Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

I know Episode I has the title, but do we actually know who the phantom menace is? Is it Darth Maul? Is it Darth Sidious? Is it both? Who is it?

the sith

Your mum.

Sidious/The Sith

It's Palpatine.

Him too.

I can be mistaken, but isn't this asked around once every month?

Nope

Originally posted by Kazenji
Your mum. Don't be daft!

Originally posted by Jovan
I can be mistaken, but isn't this asked around once every month? I looked it up & couldn't find it once.

Originally posted by Jovan
I can be mistaken, but isn't this asked around once every month?

WRONG!!!!



Every week...

George Lucas.

The phantom from the opera

Originally posted by T-Wrecks
George Lucas.

Wrong. There nothing "phantom" about his menace.

Originally posted by Jovan
I can be mistaken, but isn't this asked around once every month?

Oh...

We're talking about that "phantom" menace.

Its Michael Bay next week.

Originally posted by queeq
Wrong. There nothing "phantom" about his menace.

Hahahaha, that's true, never mind

Darth Maul seemed pretty Phantom-y.

Clearly Darth Sidious, if you look at it as a "villain makes the plot" sort of archetype.

Qui-Gon.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
Qui-Gon.




Who the Phantom Menace is?

Bingo.

The greatest line from TPM:

"They must be dead by now. Destroy what's left of them."

Nope, Jorge is the phantom menace... that much is clear.

Originally posted by -kV-


Who the Phantom Menace is?

That guy's commentaries are just horrible. Every single point he makes is wrong and/or forced. Just atrocious in construction. I can't believe those vids got so many views.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Every single point he makes is wrong

Originally posted by dadudemon
That guy's commentaries are just horrible. Every single point he makes is wrong and/or forced. Just atrocious in construction. I can't believe those vids got so many views.

I don't agree with you. He makes a lot of sense.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien


Originally posted by queeq
I don't agree with you. He makes a lot of sense.


If course you two don't like what I have to say because I loved the PT and you two didn't. Obviously, you will agree with his fail. Most people would not disagree with opinions that coincide with their own. That would be weird if you did.


To be more on topic, I once considered making a massive youtube reply to all of his videos to point out why he's such an insufferable idiot and baby. That video posted in this thread has so much wrong with it that I literally could not agree with a single point of his and I can point out why he's such a fail idiot on all his points. He did not make a single legitimate point in his video. That is how forced most of his stuff really is.

yeah. their opinions don't count since they differ from your opinion. maybe you should type lots of stuff now.

Originally posted by dadudemon
If course you two don't like what I have to say because I loved the PT and you two didn't. Obviously, you will agree with his fail. Most people would not disagree with opinions that coincide with their own. That would be weird if you did.


To be more on topic, I once considered making a massive youtube reply to all of his videos to point out why he's such an insufferable idiot and baby. That video posted in this thread has so much wrong with it that I literally could not agree with a single point of his and I can point out why he's such a fail idiot on all his points. He did not make a single legitimate point in his video. That is how forced most of his stuff really is. Holy shit... are you the guy who wrote the 108 page counter-essay?

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
Holy shit... are you the guy who wrote the 108 page counter-essay?

I did not.

If I wrote the counter reply to his videos, it would probably take closer to 300 pages.


Almost every point he makes would require 1 paragraph, at least, to reply.



But where is this counter essay? I don't want to reinvent the wheel. I took off of school this semester so I will have a lot more time on my hands...a LOT more. I could add to his or use it as a base if I decide to make a youtube video reply.

It was on Megaupload, so... here's the article about it.

Actually, this is what is wrong about it: some people take SW too seriously. A lot of fans were disappointed, others were not. I think Stoklasa/Plinkett voiced the disappointment of a lot of fans very well. And it's quite clear where he comes from: he considers SW a simple movie, with simple constructions and clear cut characters. Like they were in the OT.
I guess in the PT Lucas tried something else, maybe he tried to elevate the material, I dunno. Personally I think he failed big time, basically for all the reason Stoklasa pointed out.

And yet, Stoklasa doesn't go out and rant. No he makes a simple video satire about an old man who kills people in his basement and makes comments, not without a lack of tongue-in-cheek, that are from a storytelling point of view quite valid.

But of course, you don't have to agree with him. But as avid PT-defenders point out that a lot of people went to see the PT and a lot of people love the PT, the same argument goes for Plinkett's adventures: a lot of people watched it and a lot of people agreed with him.

