Alderaan's destruction didn't end the war."

Had Leia given up the Rebellion right there, it would have. 'Twas worth a shot.

"I can't see why imposing a dictatorship based on terror is better than allowing a planets govt to separate if that's what it wants."

Ask Lincoln what he thought of separation.

Cheers,
Dave at Garfield Ridge

"6. Threepio gets his memory wiped. Artoo does not. That means that little bastard has known throughout the entire trilogy that Darth was Luke's father, and Leia his sister, and yet the little piece of shit never said a word...."

Huh?

Artoo was not privy, and was not MADE privy, to anything that happened on Mustafar, and nobody in the galaxy but Palpatine knows enough to associate Darth Vader with Anakin. It's true that Anakin was given the Vader name before getting reconstructed, but he wasn't ever shown announcing his new name to anyone.

Not even Obi Wan knows that Anakin was saved at the point where the movie ends.

Obi Wan and Yoda are able to infer (or maybe "sense") that the guy in the Vader suit is Anakin, but nobody else knows, including Artoo.

Huh, I guess Mom Skywalker slipped through the cracks of the Republic's benevolent anti-slavery program.

PADME : I can't believe there is still slavery in the galaxy. The Republic's anti-slavery laws... SHMI : The Republic doesn't exist out here...we must survive on our own.

"Not that day, but someday. "

Kill children because they'll be a threat someday? That's evil man.

"Brought back? Huh, I guess Mom Skywalker slipped through the cracks of the Republic's benevolent anti-slavery program."

Hhhmm. Was that planet a part of the Republic? Anyway under the Empire they extended it to wookies IIRC.

"Uh, I must've missed that bit in Star Wars. Refresh my memory please, I've only seen the movie 800 times."

BIGGS: I feel for you, Luke, you're going to have to learn what seems
to be important or what really is important. What good is all your
uncle's work if it's taken over by the Empire?...You know they're
starting to nationalize commerce in the central systems...it won't be
long before your uncle is merely a tenant, slaving for the greater
glory of the Empire.

"And your email doesn't counter my argument. There, we're even :-)."

Well, I think the original premise here is that starting wars for your own personal ambition is, you know, bad. Since we don't know if the war would have happened anyway you can't just right it off.

"Had Leia given up the Rebellion right there, it would have. 'Twas worth a shot."

Blowing up planets as an interogation technique?

"Ask Lincoln what he thought of separation."

The USA imposed a military govt only temporarily on the South and it did abolish slavery. If the slavery issue wasn't involved I don't think you could justify the civil war.

It just goes to confirm for me that the only Sci-Fi trilogy to wait on is Serenity.

Thanks Dave, now I have a counter for the "Vader was evil ,he kills childrens argument". If I shot Robert Mugabe's child soldier barracks, am I evil or is it the bastard who put guns/shiny whack-a-mole sticks in their hands who is truly evil?

I'm obviously not into Star Wars as much as you all. When does Darth Vader figure out Princess Leia is his daughter and Luke is his son? Haven't seen the new one yet, but you all act like it ends without him knowing about them, and Star Wars opens with him chasing after Leia.

Dave--by your logic about Alderan, we should have just napalmed Fallujah flat.

You're right about Tatooine. All the more reason to ask why the Republic tolerated the Hutts.

As for the Younglings, they *are* armed, and they were fighting (remember the one that got shot in front of Bail Organa?). I'm not saying one had to like it-- Anakin obviously doesn't-- but these aren't innocent babies in the crib. They are Jedi in training.

Guess what? The 800 times I saw Star Wars, Biggs never showed up until the end of the movie. While I know that the novelization is accepted as "canon," my argument has nothing to do with what surrounds the movies, but what the movies themselves show the audience. BTW, they also don't show any wookie slavery, either, even though we know that Han rescued Chewbacca from slavery from the novel and expanded universe.

But again, I'm arguing from the only source worth arguing over: what was put up there on the screen by George Lucas.

As for Alderaan, again, we can infer that Alderaan-- home to Bail Organa, as well as a treasonous senator-- is a hotbed of resistance. Perhaps Leia and her adopted father were the only bad apples of the bunch, and Alderaan was filled with billions of innocent victims. Perhaps, however, Alderaan was a thorn in the Empire's side for a generation, and was asking for what happened to it. As far as I'm concerned, the movie doesn't give me enough information to condemn what Tarkin did, based solely on the information provided.

HowardDevore-- okay, let's go with your take. That would make Yoda the Mugabe, because he and the rest of the council are the ones that arm children.

Oh, they're also the ones who take children from their homes because they have a "gift." They also deny those children any chance of loving another person, or forming any attachments at all.

Obviously, there's a very good reason for this all-- this didn't work out for Anakin, after all-- but how are these children not slaves for the Jedi themselves? I'm sure that being a Jedi is a big deal, the galactic equivalent of Harvard, and their parents must be so proud (even if they never get to see, talk to or hug them again) but they're all taken in at a younger age than Anakin was. Not a lot of freedom or democracy there.

Cheers,
Dave at Garfield Ridge

See-Dubya:

First off, we're talking about a MOVIE.

Second off, read my previous email: we're going on available evidence. I have nothing to counter the Empire's decision to rub out Alderaan except the protestations of a treasonous liar.

I'll take the Chris Rock defense: I'm not saying it's right, but I understand.

Cheers,
Dave at Garfield Ridge

So if darth vader and the evil empiree is Bush and the neo-cons, that must make Obe wan Kenobe Osama bin Laden.

A common misapprehension. Actually, Obi-wan is, variously, Woodward & Bernstein, anti-war protestors in general, or TImothy Leary. The war is between the evil neo-cons (or evil Bush or evil Republican warmongers) on one side, and the good left on the other. Jihadists do not exist; acknowledging them would only get in the way of the main conflict, which is eternally between Republicans and Democrats. There is no such person as bin Laden. We have always been at war with Eastasia. Etc.

(And yes, I do realize that the 1984 reference is somewhat ironic, but its implication of willful blindness to reality in the service of political ambition is apt anyway.)

