Personally I'd give AOTC a D or an E. There are no likable characters, excruciatingly bad dialogue, a poorly executed and emotionally distant story line, weak themes, bad pacing, enormous plot holes, craptastic villians, bad directing, clinical and jarring set design, oh and fvcking awful acting performances.
The only good thing is the action, and even that is middling to poor.
I award it no points and may god have mercy on Lucas' soul.
__________________
Last edited by Nephthys on Jun 17th, 2011 at 09:40 PM
Again, at no point is the romance highlighted as 'doomed' in the movie. Not to mention the romance is just atrocious altogether.
Which was extremely poorly executed and is simply another example of Lucas dropping the ball with good potential. There is no impact, no weight in these themes.
'If only.... Senator Amidala were here.....'
__________________
Last edited by Nephthys on Jun 17th, 2011 at 09:56 PM
[SPOILER - highlight to read]: The reality is that only one of us tries and succeeds to find both merit and criticism in both of the films and can articulate these reasons without relying on double standards or general emo-inspired rants when his opponent is not ensnared by the so-called allure and depth (lololololol) of a fictional clown; the other person is simply unwilling or unable to look beyond his preference and bias, slathering one film in accolade after accolade and burying the other beneath a mountain of pejoratives and criticisms: Essentially, he looks at one film as infallible (when it isn't) and the other as meritless (when it isn't), indicating that he, in fact, is the fanboy. You'd be this "other person" btw. (But I still love you.)
Last edited by RagingBoner on Jun 17th, 2011 at 11:16 PM
[SPOILER - highlight to read]: He's not. He's every bit as unambiguously evil as, say, Palpatine; neither of them are deep characters with especially 'complex' or 'deep' motivations. Doesn't prevent them from being good characters or good villains, but they ain't Magneto.
[SPOILER - highlight to read]: It was also entirely accurate, which is why debating the issue is pointless. You hilariously mention fanboyism earlier in this thread, but only one of us is able and willing to discuss the successes and pitfalls of both films. You are unambiguously pro-TDK and have nothing good to say about these films; which is fine, you're entitled to your preferences, but it makes the accusation of fanboyism all the more amusing. It makes me chuckle.
Because Plinket's points are almost all incorrect and ignore certain aspects of logic and the movie's story line. They are enjoyable though.
Anyway I'm not a fan of AotC (the only SW movie I actually dislike) but I don't see any of these as plot holes save for perhaps 12. Almost all of them can be explained away and, most importantly, they don't detract from the movie enjoyment or break the suspension of disbelief.
Yes, he really is. Unambiguously evil? No complex motivations? Did you even watch the same movie as me? The movie is about he and Batmans struggle over the soul of Gotham City, the struggle between these two people and their two perceptions of the world. The Jokers motivations? To prove that humans are just as evil as he is deep down: 'I'm not a monster, I'm just ahead of the current.' Every single action he performs in calculated to turning people against one another: 'Once the chips are down, these civilised people will eat each other.' The bankheist, where every one of them turns on their fellows simply for a larger share, the 'tryouts' where he has 3 people kill each other for a chance of survival, turning the city against Batman, turning the city against the Squeeler, turning the two boats against each other, and finally, Harvey Dent. The Joker is constantly trying to prove that people are just like him, trying to justify his own madness: 'What we're you trying to prove, that deep down everyones just like you? You're alone.' And even when it turns out he's wrong with the boats, he shrugs it off because he's already proven that with a little 'push' the most noble and decent human being can become just as crazed and has murderous as himself. He isn't mad, he isn't a murderous monster, he's simply a man who sees the world for what it is. The movie is about him justifying his own madness. Because, yeah, he wants to see the world burn. But in his mind, so does everyboody else.
Can you tell me that Palpatine has as much depth as that?
Why not attack my points rather than my character next time. It might not make you look as much of a whiner.
__________________
Last edited by Nephthys on Jun 17th, 2011 at 11:47 PM
Fett was a mercenary by trade; that he was contracted by the Separatists and also served as the template for the clone army is suspicious, but circumstantial. The Jedi had no idea that Count Dooku was the one funding the development of the army because they had no idea that Tyranus and Dooku are the same man.
Yes, I'm aware of their personal battle and conflict.
Yes, he's a seducer, a tempter, a manipulator. Suspiciously similar, in that regard, to a certain fictional politician we all know and love....
Yup, yup, nothing new here. I did watch the movie, you know. (Many, many times... it's the only movie I've ever watched in ze theater more than twice.)
Certainly, because Palpatine's motivations are realistic and understandable (one could argue that, in this regard, he is much moreso than the Joker's).
As I quietly indicatedflat out told you, the reason that there's no point in arguing the merit of these two characters and these two films is because you aren't able, interested, or willing to see merit in both of them.
Last edited by RagingBoner on Jun 17th, 2011 at 11:50 PM
Sifo-Dyas, as indicated by Obi-Wan's discussion to the Kamino administrator, was a real Jedi Master who died prior to the events of the film. Sifo-Dyas made the order; Tyranus (Dooku) hired Fett to fill the role of template and funded the army.