I think he did great: he made his issues with SW into a form of popular entertainment. And it's like with the PT: you don't HAVE to like it.

But there is one thing you gotta admit about the PT: you certainly need a lot of background from interviews and EU to fully understand what Lucas was trying to do. The problem is that a lot is not IN the movies or it is so subtle that is really passes by a lot of people. It is certainly flawed storywise, and I do believe blind fandom kinda masks these flaws. And that is fine, but I was disappointed and still am. And WHY I am disappointed, well... watch Plinkett's reviews. He voices my feelings and opinions very well. AND... in an entertaining way. At least as important.

BTW... I hear the 100 page rebuttal isn't great literature either, just a guy ranting because someone didn't like his favorite movie. Well...

Lord Sidious.

Originally posted by queeq
Actually, this is what is wrong about it: some people take SW too seriously. A lot of fans were disappointed, others were not. I think Stoklasa/Plinkett voiced the disappointment of a lot of fans very well. And it's quite clear where he comes from: he considers SW a simple movie, with simple constructions and clear cut characters. Like they were in the OT.
I guess in the PT Lucas tried something else, maybe he tried to elevate the material, I dunno. Personally I think he failed big time, basically for all the reason Stoklasa pointed out.

And yet, Stoklasa doesn't go out and rant. No he makes a simple video satire about an old man who kills people in his basement and makes comments, not without a lack of tongue-in-cheek, that are from a storytelling point of view quite valid.

But of course, you don't have to agree with him. But as avid PT-defenders point out that a lot of people went to see the PT and a lot of people love the PT, the same argument goes for Plinkett's adventures: a lot of people watched it and a lot of people agreed with him.

I think he did great: he made his issues with SW into a form of popular entertainment. And it's like with the PT: you don't HAVE to like it.

But there is one thing you gotta admit about the PT: you certainly need a lot of background from interviews and EU to fully understand what Lucas was trying to do. The problem is that a lot is not IN the movies or it is so subtle that is really passes by a lot of people. It is certainly flawed storywise, and I do believe blind fandom kinda masks these flaws. And that is fine, but I was disappointed and still am. And WHY I am disappointed, well... watch Plinkett's reviews. He voices my feelings and opinions very well. AND... in an entertaining way. At least as important.

BTW... I hear the 100 page rebuttal isn't great literature either, just a guy ranting because someone didn't like his favorite movie. Well... Well said.


And it's not great; I read the first two pages when it came out and had to stop. The guy seemed to really take the reviews personally. He probably invested himself in the prequels to such an extent that he couldn't stand it when they were deconstructed.

My rebuttal is 109 pages. Got him beat by 1 page just cause I had to.

Nah, I'm kidding. I will admit that I think some, not all, but some of Stoklasa's points are just way too nitpicky, and some of the points are really valid. At the end of the day, the character he plays for the review is hilarious, and it's hard not to be somewhat entertained by it, even if one doesn't necessarily agree with everything he says.

I mean in one of his Star Trek reviews, he's complaining because Picard enters the bridge of the Enterprise from the left side instead of the right. Things like that are what I'm talking about. He even ripped "First Contact" apart and I think that was by far one of the better Star Trek movies. Just my opinion though.

He makes many valid points, and some that are too nitpicky in my opinion, but like I said, he's funny and entertaining.

Nitpicking is part of the whiny Plinkett character though, part of the entertainment. If you watch the Half-in-the-Bag reviews, you see the other side of Stoklasa the Reviewer.

I also liked the Plinkett ambiguity in his very recent Titanic review: "the best and worst film ever made"... clever and valid on both counts.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
He probably invested himself in the prequels to such an extent that he couldn't stand it when they were deconstructed.

I have a similar idea about the PT Haters: they had invested themselves so much into hating the PT before it came out that when it did come out, and was actually pretty good, it was too late to go back.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I have a similar idea about the PT Haters: they had invested themselves so much into hating the PT before it came out that when it did come out, and was actually pretty good, it was too late to go back.


not sure if trolling or just infinitely dense.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I have a similar idea about the PT Haters: they had invested themselves so much into hating the PT before it came out that when it did come out, and was actually pretty good, it was too late to go back. Granted there's definitely people like that out there. They develop an opinion and their ego demands they stick to it forever. It's especially worse when it's preconceived.


