[dougte]

A million-to-one that you are one of those people, dougte.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Is that your rebuttal for any kind of criticism? The guy who wrote the article really just wanted to be like Lucas but was jealous he can’t be….and I must be one of those people who quote Fight Club because I’m critical of those who do? Huh? Yeah….

This post has been edited by dougte: 30 June 2005 - 05:05 PM

[dougte]

"Does anyone think the decision to make the prequels shiny and extra-clean was a conscious decision to sharply contrast the inner darkness that is to consume the Republic? Hello? Is anyone out there?"

Not as much as an opportunity to use the latest 3D rendering software.

"Fuck You, George Lucas." 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Dude, anyone who says that is just an apologist for all things Lucas. I read that ealier and I was like, "wow, some of you will go to any length to defend this guy."


As far as "those tricky little threats to his near-fascistic rage for order," I'd say the author was spot-on. Who can deny that Lucas is a micro-manager from hell? Sure, he gets all the credit when things go well...but I think "Empire" proves that it's best to delegate once-in-awhile.

[barend]

Barend: it's never been 'cool' to dislike the popular or superficial.

yourUsername: C'mon, you know this isn't true.

C'mon yourself! Sir... i deserve a little better than that!

I'm afraid it falls into what you define as "cool" though...

Every group on the face of the planet seems to use the term. But it has never been fashionable to attack the popular. There are superficial attempts at mimicking those who do, much live the self-contradicting "alternative chart". (Sorry music, generally defines pop culture so it makes an easy parallel).

What is "cool" these days is to attempt to undermine the underdog by calling him fashionable, or to discredit their point as trend.

Either way, if this guy was trying to be "cool" the he probably would have lacked "passion" which is synonymous with authenticity which is in direct opposition to trend-motivation.

So, are you saying this guy is too bitter or too fake? Because he can't be both...

I take issue not with the language of the review, but with its tone and holier than thou attitude in which even the crowds who applaud at the Star Wars logo are smugly looked down upon. "Those fools! How could they possibly approve of  something so...so...VULGAR?!" *pushes monocle up on his face*

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

the crowds who applaud the logo are sad. that's like clapping while entering McDonalds... if something funny happens in a film you should laugh, if something shocking or suspenseful is unleashed at you then perhaps a gasp, but some thing pretty spectacular should occur before break out into applause. given the heat of the moment, i thought it was fair enough when the whole cinema applauded the decapitation of lurtz in Lord of the Rings, silly, but excusable. i mean who was the applause intended for? The projectionist. the cute girl upstairs selling candy, popcorn and beer?

but a logo?

the fact that people applaud the logo invalidates their opinion as being in anyway respectable... by applauding the logo, they're already admitting that will love the film ahead no matter what. AND THAT IS WHY THESE DAMN STUPID KIDS FILMS ARE SO GODDAMN POPULAR!!! because in their eyes Lucas can do no wrong.

and anyone who doesn't look down upon that mentality should be looked down upon!!!

*pushes monocle up on face*

An even bigger problem is the review's position, which carries already-silly criticisms of Lucas to ludacrous new levels. People honestly think these movies are inspired by a "near-fascistic rage for order"? Honestly? No, Hannibal didn't write that, guys, it's part of the review. It is unfair to claim that Lucas was actively trying to eliminate all humanity from his movies -- at the very worst, you may consider him someone who failed at the attempt to bring emotion to the story of the downfall of a promising young man.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

at this point, i agree a little. I’m a bit over the idea that there is a dark motivation at play outside of soulless greed.

i think, and this again happens with music, that the more money an "artist" has the better their living standard becomes and further removed they become from the gritty underbelly of life.

but what is funny, is how far removed he really has become...
some add-on storm troopers to the spastic edition of ANH have some pathetic and obvious mud-smearing on their 'armour' to try and match the gritty appearance of the original which fails like a man in an $600 suit trying to blend in with a group of homeless people by combing his hair the other way...

this fact also undermines any intent tied to the "gusher-defended-plot-related" clean sterility of the PT.

The language itself is hardly incomprehensible, it is merely excessively verbose, which I suspect is intended to cover up the fact that the reviewer has no real point, no evidence to back up his ridiculous claims, and has probably never seen the other Star Wars movies.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

he probably could have been more concise, but his job was to write an article, not a sentence to sit below a 'ziggy'

i don't think you get much work with the new yorker by writing: "too clean, it sucked!"

Does anyone think the decision to make the prequels shiny and extra-clean was a conscious decision to sharply contrast the inner darkness that is to consume the Republic? Hello? Is anyone out there?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

as i said above and as despondent stated, the utter omission of grit from the PT was doubtful to have had anything to do with conscience decision. Even if it were... it went too far. so far to completely trivialize any point made in the entire trilogy, especially as he only though to execute subtlety once in the whole thing, and it fell on it's ass because he had made his audience so dumb, they didn't notice palpatine telling anikan he was his 'father' (but let's not get into that here)

[Patrick Bateman]

Dougte, you are a retard ( I was going to use a slightly more elevated form of criticsm but I doubt it would register)

Anthony Lane kicks arse as a reviewer, I've read a collection of his reviews and they are not only insightful but make me laugh as much as Chefelf's Reason's to hate ...