The Biggs quote comes from the 'Revised Fourth Draft' of the script.

I vaguely remember hearing it in the movie. I thought it was Uncle Ben that said it.

Some Guy--

The Biggs scene *was* filmed, but Lucas left it on the cutting room floor, and never added it in for the Special Edition.

You can watch it for yourself here. It's long, and pretty bad, and for once, Lucas left something out for good reason.

Cheers,
Dave at Garfield Ridge

Speaking of misspelling "Anakin", Ace, this is not the first time I've seen you misspell "Santa Claus". It is not "Santa Clause".

Perhaps you are confused because a few years back there was a movie called "The Santa Clause". It was a pun based on the fact that there was a clause in the rules of Santa that if you somehow accidentally killed Santa then you had to become the new Santa. Some grump of course accidentally killed Santa, then he started turning into Santa, and then much hilarity allegedly ensued.

But, despite that movie's title, non-morons still spell it "Santa Claus". Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Hi all,

Let's see, where to begin...

-- Point 1: backstory ain't necessary

Huh? You thought people were ragging on the prequels now, imagine the howls for blood that would have greeted a prequel trilogy that deliberately avoided strong backstory links with the originals. Not saying it might not have been handled a bit better, particularly in Eps I and II, but backstory is indeed necessary once the decision to set the stories before the original trilogy is made.

-- Point 2: Hayden notso-hotso/love scenes bad

His acting's as good as anything Mark Hamil did. Sure, that's damning with faint praise, but it hardly hurt Eps IV-VI. And the only comparable scenes in those films were the tender Han/Leia scenes, which were nigh-automatically better since neither was a callow love-struck teen. Even there, the dialogue was not exactly Shakespeare; it seems better mainly because he had enough sense back then to keep the scenes shorter.

-- Point 3: Digital video crappy

Seemed OK to me. Certainly beats some of the gaffes in the original, with patches of lighter-gray space around flying TIE fighters and missing animation around Obi-Wan's lightsaber during his climactic duel with Vader (the latter, unaccountably, not fixed in the late-90's do-over).

-- Point 4: Narrative drive weak

The narrative here is behind the scenes, because it is Palpatine's narrative. He has the initiative, he is driving the events, not the Jedi; things are happening according to his plan, not theirs, and he is necessarily keeping his maniplations secret, so of course it looks scattered when told (as it was) from essentially a Jedi point of view.

-- Point 5: Action sucky

The previous Star Wars space combat standards are (in my preferred order) the fleet fight outside and inside Death Star II in Ep VI, the fighter assault on the original Death Star in Ep IV, and the asteroid fight in Ep V. The fight over Coruscant here ranks between items two and three in that list in my book - easily up to the Star Wars standard.

The many lightsaber fights in Ep III certainly exceed those in all previous movies in terms of pure cool fighting skill (except perhaps the Qui-Gonn/Obi-Wan/Darth Maul fight of Ep I). The dramatic importance of most of the fights also ranks high, comparable to the two Luke/Vader duels of the first trilogy. Choppy editing and questionable lighting do detract a bit from some of the scenes, but their grace and beauty shone through, to me at least, despite that.

-- Point 6: Memory wipes

Artoo never said a word? Neither did Obi-Wan, until the cat was out of the bag, and I don't see you getting on HIS ass about it. Artoo had a mission, a message for General Kenobi, and the family tree of his latest "owner"'s clod-hopper nephew had jack-all to do with that.

-- Point 7: Hiding Luke on Tatooine

The place was a gangster-run crap-hole where Anakin had spent his whole childhood fatherless and in slavery and native barbarians had horribly killed his mother, and it was in the galactic boondocks far from the capital and the Emperor, where Vader could be expected to spend a large proportion of his time. It seems not unreasonable to gamble that Vader would avoid the place.

-- Point 8: No actual bad guys/political pointmaking

Say what? Palpatine was bad through and through, and Dooku was far more cartoonishly bad than he had to be, given his potentially ambiguous role as leader of the movement that would eventually become the Rebel Alliance. Lightsabering down the Younglings, Force-choking his pregnant wife, and betraying and attacking his friend Obi-Wan, all on vague suspicion, would also seem to qualify Anakin in my book. You hardly need redemption (a major point of the original trilogy) unless you actually are a "bad guy". To me, the point here seems to be not that "there are no 'bad guys'", but that, as another author put it, "nothing is evil in the beginning. Even Sauron was not so."

Regarding the movie's perceived "political" aspects, the whole issue seems blown WAY out of proportion, and in any case is vague enough to be interpreted in many possible ways. Let's see, Palpatine whines manipulatively about a do-nothing legislature to sway undecided potential allies, he attacks his opponents as "dogmatic" and "narrow", and he promotes paranoid fantasy about a Vast Jedi Conspiracy that's out to get him, imperilling the entire Republic. The only thing he's missing is a blue dress with his DNA sprayed all over it.

As to wars being the result of the manipulations of the powerful, of course they are. That hardly empties them of their moral dimension, or makes their results futile or irrelevant. What might have been different had the Seperatists won? Well, the war was pretty well rigged against them from the start, but let's pretend that Dooku wasn't an idiot, and thus instead of following Palpatine's orders with the Seperatists, he decided to manipulate them himself in a traditional Sith attempt to betray and destroy his master. The Seperatists are never really depicted as able to conquer the Republic itself, so some sort of terms seem likely, probably involving concessions on the trade and taxation issues that Palpatine used as his lever to get the shooting started. Palpatine himself would be dead, with the Empire (depending on Dooku's timing) either never forming or falling in his wake (as happened after Ep VI, and would likely have happened faster with the Senate and Jedi still active and without 20 extra years to consolidate his power). Dooku would seek such Sith revenge on the Jedi as he desired from his own angles, which would likely give the Jedi more time to deal with it (particularly as the clone troopers are not likely to take orders from the Seperatist leader). Would those results "matter" to you?