For myself, I used to... "like" is a strong word, but I used to "not mind" the PT. I've come across posts from 5 years ago where I defended the prequels, saying "they're not that bad." Exposure to more films, and (admittedly) seeing people's reviews helped me develop a better sense of discernment. I can't find much that I'd call 'good' in the prequels anymore, or even 'entertaining'.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I have a similar idea about the PT Haters: they had invested themselves so much into hating the PT before it came out that when it did come out, and was actually pretty good, it was too late to go back.

Insanely incorrect dismissive reductionist POV as usual when you talk on the subject of those who did not like the PT.

There have been many valid reasons for the profound disappointment felt by fans, many of which really gave it a chance and needed the films to be awesome..

'Pretty good' does not describe great Star Wars.
Epic, superfluous, legendary, profound etc etc does though.

This is why our expectations were positive prerelease on all 3 movies. Many of these fans, such as myself have defended aspects of PT. But they see the whole picture and cannot help but describe the whole painting, not just what the reds and greys are doing.

I personally didn't know anyone that had negative views of The Phantom Menace before it came out.

Every single Star Wars uber-fan I knew was overly excited and looked forward to more Star Wars. Including myself; it was like Christmas in May.

See...?

Originally posted by Robtard
I personally didn't know anyone that had negative views of The Phantom Menace before it came out.

Every single Star Wars uber-fan I knew was overly excited and looked forward to more Star Wars. Including myself; it was like Christmas in May.

Except we got something more akin to Easter, with a couple rotten eggs. You knowa whatta mesa sayin.

Smelly smelly 'eggs' indeed.

I remember all the reviews for Ep. III about it being dark, and "adult" and better than the other two. I was so f*cking excited. And so underwhelmed.



I've also never forgotten a review calling the romance in Ep. II "one of the best ever onscreen" and how believable it was. I'm pretty sure that reviewer was Stephanie Meyer.

even ebert gave it 4 stars. im pretty sure i came then. was anticipating a great film.

on the bright side i forgave ebert long ago.

Ebert also loved Magnolia and f*cking despised North, so...


I don't know what to make of Ebert's reviews anymore.

Originally posted by Sadako of Girth
Insanely incorrect dismissive reductionist POV as usual when you talk on the subject of those who did not like the PT.

That is not the only reason (the one I provided that you quoted) of course. But it is one of the many. It was only a re-envisioning of Lord Lucian's quote.

Originally posted by Sadako of Girth
'Pretty good' does not describe great Star Wars.

I think it does in the scenario I provided for those individuals. The ones that would have hated the PT, no matter what, raged harder at the PT because it was actually pretty good rather than just good, okay, or bad. It was "pretty good" to them, not to me. For me, it was awesome and among the best cinema experiences of my life (all 3 films).

Originally posted by Sadako of Girth
Many of these fans, such as myself have defended aspects of PT.

This was a relief to read. I had almost relegated you to another hypocritical PT hater.


Originally posted by Robtard
I personally didn't know anyone that had negative views of The Phantom Menace before it came out.

I know about half a dozen. All from the internet.

Originally posted by Robtard
Every single Star Wars uber-fan I knew was overly excited and looked forward to more Star Wars. Including myself; it was like Christmas in May.

Every person, in real life, was like that (of the uber fans). And when they saw TPM, they said it was awesome, I had to see it, and it was a one of those things you HAD to see before it exited the theaters.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I know about half a dozen. All from the internet.

Every person, in real life, was like that (of the uber fans). And when they saw TPM, they said it was awesome, I had to see it, and it was a one of those things you HAD to see before it exited the theaters.

Six people isn't a lot, unless you just happen to know six people IRL and the interwebs.

Except those six I assume?

ddm needs an empty chair to debate with.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Every person, in real life, was like that (of the uber fans). And when they saw TPM, they said it was awesome, I had to see it, and it was a one of those things you HAD to see before it exited the theaters.

Yep, same here. I was already very active on SW forums. And everyone was excited as far as I remember. We all knew digital effects were so much better, we had seen Jurassic Park and the trailer looked awesome.

I wanted to like it a lot, I tried defending it a lot (I liked the way the pod race was cut) but it also left me underwhelmed. And like with any movie that doesn't seem to grab me I try to analyse WHY it doesn't grab me. And looking under the surface there is so much wrong with TPM and AOTC, the characters don't work, it's a very forced sequence of events ("things happen because the script says they must" and it misses a soul... there is a desire to succeed, but it misses the point on so many counts. AOTC is with ROTS even worse. ROTS at least had proper pacing and worked better as a movie, but the characters were still lousy and, worse, on many count contradictory to the OT.

