I usually don't like to post my work because I'm an embarrassingly neurotic perfectionist who is very shy when it comes to writing, but oh well:
Originally posted by Turr_PhennirMe neither. But I'd fault the entire PT for it. They fail to (subjectively or objectively) evoke any feeling for anyone or anything--Plinkett's main point.
How something feels is completely [b]subjective, not objective. And that's with both Raynor and Plinkett, and subjective things are hardly something I'd fault either one for. [/B]
Originally posted by Lord Lucien
Me neither. But I'd fault the entire PT for it. They fail to (subjectively or objectively) evoke any feeling for anyone or anything--Plinkett's main point.
And there's certainly a measure of truth to that. But I'm not a fan of statements of absolute support or condemnation; in my experience, they're hardly ever accurate.
Originally posted by Turr_Phennir
I usually don't like to post my work because I'm an embarrassingly neurotic perfectionist who is very shy when it comes to writing, but oh well:
I will read it and praise you after I get some sleep.
Originally posted by Turr_PhennirSo... you condemn the prequels for... a lot of stuff they did wrong. And you support it for a lot of stuff they did right. A balance between total support and total condemnation?
And there's certainly a measure of truth to that. But I'm not a fan of statements of absolute support [b]or condemnation; in my experience, they're hardly ever accurate. [/B]
Originally posted by Nephthys
I will read it and praise you after I get some sleep.
There's very little to praise, honestly. Rereading it is mortifying.
Originally posted by Lord Lucien
So... you condemn the prequels for... a lot of stuff they did wrong. And you support it for a lot of stuff they did right. A balance between total support and total condemnation?
Polarization isn't simply annoying in politics. As someone who's spent a lot of education, money, and time dealing with sociology and political science, I've found that it's in people's nature to be polarizing. In politics, you'll find that very few Democrats can say a single positive thing about a Republican, and vice versa.
It's something that has made me so thoroughly disenchanted with politics and rhetoric.
In Star Wars, you have plenty of polarization and it usually concerns the prequels. TPM is not a great film in my opinion. But it did do some things right and Plinkett doesn't give it enough credit. Why? Because he wants to appeal to a specific faction of the fandom. And like political zealots, there are many out there who believe overwhelmingly that the prequels sucked in every capacity and won't hear a word otherwise.
Originally posted by Turr_PhennirAll true.
There's very little to praise, honestly. Rereading it is mortifying.Polarization isn't simply annoying in politics. As someone who's spent a lot of education, money, and time dealing with sociology and political science, I've found that it's in people's nature to be polarizing. In politics, you'll find that very few Democrats can say a single positive thing about a Republican, and vice versa.
It's something that has made me so thoroughly disenchanted with politics and rhetoric.
In Star Wars, you have plenty of polarization and it usually concerns the prequels. TPM is not a great film in my opinion. But it did do some things right and Plinkett doesn't give it enough credit. Why? Because he wants to appeal to a specific faction of the fandom. And like political zealots, there are many out there who believe overwhelmingly that the prequels sucked in every capacity and won't hear a word otherwise.
I won't deny I'm almost totally polarized against the PT (more specifically TPM). It's very easy to be polarized against a film. They're fictional and represent a largely irrelevant aspect of life, so either-or is more tolerable here.
So what are the things it did right?
Originally posted by Lord Lucien
So what are the things it did right?
From a story perspective, first and foremost, all things Palpatine. The Xanatos Gambit created by Lucas was suitably complex and compelling and despite Plinkett's b1tching, is not a house of cards ready to collapse with the merest application of "critical thinking."
The bittersweet nature of all the films: The bad guy wins in each one. There is a sense of severe tragedy and consequence at the end of all three films that is almost palpable. We are reminded completely and utterly that no matter how it might seem, the heroes are going to lose.
The nature of the Jedi order as a failed institution shackled to an incompetent, corrupt government. Yoda's approach failing horribly is a great moment of characterization that enables me to make sense of why he so strongly emphasized that war doesn't make one great. The wise, ancient master completely fumbled the ball and ultimately helped the Sith destroy the Republic.
Others would include the characterization of Obi-Wan, Qui-Gon, Palpatine, Dooku, and Yoda.
I would also include Anakin's descent in ROTS. He had understandable reasons for what he did and his reactions were much more complex than "lulz kill babies!"
I judge films like Star Wars (ya know, sci-fi, actiony, kinda kid-friendly) based on how entertained I am by them. That entertainment can take a number of forms (those emotions and feelings again) for a myriad of reasons.
I was entertained by:
1.) Palpatine.
2.) Anakin's face when Padme broke their first kiss.
3.) Kenobi and Maul's duel--from Qui-Gon's impalement to Kenobi's fall. I really appreciate the choreography and remember (not anymore) thinking "Oh shit, Obi means business!"
4.) Kenobi's joke in the Geonosis arena.
5.) The brief two seconds when the Clones descend on the arena.
6.) The "Immolation Scene" in RotS.
Everything else I'm either bored by or generally indifferent to.
Originally posted by Turr_PhennirWhen I take the entirety of the EU orbiting the films in to consideration, I agree. Taking the films alone and totally by themselves, I disagree entirely. It's an okay scheme that fooled a bunch of people that didn't appear very capable of "critical thinking". This isn't so much the story's fault, as it is the poor timing of the scenes that portray the story.
From a story perspective, first and foremost, all things Palpatine. The Xanatos Gambit created by Lucas was suitably complex and compelling and despite Plinkett's b1tching, is not a house of cards ready to collapse with the merest application of "critical thinking."
Originally posted by Turr_PhennirEeehhh... I can see what you mean, but I don't buy it. It's told like it's tragic, but once again, it doesn't feel tragic.
The bittersweet nature of all the films: The bad guy wins in each one. There is a sense of severe tragedy and consequence at the end of all three films that is almost palpable. We are reminded completely and utterly that no matter how it might seem, the heroes are going to lose.
And the PT suffers an inherent disadvantage in that, we already know how it ends. Can't blame it for that fact.
Originally posted by Turr_PhennirI'd hate to reference RLM with you, but if we're cross-trilogizing, then 900 year old master Yoda, who so casually (it was portrayed as casual, admit it--no indication that he felt remorse for the Jedi involvement) just now realizing that "wars no make one great" is dumb. He's 900, and he's only coming about this philosophy now? To keep in tune with his ESB counterpart, he really should have been seen as a strong opponent to Jedi involvement in this muddled, bloody, war. They're "not soldiers". Said the much younger-than-Yoda Mace Windu.
The nature of the Jedi order as a failed institution shackled to an incompetent, corrupt government. Yoda's approach failing horribly is a great moment of characterization that enables me to make sense of why he so strongly emphasized that war doesn't make one great. The wise, ancient master completely fumbled the ball and ultimately helped the Sith destroy the Republic.
I'll give you the shackling and failed institution and stuff, though.
Originally posted by Turr_PhennirBoring. Boring. Awesome. Lost Potential. Sullied.
Others would include the characterization of Obi-Wan, Qui-Gon, Palpatine, Dooku, and Yoda.
Originally posted by Turr_PhennirYou're right, they were. They also consisted of "Grrr! Angry!" and "No, bad dreamz!"
I would also include Anakin's descent in ROTS. He had understandable reasons for what he did and his reactions were much more complex than "lulz kill babies!"