-- Monty's "they pussified Vader" observations

Wow, a guy who's been twisted since childhood by a master manipulator of a Sith turns out in his teen years to be emotionally unstable and prone to complain to a sympathetic female friend. What are the odds?! He was soooo much cooler when he was just torturing his daughter and mutilating his son without all that teenage angst...

-- Dave's observations

The genocide of the Alderaanians on the say-so of Imperial Military Bureaucrat Tarkin isn't unambiguously evil? What greater evil is he preventing by it? The reduction of the Emperor's usurped authority by the Rebellion? Oh, the horror! If he allows the Emperor's defeat, the rule of law will be overthrown throughout the Galaxy! Except, oh yeah, it already was when the Emperor decided to dissolve the Senate and rule the local systems through "fear of this battle station".

The Younglings are combatants? Because they held weapons? Who were they killing, before they started defending themselves? By that logic, the Boston Massacre was justified, as the British were resisted while simply confiscating dangerous weapons from (grown-up) potential revolutionaries in their own homes.

-- Conclusions

My own final verdict? Hardly perfect, but the best since Empire, certainly worthy of the Star Wars name, and definitely worth a look on the big screen.

You know what bugged me? All the annoying robots. They were no doubt there to provide a little comic relief for kids, but they were almost as annoying as Jar-Jar. And that stupid scene with R2D2 hiding while talking on the cell phone... Very annoying.

I can't believe I let my friends talk me into spending money to see this.

Dave--of course it's just a movie. But if you're applying real-life logic to this movie situation, which I gathered was the point of our post, then Alderan was pretty awful. Especially since in the Empire Strikes Back, we know that the Empire can send down the big stompy things if they want to and act with a little more technical finesse in rooting out rebels on a particular planet than they showed in disintegrating Alderan.

Vader and Tarkin blew up Alderan cause they didn't like it and he wanted to show off. It's one thing to torture a terrorist to defuse a ticking bomb, it's another, utterly awful thing to destroy a populated world to get less urgent information, and it's completely hideously indefensible to blow up the planet once you have the information.

So yeah, Empire bad.

Since this is probably the end of the Star Wars stuff here on Ace of Spades, I thought I'd write one last book on it:

Sonetka wrote:

Of course, that doesn't explain the really major inconsistency of: Why the hell is it that can Leia remember their birthmother and Luke can't? I mean, that was just insulting. (Like Jar-Jar wasn't, but you know what I mean).

This does bug me, too. The standard defense at that point Leia doesn't realize the person she thought was her mother wasn't her biological mother. OK, fine, but then the whole scene in Episode VI of Luke asking her about her memories of her mother and then raptly listening to every detail makes no sense. Why would he care about her adoptive mother?

Anonymous Geek wrote:

But God. Dear sweet merciful God. The dialogue was awful. Has there been worse romantic dialogue in a mainstream movie? Even if you include the stuff made in the 70s, I think the Star Wars prequels get the turkey award for that category.

Yes, it was lame, but rewatch Episode II and you'll see it was actually a big improvement. Here is was flat and stupid, but in Episode II it was mind-bogglingly horrible and really jumped out at you.

dorkafork wrote:

"Fortunately, I chalk this up to just really bad ideas Lucas thought up, not another psuedo-liberal msg that its wrong that one side have all the power, good or not."

More like the pseudo-liberal line of thought about how there is no real "good" or "evil", shades of gray, "Only Sith think in absolutes", "one man's freedom fighter...", let's find a middle ground (with Darth Freaking Vader) yada yada yada.

Either is bad.

Anyway, the political stuff didn't bother me that much. People have complained that it takes the movies out of the realm of fantasy and permanently anchors them in the present. I disagree. It's barely noticable, and I think it will become less noticable as years go by. Anakin's "you're with me or you're against me" line will in ten or fifteen years not remind anyone of Bush, unless they're remembering the mini-controversy over it when the movie was first released.

I'm more bugged by the "there are heroes on both sides" in the opening crawl. I don't mind the concept of good people fighting for the wrong side as much as the fact that we seen not one scintilla of evidence that this is the case. As far as we see, all of the Sith side is evil droids, evil aliens with bad accents, and evil Sith lords.

Monty wrote:

ROTS is definitely the best of the prequels (by a long way), and it's probably better than Return of the Jedi too (I hate those fucking Ewoks like death itself). Still, there was plenty of Lucasian groaners throughout. Lucas is great at action and special effects, but asolutely pluperfectly shitty at directing actors.

Also, I have a huge problem with the opening battle: half the people in the theater were probably wondering what the fuck was going on and what in the hell this Grievous character was all about. If you hadn't seen the Clone Wars cartoons, this whole fucking 20-minute episode made no sense at all.

Still, I found the cinematography and effects absolutely first-rate, and the action scenes well-handled. I'd put it in line just behind Star Wars and Empire Strikes Back.

Let's just stipulate that Lucas writes bad dialog (especially romance scenes) and cannot direct people and be done with it for all time already. I'm not criticizing you, Monty, but I've just seen this same point made a million times. OK, everyone gets it. I haven't seen anyone argue the point. Enough already.

I haven't seen the Clone Wars cartoons, and the first 20 minutes made perfect sense to me. I didn't know the backstory of Grievous, but it was clear he was a droid that was in a leadership position, and that seemed to be pretty much all I needed to know. Maybe the backstory from the cartoons was fun, but I don't think it was necessary.

I personally don't dislike Return of the Jedi. It's not as good as the first two of the original trilogy, and the Ewoks are annoying, but I thought it wrapped things up nicely and it is a fun movie to watch. I'd put Revenge of the Sith on about the same level or maybe a bit higher. I wouldn't for a second put Episodes I and II in the same league as the original trilogy, so Sith was a major step up for me.

Dave at Garfield Ridge wrote:

As for ROTS, I agree with most of what you said. . . but I still liked it. Go figure.

[ ... ]

Bottom line: I was entertained, it was better than the previous movies, and in the end I'll probably still watch slices of the film on DVD, skipping chapters (like I do with the original movies).

Hey, I'm okay with settling in my old age. It keeps me from being disappointed in life.