But no, I don't remember a large group of fans who hated TPM before it came out... and even the disappointment grew slowly I think. I always felt we all WANTED to love it... because we loved SW so much. It's not a blind hate.

Originally posted by queeq
...And looking under the surface there is so much wrong with TPM and AOTC, the characters don't work, it's a very forced sequence of events ("things happen because the script says they must" and it misses a soul... there is a desire to succeed, but it misses the point on so many counts. AOTC is with ROTS even worse. ROTS at least had proper pacing and worked better as a movie, but the characters were still lousy and, worse, on many count contradictory to the OT...

Queeg,

I had a revelation as I read your reply. You're right, the PT didn't have a "soul". It was a lot of cold characters blah blahing back and forth and the story moved in the direction each fan predicted it would go since the the PT was announced. But the "soul" the PT didn't have was a certain character named HAN SOLO. Han is what gave the OT character, life, inspiration and personality. Who is bitching all the time about crazy Princesses and Old Wizards? Who is oddly paired with a 7 foot hairy beast? Who continuously appears to save everybody's ass from the fire? Who does the audience relate to? A princess? A farm boy with Force powers? No, a regular everyday guy working to make a living in the GL universe. If there were a Han Solo type character in the PT, I think it would've turned out much better. But it takes itself too seriously and the dialogue doesn't have the same flare without the energy of a scoundrel mixed in it. We needed an "everyday guy" in the PT to relate to, and no, Jar Jar wasn't him.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
Ebert also loved Magnolia and f*cking despised North, so...


I don't know what to make of Ebert's reviews anymore.
This: "The critics slap labels on you and then expect you to talk inside their terms."

The Sith.

Originally posted by ROTJ Vader
The Sith.
Specifically Palpatine.

Originally posted by Kickballjedi
Queeg,

I had a revelation as I read your reply. You're right, the PT didn't have a "soul". It was a lot of cold characters blah blahing back and forth and the story moved in the direction each fan predicted it would go since the the PT was announced. But the "soul" the PT didn't have was a certain character named HAN SOLO. Han is what gave the OT character, life, inspiration and personality. Who is bitching all the time about crazy Princesses and Old Wizards? Who is oddly paired with a 7 foot hairy beast? Who continuously appears to save everybody's ass from the fire? Who does the audience relate to? A princess? A farm boy with Force powers? No, a regular everyday guy working to make a living in the GL universe. If there were a Han Solo type character in the PT, I think it would've turned out much better. But it takes itself too seriously and the dialogue doesn't have the same flare without the energy of a scoundrel mixed in it. We needed an "everyday guy" in the PT to relate to, and no, Jar Jar wasn't him.

To me it's not just Han Solo. The OT has a very simple set up, character wise:
1. Simple everyday farmboy - an everyman, you can relate to that
2. A beautiful princess locked up (in a tower?)
3. A pirate, a bit naughty, the way we like to be
4. An older man, a grandfather type
5. A bad guy in a big bad suit.

Basic fairytale characters that we already knew from numerous childhood stories, but now in a completely new look, world etc.
Plus it had a fairly indepth story about a father and a son. And basically that's it. PT wanted to score on too many counts: politics, profound characters with many layers, spectacular action scenes. It wanted too much and it turned out as too less.

But I agree with you: it takes itself waaaaay to seriously. The PT suffers from pretentiousness.

I know how the PT feels. I'm convinced that my opinion is always right, when it turns that I really just know everything. It was a very humbling epiphany.

The phantom from the opera

Oakley Sunglasses


http://garden.fulltomlins.com/1.jpghttp://garden.fulltomlins.com/2.jpghttp://garden.fulltomlins.com/3.jpghttp://garden.fulltomlins.com/4.jpghttp://garden.fulltomlins.com/5.jpg

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
I know how the PT feels. I'm convinced that my opinion is always right, when it turns that I really just know everything. It was a very humbling epiphany.