If you seriously believe that then you're a blind fool.
If he's proven right, can he really be seen as evil? The movie actually does support his worldview when you examine it. Even Batman becomes a murderer by the end. There is no way he is unambiguously evil.
Then I fail to see how you can call him a shallower character than Palpatine. His philosophy and conflict with Batman adds more depth to the movie than the entirity of Palpatines cliche 'UNLIMITED POWER!' bullshit.
It isn't about him being a manipulater you dolt. Its about how his philosophy is reflected in his character interactions, actions and through the plot. Are any of Palpatines motivations laced into the spine of the text as much as the Jokers? Do they add as much depth into the narrative? Require as much critical analysis to percieve and understand?
Oh no, his motivation is 'UNLIMITED POWER!' Jesus Christ.......
Its hard to tell seeing how much you missed from the movie.
A) Being 'realistic and understandable' doesn't make it a good motivation. Jar Jar fvcking Binks motivations are realistic and nderstandable. He's still a loathsome waste of dialogue.
B) Haha, yeah right! I can't even begin to understand the level of sociopathy it would take to cause of the deaths of billions simply for personal power. Thats cartoon supervilliany.
C) 'UNLIMITED POWER!' remains the single worst motivation ever concieved for a villain (Not attacking Palps personally here. Its stupid whenever its done.). Its lazy and stupid. It requires no explanation, no deeper meaning, no character explanatio. He's evil because he wants power. You might as well say his motivation is just cuz.
No ones forcing you to reply.
__________________
Last edited by Nephthys on Jun 18th, 2011 at 12:14 AM
[SPOILER - highlight to read]: You're not interested in a discussion and you're not interested in a debate. You're not willing to see potential merits in the opposition, you're not willing to see anything other than criticism in what you don't like. The reality is that you and you alone in this conflict are the fanboy, incapable of seeing anything other than what you want to: And it is painfully evident that you want to see the Joker being loved by all. Your love for the character is so deep that resistance clearly frustrates you, as you slip from being a good-natured joker (lulz) into a rather angry, rabid zealot and it is the reason why I don't take you seriously in this. Perhaps it's time to take remove your sweat-and-semen stained Joker T-shirt, the powder from your face, and have a doctor take a look at the tears you doubtlessly administered on the corners of your lips in an effort to emulate your precious, beloved idol. My work here is done.
You don't need to try to convince me that The Dark Knight is a great movie or that the Joker is a great villain, N. As I made it very clear from day one, neither of these are in doubt.
In addition to being an extraordinarily astute judge of character, I'm capable of liking both Star Wars and The Dark Knight, Christopher Nolan and George Lucas, the Joker and Palpatine.
Not really. Saying the opposition is wrong is something that occurs in every debate. I fail to see how that it such a terrible thing to say that you're disgusted into silence. And I stick by my assertion. I've pointed out to you the depth in his character and you just ignored it. You're either hopelessly biased or willfully ignorant at this point.
Clearly wrong or I would not be engaging you in a debate.
Simply because I don't see anything othe than criticism for the character. He's a bad character. And all your arguments about his potentail merits are simply stretching attempted to justify your irrational love for the bad character that is Palpatine.
I've explained why he's a bad character already btw, so I'm not merely being biased. I genuinely believe and will support the belief that he's a terrible character.
Clearly not the case. I'm willing to back up why I love the character and why he succeeds in having depth and complex motivations. You're the one brushing off my arguments. I make a post explaining his character and depth and your response is simply 'yeah yeah shut up.' Thats why I'm getting somewhat angry with you. Because you're treating me like a child and I do not appreciate that level of disrespect.
__________________
Last edited by Nephthys on Jun 18th, 2011 at 12:35 AM
[SPOILER - highlight to read]: Blax and I tried to explain to you that what you're seeking to assert cannot be objectively proven or concluded. But apparently your mind isn't as flexible you've proven the Joker's bumhole to be, because you're just not getting it. There is no right or wrong here when it comes to either Palpatine or the Joker being a superior character.
^ Because this isn't you disagreeing with the conclusion, this is you telling me I'm a fool for not agreeing with you. There's a critical difference, sweetheart.
You're not debating, you're ranting. If you were debating, you'd be interested in the other's side and willing to open your mind.
[SPOILER - highlight to read]: You can spew irrational love all you want and you can level accusations of fanboyism all you like; only one of us is visibly distraught and refuses to see the merits of the other side. Care to take a gander at which one of us that is?
I'm treating you like a child because you're acting like one and it's tragically hilarious. Only a child behaves in such a manner: NO UR STUPID FOR NOT AGREEING WITH ME ON A SUBJECTIVE ISSUE AND BOWING BEFORE THE GREAT NOLAN'S FEET LETS GO CARESS THE MAJESTIC SOIL COVERING HEATH LEDGER'S CARCASS-
Jun 17th, 2011 07:32 PM