Because life is shit.

I agree with many of the criticisms, too, but I can produce a list of criticisms about many movies I like. Sorry, but I don't want to be one of those miserable "there is no sound in space so Star Wars sucks" mopes.

It was nice to see that you enjoyed the movie, even though you feel life is shit. Sorry to hear about that.

Mega-Beeach wrote:

It got so bad that we were making up jokes throughout the movie.

Did Padme really have to show up with honey buns in one scene just to throw a reference to Leia?

Does that mean that Leia was born with honey buns on her head?

Those are jokes?

Monty wrote:

To anyone avoiding ROTS due to some imagined leftist tilt: don't sweat it. Seriously. If there is a leftist tilt to Star Wars, it's been there all along. In fact, I consider the basic storyine to be such a confused mess that you can draw almost any "tilt" you want out of it.

[ ... ]

I don't really think there are any current-event digs in the film, regardless of what Lucas bloviates about in interviews.

I agree that if you think there's going to be some overwhelming leftist tilt that will really bother you as you watch the movie, then that's not really a good reason not to see it. It's pretty subtle and easily ignored.

I think Lucas did put digs in the movie, but he's so clumsy with that sort of thing that he failed to make them stick. The "with me or against" me line is the only one most people may notice, and for me that was about 0.1 seconds of annoyance before I got back to enjoying the movie. That line actually fits in fine with the scene, so if it weren't such a clear echo of Bush's words it probably wouldn't have stood out.

Ray Midge wrote:

He wasn't locked in to this. These movies didn't have to be about councils and senates. He was only required to show us Vader becoming Vader. The rest could have been... anything. But they weren't. They were boring. Just very boring.

I agree. The path to showing Anakin turning into Vader could have been much more entertaining and interesting. To me he achieved that, finally, after failing miserably with Episodes I and II, with Episode III.

Monty wrote:

(I can just hear lauraw seething, It's just a fucking movie, you geeks! Duly noted.)

My disappointment with the prequels can be summed up this way: they pussified Darth Vader. In the original movies, Darth Vader was an iconic villain, a bad guy for the ages. He was bad, he knew he was bad, and he enjoyed being bad. He was the kind of bad guy who'd break your fucking neck for some small mistake and then promote some flunky in your place.

Vader was a great bad guy. But then the prequels came along, and all of a sudden Vader wasn't an awesome bad guy any more. He was a whiny, temper-prone asshole with a weak chin. He had "anger issues" and "authority issues" but deep down he was just a big loving lunk of a guy. If everyone had just listened to him and understood his pain--!

Pfagh. Darth Vader was cool; Anakin Sywalker is just a tantrummy pussy.

Yeah, he's too whiny. A big part of that is the acting, although the writing is at fault, too. At least in Episode III he's not as whiny, he has legitimate reasons for the most part when he's angry, and his acting seems to have improved somewhat.

Dave at Garfield Ridge wrote:

RE: Jedi children. . . I'm at a loss as to why so many people find Anakin's killing of the "younglings" proof of his evil.

While I don't agree that it was OK to slaughter them, I can't say what the correct course of action is. We see one of them later putting up a hell of a fight before getting gunned down, so these kids were actually threats. If you truly believed there was a Jedi insurrection that had to be put down, how do you handle powerful Jedi youths?

Dave at Garfield Ridge wrote:

Instead, Lucas-- by design, or more likely by creative negligence-- gives us a totally subversive take on the Star Wars universe. The Light and the Dark Sides really are two sides of the same coin. As Ace noted, balance is achieved. . . by eliminating all the Jedi. Real painful way to get what you wanted, but it does have the advantage of rendering the Jedi pure again by the end of ROTJ.

It is intriguing that while Lucas portrays Anakin as somewhat paranoid about the Jedi's intentions due to Palpatine's influence, he also makes it clear that the fears are not completely groundless, as they do plan to take over the Senate, etc.

But in the end I have to go with "creative negligence". I don't think that it was the intention of Lucas to show them as two sides of the same coin. I think to Lucas the Jedi were always acting nobly, and so Anakin is merely misinterpreting their noble desire to get control of the Senate away from Palpatine.

Just to be clear, this...

Monty wrote:

To anyone avoiding ROTS due to some imagined leftist tilt: don't sweat it. Seriously. If there is a leftist tilt to Star Wars, it's been there all along. In fact, I consider the basic storyine to be such a confused mess that you can draw almost any "tilt" you want out of it.

[ ... ]

I don't really think there are any current-event digs in the film, regardless of what Lucas bloviates about in interviews.

I agree that if you think there's going to be some overwhelming leftist tilt that will really bother you as you watch the movie, then that's not really a good reason not to see it. It's pretty subtle and easily ignored.

...should have been this...

Monty wrote:

To anyone avoiding ROTS due to some imagined leftist tilt: don't sweat it. Seriously. If there is a leftist tilt to Star Wars, it's been there all along. In fact, I consider the basic storyine to be such a confused mess that you can draw almost any "tilt" you want out of it.

[ ... ]

I don't really think there are any current-event digs in the film, regardless of what Lucas bloviates about in interviews.

I agree that if you think there's going to be some overwhelming leftist tilt that will really bother you as you watch the movie, then that's not really a good reason not to see it. It's pretty subtle and easily ignored.

...in my previous message. Monty, not me, wrote the "bloviates" sentence.

Another correction (sorry): Dorkafork, not me, wrote this: "More like the pseudo-liberal line of thought about how there is no real "good" or "evil", shades of gray, "Only Sith think in absolutes", "one man's freedom fighter...", let's find a middle ground (with Darth Freaking Vader) yada yada yada."

I also didn't write Padme/Leia "jokes", but I think that's clear.

By the way, I wrote my original message in Notepad (so I wouldn't have to type in a tiny box) and copied and pasted it in here. In the original everything looks OKI previewed the message before posting it, and it looked OK, and if I paste it in here now, the preview still looks OK, so I don't know why some text moved out of the quote boxes. Oh well.