Oh, I noticed that.

the title basically sums up the sense of the film. Absolutely nothing in it makes any sense at all, the characters are wooden and stupid.
The only part that makes clearish sense is Palpatine creating a crisis on Naboo to use it to try and remove Chancellor Valorum from office so that he can get the sympathy vote and become chancellor.
The rest of the story is mindbogglingly complexly bad, with a few coolish special effects n a half decent duel at the end.
To quote Simon Pegg, phantom menace was "a jumped up firework display of a toy advert"

Originally posted by queeq
To me it's not just Han Solo. The OT has a very simple set up, character wise:
1. Simple everyday farmboy - an everyman, you can relate to that
2. A beautiful princess locked up (in a tower?)
3. A pirate, a bit naughty, the way we like to be
4. An older man, a grandfather type
5. A bad guy in a big bad suit.

Basic fairytale characters that we already knew from numerous childhood stories, but now in a completely new look, world etc.
Plus it had a fairly in depth story about a father and a son. And basically that's it. PT wanted to score on too many counts: politics, profound characters with many layers, spectacular action scenes. It wanted too much and it turned out as too less.

But I agree with you: it takes itself waaaaay to seriously. The PT suffers from pretentiousness.


Im not sure how serious it was taken, the story and the characters certainly weren't thought out. Parts of it were like Lucas had written it just after he'd filled out his tax returns and was a bit upset about it. the story was bumbling bullshit.
You gotta wander what his production crew were thinking if they read the script properly when George turned it in

Well, the CREW is not really a criterium. The crew made a fool of Lucas when he was filming ANH in 1976, they thought LUcas was making total rubbish. Look how wrong they were.

But I think the PT suffers a little from being taken TOO seriously. they want everything to be complex: situations (taxation of trade routes), the political system (insanely huge Senate with a lot of (superficial) politicking going on), the Force (midichlorians and virgin birth), the characters (darkish, an attempt at multilayeredness), funny (JarJar), stuff for adults (darkness, complex world), stuff for kids (Now this is podracing).

It's a big pile of everything.... and therefore of nothing really.

Originally posted by queeq
Well, the CREW is not really a criterium. The crew made a fool of Lucas when he was filming ANH in 1976, they thought LUcas was making total rubbish. Look how wrong they were.

But I think the PT suffers a little from being taken TOO seriously. they want everything to be complex: situations (taxation of trade routes), the political system (insanely huge Senate with a lot of (superficial) politicking going on), the Force (midichlorians and virgin birth), the characters (darkish, an attempt at multilayeredness), funny (JarJar), stuff for adults (darkness, complex world), stuff for kids (Now this is podracing).

It's a big pile of everything.... and therefore of nothing really.

Got your point there, but honestly during the production you gotta wonder what the cast n crew were thinking with regards to the dialogue and the sense of the story.
I do think that George tried to throw too much in there with regards to thinking about merchendising, special effects, budget, amount of characters, audiences was aiming it to, n the importance of Darth Vader.
Writing, directing, having the final say on everything, the things George forgot about were writing an engaging story, characters personalities, the fact that dialogue and directing have never been his strengths, all the most essential parts of good films were considered secondary in PT's production

The writing at the time of ANH was crap too at times. Remember Harrison Ford's famous anecdote: "You can write this sh!t, George, but you can't say it." But at the time, George was a little open to suggestions, so the cast ditched some of the lines and made them work.

At the time of the PT however, George was the big boss. He is the one who hired you based on his own script, told you what to do etc. He became the Emperor... in a way. It's rather impossible to see how it turns out. A lot of directors have full control of their work (Spielberg, Fincher, Kubrick at the time). The amount of room they allow for other talents to contribute doesn't say much about the end product. Actors and crew do not always have a grasp on what a director has in mind exactly. He may use stuff differently that you imagine.

But all that is in the past. It's in the hands of Abrams now.

Originally posted by queeq
The writing at the time of ANH was crap too at times. Remember Harrison Ford's famous anecdote: "You can write this sh!t, George, but you can't say it." But at the time, George was a little open to suggestions, so the cast ditched some of the lines and made them work.

At the time of the PT however, George was the big boss. He is the one who hired you based on his own script, told you what to do etc. He became the Emperor... in a way. It's rather impossible to see how it turns out. A lot of directors have full control of their work (Spielberg, Fincher, Kubrick at the time). The amount of room they allow for other talents to contribute doesn't say much about the end product. Actors and crew do not always have a grasp on what a director has in mind exactly. He may use stuff differently that you imagine.

But all that is in the past. It's in the hands of Abrams now.


N his co-operation's increase in funds through merchandising and computer games was what turned george to the dark side.
George has never been known as an actors director, and it was clear the way he filmed the prequels that he used the actors as tools more than people playing characters, most of the dialogue scenes the camera work was amateur n done in one or 2 takes, occasionally 3, n alot of the action scenes were used to show off what he could do with his computers n highly choreographed

I'm glad Star Wars 7 is in the hands of filmmakers and writers who know how to make good n engaging movies. Hopefully they will deliver, n star wars movies will be great again

George was never an 'actors' director', true. But he did make the excellent THX-1138 and American Graffiti. Plus at the time of ANH he did confide enough in his actors and relaxed a little more when they changed stuff for the better.

The number of takes is irrelevant, BTW. Clint Eastwood is also a director who does very few takes, yet he IS considered an actor's director. I don't think there is only one way to work with actors. Different filmmakers, different approaches.

Sam Mendes: lot of room for actors
Coens: No room for actors, everything is preplanned into great detail
Stanley Kubrick: wanted actors to create more room in themselves, leading to sometimes many many takes (read: rehearsals on camera).
Robert Altman: considered a real actor's director, but one who focussed on casting and did very little on set directions

Judge the result, not the way movies are made. There are so many factors that contribute. And with the PT, all I can say is that Lucas failed to breathe any life into it. Things happened because the script demanded them to happen, and Lucas wrote the script. It's clear who is responsible.

Originally posted by queeq
George was never an 'actors' director', true. But he did make the excellent THX-1138 and American Graffiti. Plus at the time of ANH he did confide enough in his actors and relaxed a little more when they changed stuff for the better.

The number of takes is irrelevant, BTW. Clint Eastwood is also a director who does very few takes, yet he IS considered an actor's director. I don't think there is only one way to work with actors. Different filmmakers, different approaches.

Sam Mendes: lot of room for actors
Coens: No room for actors, everything is preplanned into great detail
Stanley Kubrick: wanted actors to create more room in themselves, leading to sometimes many many takes (read: rehearsals on camera).
Robert Altman: considered a real actor's director, but one who focussed on casting and did very little on set directions

Judge the result, not the way movies are made. There are so many factors that contribute. And with the PT, all I can say is that Lucas failed to breathe any life into it. Things happened because the script demanded them to happen, and Lucas wrote the script. It's clear who is responsible.

Its the way they are made that get results. Im judging the results by the PT trilogy.
N Clint Eastwood is an actors director because he is clear what he wants from his actors and what they want from him before they shoot. Im not sure George knew fully what he wanted from his actors in the PT, n an example of that is that it was never clear what the clone wars was over. Ian McDiarmid said that George didn't know himself. The camera work, especially during the dialogue scenes, was static n basic, n lazily edited

The results are gotten by a vision of what works and what to convey. Lucas knew very well what he wanted to see and to convey. Too bad a lot of that was either pretentious or boring or he failed to communicate it filmically. He has a thing in his head and wants it that way. You can see it in his directing of actors. He seems to have trouble conveying the heart of what he wants to convey, he just has a form in his head... and that form just doesn't work (anymore?).

It is th strangest thing. Reading those wonderful new Making Of...books (ROTJ coming out one of these days!!! Yayyy), Lucas really knew what he was doing with the OT. But he did let other people (Kasdan, Kerschner, Marquand to a lesser extent, and the actors) add their bit. Especially the latter seems to lack completely, combined with the fact that Lucas seems to want to explain a lot these days. He's become a bit... boring. And he forgot the heart of the matter, though he rally wanted to get down to that. It's tragic really... he really is DARTH VADER.

Originally posted by queeq
The results are gotten by a vision of what works and what to convey. Lucas knew very well what he wanted to see and to convey. Too bad a lot of that was either pretentious or boring or he failed to communicate it filmically. He has a thing in his head and wants it that way. You can see it in his directing of actors. He seems to have trouble conveying the heart of what he wants to convey, he just has a form in his head... and that form just doesn't work (anymore?).

It is th strangest thing. Reading those wonderful new Making Of...books (ROTJ coming out one of these days!!! Yayyy), Lucas really knew what he was doing with the OT. But he did let other people (Kasdan, Kerschner, Marquand to a lesser extent, and the actors) add their bit. Especially the latter seems to lack completely, combined with the fact that Lucas seems to want to explain a lot these days. He's become a bit... boring. And he forgot the heart of the matter, though he rally wanted to get down to that. It's tragic really... he really is DARTH VADER.

the originals were more a collaborative effort, and lucas was more willing to listen to others n knew at that time that directing actors and dialogue were not his strengths, which is why the 3 guys you mentioned were brought in.