The "with me or against" me line is the only one most people may notice, and for me that was about 0.1 seconds of annoyance before I got back to enjoying the movie. That line actually fits in fine with the scene, so if it weren't such a clear echo of Bush's words it probably wouldn't have stood out.

Either you are with us, or with the terrorists

Either you're with me, or you're with the Jedi

The one line that was jarring was Obi-Wan's

Only a Sith deals in absolutes

Only a master of evil, Darth.

Bob: Understand your points. I would only add about mine, that the Anakin to Vader shift-over wasn't the bulk of the film. Mostly we were treated to a jump -around of 'chase-fight Greivious' and the palpatine-jedi council intrigue-less borefest.

The shift was about the final third, and while it did pick up then, it was hollow. It's problem has been pointed out at length elsewhere on the net, namely - it just happens. He kills his comrades and dooms the galaxy to a reign of pure evil. Just does. Why? For a chick (a chick he casually chokes out and casts off later anyway). No sweet 'power corrupts' temptation build up (with maybe a last second deep betrayal). Nope. Just a swift plot pivot. "Wait, you can save her? Ok, master. I'm evil now. Where's my red lightsaber? Does that come free with or do you all just take that out of my first check?"

The audience is never given the opportunity to experience his struggle. Weigh it over ourselves. No 'Indecent Proposal' presented where we could go "Damn! Maybe I'd go darkside myself!" Nope. We're on the outside looking in at a very bad movie. (no offense to those who've taken this to their hearts)

Looking back on this and the previous two movies, my other beef seems more obvious to me now. The one missing element that made the space absurdity of the first three so engaging: Han Solo.

Every character in the 'new 3' was desperately, bone crushingly, EARNEST. So earnest. Really, who could possibly be said to be 'cool' in these 3? Absolutely no one. Everyone was a frickin Jedi, and if there's one thing about the jedi, they are one self-serious, dry as toast, boring bitches. Seriously, has Samuel L. Jackson ever been less cool? Less 'flava?' No wise cracks. No Leia-Han smart assery = 'gee, guess I have to take this all seriously.' When your writing about blasters and 'the force' you need the one character up on the screen whose earthy and self interested. Rolls his eyes with you at some of the stupid shit.

Finally. Small point that SJKevin hit it above. Cutesy ass droids. Pisses me off to no end.

Droids to not pass time in hangers making lame jokey converstion, outloud, IN ENGLISH, to each other. They do not say 'oh, no!' or "Wait, can we talk this out?!' and the like as they're about to get sabered. That is the clearest possible signal a director can the audience that he thinks you are retarded. That is Jar-Jar level shit.

"Uh, I must've missed that bit in Star Wars. Refresh my memory please, I've only seen the movie 800 times."
---------------------

Well, in addition to the seen pointed out earlier, doesn't Han ask Lando whether he's concerned about being shut down our taken over by the Empire? And Lando's just a respectable businessman.

What kind of government just shuts businesses down for no good reason?

I'm a bit surprised at all the vitriol. I thought it was a pretty good flick despite its flaws.

Palpatine is just unambiguously a bad dude. I just don't see how anyone could think otherwise. He basically misleads Anakin who thinks he's doing the right thing. He misled Dooku, too (gad, that is a dumb name though). He misleads all of his apprentices for his own gain--sole control of the galaxy.

Palpatine's point to Vader is seductive--what is good depends on what side of the fence you're standing on FROM YOUR POINT OF VIEW . That's not to say there aren't absolutes, but a lot of bad people don't think they're being bad. They've just been misled.

Vader didn't enjoy being a bad guy. Too many people here have been reading too much Podohertz. That guy plainly didn't understand the original trilogy. Even after his turn, Vader only wanted peace. He was just misled as to how to acheive it. Re-watch Empire, particularly the end, and Sith throws it into a new light.

If Vader enjoyed being bad, he'd have killed Luke on the spot. He didn't. He just wants to restore order to the galaxy. He didn't know how it got so messed up in the first place.

Oh, and about the one guy who decided on the fly to blow up a planet without any qualms whatsoever... Uh, you sure you want to equate that with Hiroshima? I'm pretty sure we knew the Japanese had done some bad stuff before we did that, but maybe I'm wrong. And I figure Truman didn't just make that decision on the spot either. But I could be wrong.

Actually, the more I think about it, it's kind of dumb and offensive to even make the comparison. Shame on you.

Liked the duels with the exception of every single time Yoda fights.

Hated the dialogue.

Hated that he had to slip jar jar in at the end.

Liked Palpatine's Ric Flair impression when fighting Samuel's jedi character.

Hated Padme's ear muff scene.

Liked Anakin's final words to Obi Wan. The first time I ever actually believed the emotion he was supposed to be portraying.

Hated the concept of a robot (Grievous) with emphysema.

Hated the scene where ObiWan uses the force to close the hatch when he stows away on Padme's ship. Lazy bastard couldn't reach 6 inches?

Hated the wookie/tarzan redux.

Am I the only one who comes away with the inescapable conclusion that ObiWan is, one-on-one, the best duelist of all the jedi & sith?

His only real loss is to Dooku right (considering he takes a dive vs Vader in IV), and that's partially because he is handicapped both times by having to fight with Anakin.

All in all, I was still entertained.

Another point added to mine above: Tarkin in Star Wars either doesn't believe that Alderaan is a threat or doesn't really care. He makes pretty clear that, whatever the truth of what Leia is saying, he's blowing up the planet to prove a point.

I think it's funny that all of the folks who are up in arms about all the "useless" exposition in the new trilogy seem to think they needed more exposition in the old one. My bet is Lucas figured that he'd done enough that people would get the idea--the emperor's face is wrecked looking, he sounds evil, he's built a friggin' DEATH STAR, and he needs his DEATH STAR to keep order.

Tarkin explicitly says that what will keep star systems in line is FEAR. What more could Lucas really have done? Did anybody watch Star Wars and think that the empire had the consent of the governed?

You've just got to be kidding.

You can't really fault him for basically hitting you over the head with the obviousness of how evil the empire is without going into a government class to explain the merits of one system of government over another.