George really went from a rogue film-maker wanting to be different and go against the system to becoming part of the system.
We can blame for...well basically everything to do with the horrible prequels, but the production team he hired also carry a bit of blame for not challenging him on some of his dubious ideas, most especially rick mccallum. His job as the producer was to oversee the films and give constructive feedback where necessary, like saying "Jar Jar shouldnt talk like this" or "People dont talk like this, we need to change this line of dialogue" "Maybe we should get a better angle on this shot" but he didn't, he was as constructive as a doormat.
it is interesting watching the behind the scenes footage of the prequels and the crew look either in awe or scared around george most of the time, but you do see moments now n again when they look a bit baffled or confused.

Any part of this article feel like a mirror?

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
Any part of this article feel like a mirror?
Yep lol

Amen

The "Phantom Menace" could also be the Trade Federation's blockade and treaty demands. It was not a real conflict, but rather something concocted by Sidious to provoke a reaction and bait the Jedi into Senate into a real war.

Concocted by Sidious... so Sidious is the phantom menace.

1W7c8QghPxk



I think he was going for world domination. The name of the plan says everything.

Yeah I agree with the Phantom Menace being the Sith, as they are thought to be dead....so yeah Sidious.

You don't really need a HOW in the PT when all of your enemies and obstacles are mental vegetables.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
Concocted by Sidious... so Sidious is the phantom menace.


It really depends on which meaning of "phantom" you use. From Miriam-Webster, here are several meanings of the word and who or what it points to.

1)
A. Something apparent to sense but with no substantial existence.
The Separatists! The Jedi could perceive the separatists (but not Sidious) so they were apparent to sense, and as soon as Palpatine was done with them he made them vanish - Poof! So they had no substantial existence.
Palpatine! The Jedi could see Palpatine, but he was merely a deceptive facade for Sidious.

B. Something elusive or visionary.
Could be either Palpatine or the Sith! Both were elusive to the Jedi; in fact, if I remember correctly Obi-Wan used that very word in the opening scene of the movie.

C. An object of continual dread or abhorrence.
The Sith (rather than Sidious himself)! The Jedi abhorred and dreaded the Sith and all they stood for, but they did not know who Sidious was so they only dreaded him as the theoretical current embodiment of the Sith

2) Something existing in appearance only.
We are back to the Separatists and/or Palpatine again. They appeared to be the enemy of the Republic but in fact were nothing, whereas the Sith could not be seen but were very real!

Is it possible that is sometimes spend too much time thinking about words? Nah!

I'm focusing on the 'menace' part. There's only one menace in the film(s). The Sith and the Sith's schemes. Specifically one Sith, named Sidious. And all his schemes.


The 'Phantom' part is just a flowery addition. They could have easily renamed the film Star Wars Episode I: The Obvious Menace.

I might be the odd one out here, but personally I thought "The Phantom Menace" was a good title. Call me crazy, but I also find it to be not the most entertaining prequel, but the one that felt the most human.

The title I struggle with is "Attack of the Clones." For starters, when you think of the word "attack" you generally don't associate that with anything good, and the Clones in this movie are with the good guys...so that made little sense to me.

Aside from the lousy title, I'm not ashamed to admit that I actually think this movie had some of the best stuff from the PT....but had equally, if not more, the worst stuff as well.

I have the most problem with 'Revenge of the Sith". "Attack of the Clones" can at least be explained. There are clones in it, and at one point, they attack someone (the droids).


But what do the Sith want revenge for? It's never explained why they're irked. And for that matter, what's a Sith? We're not told anything about them and the most the movie implies is that they're bad guys who use the Dark Side. But what are they?

And I'd call RotS the most human film. TPM may not have had Hayden Christensen emoting, but at least RotS had emoting. Grown up Anakin was at least a person with traits, albeit violent, obsessive, homicidal, sociopathic traits. But still traits. Everyone in TPM was either monotone, deadpan, lifeless, or Jar Jar. F*cking boring.

I do like ROTS, a lot.

The clones do attack in EP2, I just feel like the word itself is more of a bad guy word. But that's just me.

You're right. It's not really explained why they want revenge. I always assumed it had to do with a line from TPM "The Sith have been extinct for a millennium..." and my guess was that the Jedi had wiped them out. But in most cases, the audience should never be left to assume. This should have been fleshed out a lot more.

One thing people say ruined the PT is the overuse of CGI and special effects. Oddly enough, TPM had the least amount of both as well as the most popular villain of the PT, but still is somehow regarded as the worst film.

I actually thought, (and I know by now I'm in the minority here) that Liam Neeson did a great job. The scenes on Tatooine with Qui-Gon, Anakin, and his mom I thought were nice as well. I bought it. I also loathed Sebulba, Watto, and always felt happy watching Anakin win the podrace for his freedom. The were plenty of monotone characters, but there was plenty for me to like as well.

People may not have liked kid Anakin, but...whether or not it was the right approach, I totally understand what George was trying to do with it. He was attempting to convey Anakin as an innocent child with unlimited and gifted potential. I personally enjoyed it and never understood why Lucas was crucified for this. If TPM was the first ever SW movie made, guaranteed no one would have had a problem with it. It's just because it was "different" and the OT didn't have a little kid.

Yes, Jar Jar sucked, but when I was a kid, I didn't care. I went and saw TPM 4 times because it had an awesome racing sequence and a guy with a double bladed lightsaber.

As a kid I thought it was a fun adventure, and I've carried that nostalgia with me even to this day.

Even more amazing is the fact that TPM is now 15 years old, yet many of us have been on here for 10+ years still talking about it like it came out yesterday.

With that in mind, I can't imagine these movies are really as bad as we make them out to be. They were certainly flawed, but I think we love to hate it because it's not as good as the OT, as opposed to being the worst set of films ever made.

They are as bad, if you turn off the nostalgia blinders. A common defence of them I hear often is that people compare them too much to the originals and they wouldn't seem as bad if they weren't tied together. Yes, they would be. They would still be just as bad.

These aren't just bad Star Wars films, they're bad films, period. They're poorly written, acted, paced, blocked, framed, and executed. The one saving grace no can or has complained about is John Williams' score. I liked the PT a helluva lot more than the OT when I was younger, to the point that I still can't say I've seen the originals more. But I developed the ability to discriminate between feel-good youthful memories, and an appreciation for film. These movies deserve all the flak they receive, as disappointing followups/prequels to a prior-established beloved franchise, and as awful examples of cinema in general.


What Eps. II and III have going for them over TPM is a combination of almost no Jar Jar, and a hilariously bad acted Anakin. The "I don't like sand" scene will always make me laugh. Throw in some Palpatine being so delightfully evil and spirited in RotS and you've got yourself some entertainment. That's the point of film, to entertain, in some fashion or another (whether they intend for that fashion or not). Tommy Wiseau's The Room is worse that the PT in every aspect, but it's utter terribleness makes it entertaining, giving it worth. AotC and RotS are bad films, but they at least cross in to entertaingly bad territory.


TPM is just. So. Boring. We get a kinda, sorta, okayish lightsaber fight at the end, but it's still highly choreographed and using characters I don't care about. Good on Liam Neeson for having a reputation outside of Star Wars, but he sucked just as much as everyone else did. Boring. Lifeless. Stale. Monotone. Dull. Etc. No emotion or investment. I love hating these films because they deserve it more than most.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
But what do the Sith want revenge for? It's never explained why they're irked. And for that matter, what's a Sith? We're not told anything about them and the most the movie implies is that they're bad guys who use the Dark Side. But what are they?

Yes, they don't explain it. I remember Maul telling Sidious they would have their revenge, but for what he doesn't make clear.

Maybe the Sith want revenge on the Jedi for nearly exterminating them, reducing the Sith to only two individuals who must go into hiding until the time is right for them to rise up again and defeat the Jedi. If so, it was a perfect *** for tat revenge since they did exactly that back at the Jedi!

But that scenario doesn't account for the "Rule of Two" which implies it is the Sith's own choice to have only two at a time. Perhaps the Rule of Two was created by the Sith to save face: "The Jedi didn't reduce us to two, we wanted it all along. You see, we have this rule..."

Whatever the revenge is officially for, and whatever the reason their are only two Sith, I think the symmetricality of two secret Sith reducing the Jedi Order to only two secret Jedi is interesting. And I think I heard once that EP VI was originally titled REVENGE of the Jedi. Hmmmmm.

It was, but Lucas changed the title at the last minute. He realized that 'return' is one letter shorter than 'revenge', and that by making the change he would save over $1,000 in ink on all the movie's products.

A garbage man!

Where?

Sidious is the Phantom Menace

Really???