If the US government built a DEATH SATELLITE that could kill us individually with a laser from outer space to keep its constituent states and citizens in line, I think most of us would agree that'd be wrong.

A guy that would contrive a war just to gain power is a bad guy. Lucas isn't making an anti-war statement with that. Hell, he believed war was the solution to the problem in 4, 5, and 6. I don't see anything to indicate he thinks now that was wrong.

"Hated the concept of a robot (Grievous) with emphysema."

I think the idea is that he is an earlier version of what Vader will be, albeit a bit more mechanized.

I agree that the concept didn't quite work, though.

You know, I really thought about going to the big space movie this last weekend. Instead, I decided to drink alcohol and have sexual intercourse with a woman.

Geek powers activate!

I don't understand what all the bitching is about. The Magnificent Ambersons it ain't, but it gets the job done. Partially redeems the atrocities of Episode I.

I actually thought the descent-into-madness-and-lava arc was handled fairly well. Mr. Darth's acting is not as bad as everyone's saying; Natalie Portman's is worse. Nevertheless, the crude outlining of Anakin's relationship with her and how this causes attachment which leads to jealousy which leads to suffering which leads to the heartbreak of psoriasis which leads to a magma shampoo ... all that shows that he's at least TRYING to develop character. Give him a special-people-bus C for effort on that score and focus on the positive aspets.

Keep in mind that the dialogue is worse than bad, it's a distraction - block it out entirely and focus on the flannel-puppet-play dimensions of the characters and their relationships.

Space *opera*, right? Well, operas have vapid lyrics and sketchy plots. The only reason no one cares is they sound pretty. Did the movie look pretty? That's half the battle.

For those willing to quibble over the movie itself: isn't a lot of the outcome attributable to Samuel Jackson's lack of people skills? especially at the moment

(spolier spoiler)

when he has to rely on anakin - and anakin lops off his fucking arm instead. He's trying to call upon jedi solidarity a/o master-student respect, after pissing in Anakin's professional Cheerios throughout the first half of the movie. Like a Jedi David Brent. I'd be pissed off.

Yoda and Kenobi seem pretty good at practising what they preach vis a vis detachment and humility but Windu has a bug up his ass from the beginning. I find myself the only person I've seen to say: I actually thought Jackson did a pretty good job, assuming that he was meant to be a little off, qua jedi, a sign that they were going to seed. If not, which given Lucas' apparent disinterest in giving actors any subtleties like this to work with, probably not, then nevermind.

What I had mixed feelings was that EP III draws on a lot of things that happened in the SW EU.
Like Greivous wheezing was because he was damaged in the fight to capture Palpatine.

Its like Lucas was expecting you the fan to have sucked up all of this extra material so that he could show his story unencumbered.

That sad fact is the Kenobi and Palapatine actually had good performances. They just get overshadowed by Hamlet wanna be Christiansen and Baldy Portman.

I actually had a good time at the film. But I hope Lucas takes a page from Peter Jackson and puts back all the character development he cut out.

Ace, hold me like you did back on Naboo.

Palpatine's point to Vader is seductive--what is good depends on what side of the fence you're standing on FROM YOUR POINT OF VIEW . That's not to say there aren't absolutes, but a lot of bad people don't think they're being bad. They've just been misled.

But!!!...Obi-wan makes this exact same point in VI!...So evidently, Obi-wan agrees.

Was Julius Caesar bad for ending the Republic? Eh hard to say, would it be bad for our Republic to end? Yes, but that is because it is robust. But the Republic of Rome circa 40 BC, was corrupt and collapsing for years. As my old Roman History professor put it, Caesar did not kill the Republic he merely pronounced it dead. The same could be said for Palpatine. Look at the way the Senate operates like a freaking galatic UN, can you say more useless burearocracy. People take offense that Palpatine would "end" the Republic because they think of it as the US Republic. Wrong folks, would you be nearly as offended if the UN General (Anti-Israel) Assembly was disolved, I mean Come on!

Machiavelli makes the important point of Republics sliding into Monarchy, which is really dependent on the governed.

Lastly, the Alderaan issue, Palpatine nor Vader gave that order, it was Tarkin's alone, so it's hard to say it was representative of the Empire as a whole. Note that the next time a Death Star is used (except in attempt on a Rebel Base) it is designed for use against capital ships. (Maybe to lessen the temptation to future Tarkins.)

I thought it was ok, certainly the best of the prequels. However, the first half of the movie is pretty boring. The action scenes were so over-the-top my it all just started to run togther, to me. Sure, it was cool seeing Wookies and Chewbacca, but was that really necessary? I felt like Lucas was just ading in another OT character to keep people paying attention.

The love scene dialogue was awful, again. "Padme, the Jedi are revolting and the world is ending." "I'm afraid!" Yeah, no kidding.

The Qui-Gon thing was interesting but kind of a throw-away. Does this explain why Qui-Gon's body does not disappear but Yoda and Obi-Wan's does? Anakin's doesn't either at the end of epVI. Maybe I missed something.

As far as the politcal angle, I don't think there is much to it. Lucas's stories lack any semblance of nuance, and I think you can read whatever you want into them.

I think Grievous was a cyborg, not a robot. I thought the coughing thing was dumb too, until you see his heart and lungs under his exoskeleteon.

The ending made up for it. I thought that Lucas finally, finally showed soem character development with Anakin and made it beliveable. It was worth seeing for the last 30 minutes.

What a fucking waste of bandwidth.

You seem to have had much the same reaction I did. My big complaint is also a big, "What's the Point?"

After that first nausea inducing scene in space there is another where Grievous "The Lung" goes off in his fancy ship through fancy scenery and all sorts of fancy schmancy detail to talk to a hologram and then we are back on Curoscant. That was pure ego. A pure self congratulatory circle-jerk for the effects team. There was NO point in that scene. He could have had that conversation in his ship but no. The movie is full of these "Odes to Ego" and it is tiring.
It is infuriating what he chose to include was a bunch of filler and shit that doesn't matter.

You talk about script doctors polishing the dialog, and your right, but Lucas cannot conceive there is anything wrong with his dialog. Imagine how uninteresting and dispassionate his past love life and present must have been for those scenes to be the best he could come up with to bring love to the screen. The premise would have you believe that not only is this a great love, but a love so intense that this young man basically sold his soul to the devil to save his love's life. This is not what comes across.

Yeah we see the temptation of Anakin, but is it because he wants to be stronger or because he wants to save Padme? It isn't always clear what he wants more and that is a major failure in the story.

Why does Yoda have to talk in reversed sentences ALL the time? He didn't in Jedi and it was much more effective.

Like the second and third Matrix films, these three films should never have been made if they were not going to bring something new to the story.

Also, if anyone believe Lucas had this all written down thirty years ago before he started filming any of these movies, they are kidding themselves. He is making this shit up has he goes along. That is why the plot is lost and the narrative confusing or nonexistent.

The last scene we had of a Jedi worthy of the first three films is that brief moment in Episode I where Qui-gon sinks his light saber into the blast shield doors on the Trade Federation Ship. At that moment in the film, granted it was the first 5 minutes, I had a delightful hope the rest of the film would be just as cool. I was wrong and it has been going down hill ever since then.

"Throw a lot of action at the screen to impress the yabbos while constructing a confusing an unsatisfying point about peace being preferable to violence to impress the New York Times' film critic."

That comment in your post made me think about the very unsatisfying end to Rocky movie where Rocky had to fight the Russian. Rocky made some pro-peace speech at the end that had absolutely nothing to do with the rest of the movie.

I agree with your take that Episode III sucked. I posted a review at my blog (in which I avoided talking about politics).

I agree it sucks, but they all do so what does it matter. Lucas has made himself a multi-millionare feeding kool-aid to his cult followers.

Truth be told the lastest star wars sucks more for what was left on the cutting room floor, not what is in the theater.

Can you say Playboy bunny? I thought you could.

Geez, everybody. I throw some mud at the wall to see what sticks and you all start freaking out while I'm gone.

Especially you See-Dubya ;-).

The main reason I said what I said is because ROTS allows me to say it.

Before ROTS? Assumption is that the Empire is totally evil, even if we have to go on the words of the good guys (who *of course* would think the Empire is evil).

After ROTS? It's all a certain point of view.

THAT'S my point. I'm not defending blowing up a planet because *I*, Dave at Garfield Ridge, would blow up a planet if I had the chance (France? Sure). I'm defending it-- and the Empire itself-- because ROTS, building upon the prequels themselves, gives me plenty of ammunition to defend the Empire.

I just wonder if that was really Lucas's intention, and if it was, why?

Christ, it's as if this board never heard of "conversation" and "what if's?"

Hell, I'm not Cedarford, you know.

Cheers,
Dave at Garfield Ridge

Eh, these Star Wars threads are pathetic. Bunch of frickin' loosers you guys are. That said, I dig this Boba Fett though. I venture the face under the mask looks like a bastard cat, I mean something must be wrong with her to be that into this tripe.

Hmmm, Obi-Won may not be the best duelist in the galaxy in his prime but he is the best guy to take down Anakin. Nobody else living could elicit the same emotional response and near fatal mistakes that came of it. The only thing missing was a coup de grace. Kenobi must have been pretty pissed himself, leaving his former friend to slowly slide into the lava, or at least so he believes until Vader begins making himself known as the new Emporer's lead enforcer.

I would think in all the ways that truly mattered that Vader outranked Tarkin. If he didn't approve of the destruction of Alderaan he could easily have intervened. The Senate had been disbanded and the last vestiges of democracy swept away. It was time to go public with the Death Star's existence in a big way to make it clear what the ultimate authority now was. No screwing around, behave yourselves or we won't have to hunt down your family. We'll just dust the whole planet.

'Villains by Necessity' by Eve Forward is a fantasy novel that takes on the same 'balance' issue with some humor. The bad guys have to turn the tide against the forces of good or everything will be destroyed, drowned by light. It reads very much like a D&D campaign.

Ace:

The war here is of course all contrived, a "fictitious threat" if you will; both sides are pawns of Chancellor Palpatine. That really makes the movies sort of lame, because we know it really doesn't matter who wins in any particular engagement; Lucas' point is that war is futile, all created by the manipulations of the powerful.

Well, fine. But in that case, what the fuck does it matter if the Separtists win or the Republic wins? It doesn't.

Actually, it seems more like where you have a relativistic society, society will collapse and true good and evil will rise in the ashes of the old order.

Sounds like a historically valid point.

You just have to view the story arc over the entire saga.

Lucas is an asshat, but his story is truer that he could have possibly imagined.

Suggestion for a small, extra subplot in the upcoming enhanced DVDs:

1) Somewhere, somehow, there needs to be a planet named Penis Nine.

2) It should contain large quantities of undiscovered oil.

3) When the oil is found, a character needs to exclaim, "There's OIL on Penis Nine!!!"

Here's my 2 cents (previously posted at Slublog):

I took my eight year-old twins (a milestone, taking my sons to their first Star Wars movie) and enjoyed the hell out of it.Tons of action, lots of noise, very cool. Who cares about the wooden acting or the lousy lines.

But one thing political...am I the only one that notices the remarkable resemblance of Chancellor Palpatine (Ian McDiarmid) to Senator Robert (sheets) Byrd...especially as the chancellor moves towards the dark side? Just sayin'.

and Dave, your point about the prequels reletivizing the evil of the Empire seems exactly backwwards to me. Instead of approving of the early imperial actions, the saga shows how actual evil asserts itself in a relativistic age and flourishes (i.e. destroying a planet) upon taking over the old regime.

Maybe poorly executed, and not Lucas' intention, but even though Lucas made a shoddy product detail wise (bad dialogue and acting) the story maintains some timeless truths.

Haven't seen RotS yet. Have opinions anyway.

What we missed: A reason to hate the Empire. Really, in Lucas's revised moral-equivalency version, what is the difference between the Empire and the Republic? Not a lot. Empire blew up Alderaan? Hey, the Republic blew up the Death Star. Twice. In modern Liberal-speak, death is death, and it's always bad.

What should have happened: remember how there was a bigotry against droids in parts IV-VI? That could have been explained in I-III by showing how droids became dangerous, or society became too dependant on them which resulted in a backlash--something, anything. The "Droid army" doesn't wash as a reason because it never landed on Tatooine, or hardly anyplace else for that matter.

What never happened: why did the Jedi start losing their Force powers? Prequel I already determined that power over the Force was due to bacteria in the blood. Was the Sith force-feeding the Jedi penicillin? No, it happened simply because Lucas said so. Unless you're going to make the argument that a couple of Sith could suppress the Force powers of a few hundred or thousand Jedi, in which case you'd better work hard and fast explaining how any one Jedi could beat them.

What we've learned: I think Lucas was surprised at the success of the first film, and he was ill-prepared to fill out the rest of his story, and therefore started making shit up on the spot. Because nobody--I mean nobody--has told Lucas "No" in 25 years means his ego and perceived self-worth has grown unchecked during those years. The whole thing probably makes perfect sense in his mind, but he has utterly failed in explaining it to the rest of us. Which is his damned job.

Before ROTS? Assumption is that the Empire is totally evil, even if we have to go on the words of the good guys (who *of course* would think the Empire is evil).
---------------------------------------------------------

Again, you seem to want in the old movies the same exposition that's been roundly trashed in the new ones. I think Lucas figured he'd align the Empire with the Dark Side and let everyone kind of figure it out. . .

-------------------------------------------------
After ROTS? It's all a certain point of view.
-------------------------------------------------

Pretty much only for Vader, who was seduced by the Dark Side into thinking it was the path to peace and order.

The Emperor knows he's bad. Palpatine does enjoy being a bad guy.

-------------------------------------------------
THAT'S my point. I'm not defending blowing up a planet because *I*, Dave at Garfield Ridge, would blow up a planet if I had the chance (France? Sure). I'm defending it-- and the Empire itself-- because ROTS, building upon the prequels themselves, gives me plenty of ammunition to defend the Empire.
------------------------------------------------------------

This I just can't understand. A guy plunges a galaxy into chaos for his own benefit, turns an impressionable but good man to the Dark Side, and blows up planets once he gets his way. . .how can that be defended?

Saying you brought peace and order to the galaxy when you're the one who took both away in the first place isn't saying much. Vader doesn't know this, but the head of the Empire does. That's why the Empire is evil.

I've been planning to restart my blog to write this theory, but haven't found the time. Here's a rough sketch:

I think the "balance" is actually the only thing that works, and I think it's accidental, but it does work.

The "balance" isn't that there used to be 200 "light side" jedi and two "dark side" jedi, and now there are about equal numbers of each.

The balance is that the "light side" and the "dark side" of the force are artificial. The Republic-era Jedi are devoted to helping people, which is good, but they're afraid of the force - Yoda won't let Jedi have families or even, to the extent it can be avoided, have emotions, because they're afraid that personal goals will lead to corruption. (See Plato's Parable of the Ring, from The Republic).

On the other side is the Emperor, who also believes that emotions lead to the dark side, and uses this to corrupt Anakin.

The "balance" happens in RotJ, when Luke (and Anakin) reject both Yoda and the Emperor - the force is fundamentally a life force, and by accepting the "light side" and the "dark side," Luke gets mad enough to beat down Vader, but stays good enough to redeem him.

In desperation Luke forges a new ethic that rejects both the sterile zen-puritanism of the Council and the Nietche-style cult of the ubermenche sold by the Emperor. Anakin's love for his family is both his doom, and his redemption, and once he has experienced both, Luke and Leia are free to form a "balanced" view of the force.

All these deep analyses aside...

I saw it today. Great special effects. Kinda boring in spots. A lot of why should I care about this? going on. Incredibly ponderous dialog. Go see it if you've nothing better to do.

No big deal if you miss it. End of review.

Worst review ever...the idiots out there who thinks that movies conceived 30 years ago are somehow commenting on the politics of today are morons...plain and simple.

Stick to politics...your concept of art is retarded

"...the idiots out there who thinks..."????

Um, ok, Your mom.

Might want to review your fifth grade English textbook.

You probably wouldn't want anyone to think you're a "moron", or "retarded".

lol, Dogstar! You gotta love it.

SomeGuy:

Jar Jar appears to be mortally wounded at one point, but later returns as Darth Jar Jar.

You mean Darth Darth Binks?

"Meesa find yousa's faith lackin in faith disturbin"

A turn to the darkside would be an improvement for Jar Jar. It couldn't be any worse than seeing Yoda fight.

Ace, I'd like to make two points of my own on the latest (and hopefully, last) Star Wars film:

Regarding your post #7,

7. No one has yet explained why, if the idea was to hide Anikin Skywalker's child "where the agents of the Sith would never find him," the best place to do so was on Anikin's home world of Tatooine, with his brother's family, and under his actual given name of Luke Skywalker.

You forgot that Obi-Wan Kenobi then moved in next door to Owen and Beru, using the inventive pseudonym Ben Kenobi. It would therefore seem that Imperial Intelligence is the only intelligence service in the known galaxy that is even more incompetent than the CIA.

And, finally, your contention that:

Well, Anikin sure did bring balance to the Force. At the end of this trilogy, there are two Sith and two Jedi left alive (well, four, if you count the infants Leia and Luke, but you really can't count them, as they're not Jedi yet).

Balance. Two and two. Can't get much more balanced than that.

Did this stupid green puppet Yoda ever once consider the possibility that you don't want "balance" when your side is clearly winning?

Well, whatever George Lucas' politics might be, we've clearly established that Yoda must be a moderate Republican...

why didn't anakin/vader just cloned padme? they've managed to clone a whole army.

P... 9 - one of the rare things you ppl came up with that has some sex thing in it that was quite funny...