Yes, he does use the odd 'large' word, but language is helpful in terms of exp​ression. For example 'hot' and 'warm' mean similar things but by having two words (there are even other's to add I think I may have to scour the dictionary for them - scour is another kind of word for search)

Mr Lane for some reason believes that it is important to be specific in a review and therefore commits the atrocity that you have quite rightly brought to our attention.
I agree with you, the world will not be a better place until we are all dullards

Keep up the good fight.

[barend]

i think you adressed the wrong guy bateman...

(that's the problem with all these people not having avatars...)

[dougte]

Dougte, you are a retard ( I was going to use a slightly more elevated form of criticsm but I doubt it would register)

Anthony Lane kicks arse as a reviewer, I've read a collection of his reviews and they are not only insightful but make me laugh as much as Chefelf's Reason's to hate ...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Dude, I think you have the wrong guy because I posted the article in the first place. AND I said that he had plenty of good points.

Am I still retarded?

[Patrick Bateman]

Damn I really wanted to slap that little bitch. Apologies dude ...

[barend]

i thought that was going to end up messier than it did...

[dougte]

Damn I really wanted to slap that little bitch. Apologies dude ...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

No problem. I was just a little confused.

[yourUsername]

Ah, phooey. I can argue rationale, but I can't argue emotion-ale. I'll consider this a lost cause.

[Patrick Bateman]

Well good, let's argue rationale rather than the piss poor cry baby effort of your
previous posts. Let the rational discussion begin...

[DarthTherion]

Hey, barend, thanks for actually addressing my points in an intelligent way. I appreciate that someone is reading what I write and at least considering it.

I don't mind people applauding the Star Wars logo at all, and I think it's quite a bit different than clapping for a McDonald's logo. George Lucas brought us the Star Wars trilogy, a series of movies that has had a powerful effect on many of us here. You're perfectly within your rights to dislike his current work in the same series, but there are people who would like to give him respect for his efforts that revolutionized film making and created a story that has inspired an entire generation; there are those who like to acknowledge Star Wars itself as a powerful force for creativity and imagination. I would never look down on anyone for applauding Star Wars.

You want something to look down on? "Oh, man! McDonald's has been providing great food that has been making Americans fat for so many years! It's changed the way our culture eats. I applaud you, Micky D's! I applaud your brave efforts and the legacy of your great food." *wipes tear*

Your point (which was originally Despondent's point, thank you also) about CGI inherently looking sterile and "clean" is well-taken. But as you said, there were efforts taken in the re-release of the OT to *try* at least to make its CGI look "dirty." There was no attempt to make it look dirty in the PT, and I think this is partially because Lucas recognized he was supposed to be creating a cleaner more "regal" world in the PT.

Alot of people have said that CGI simply looks "fake" and therefore is not as good as puppets. This seems to be true. However, it has always been the nature of Star Wars (and Lucas) to make movies that push the limits of technology as far as they can possibly go. It's not really fair to criticize Lucas for using the very latest in special effects to create things that no one has done before (like all-digital characters, for example). Even if we look back and deem these new computer graphics to be sub-par, I think we have to ackowledge that there was a real attempt to produce something good and not a desire to create a "puritan dream."

[dougte]

Hey, barend, thanks for actually addressing my points in an intelligent way. I appreciate that someone is reading what I write and at least considering it.

I don't mind people applauding the Star Wars logo at all, and I think it's quite a bit different than clapping for a McDonald's logo. George Lucas brought us the Star Wars trilogy, a series of movies that has had a powerful effect on many of us here. You're perfectly within your rights to dislike his current work in the same series, but there are people who would like to give him respect for his efforts that revolutionized film making and created a story that has inspired an entire generation; there are those who like to acknowledge Star Wars itself as a powerful force for creativity and imagination. I would never look down on anyone for applauding Star Wars.

You want something to look down on? "Oh, man! McDonald's has been providing great food that has been making Americans fat for so many years! It's changed the way our culture eats. I applaud you, Micky D's! I applaud your brave efforts and the legacy of your great food." *wipes tear*

Your point (which was originally Despondent's point, thank you also) about CGI inherently looking sterile and "clean" is well-taken. But as you said, there were efforts taken in the re-release of the OT to *try* at least to make its CGI look "dirty." There was no attempt to make it look dirty in the PT, and I think this is partially because Lucas recognized he was supposed to be creating a cleaner more "regal" world in the PT.

Alot of people have said that CGI simply looks "fake" and therefore is not as good as puppets. This seems to be true. However, it has always been the nature of Star Wars (and Lucas) to make movies that push the limits of technology as far as they can possibly go. It's not really fair to criticize Lucas for using the very latest in special effects to create things that no one has done before (like all-digital characters, for example). Even if we look back and deem these new computer graphics to be sub-par, I think we have to ackowledge that there was a real attempt to produce something good and not a desire to create a "puritan dream."

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

1. I don't have a problem with people clapping at the Star Wars logo either, but I DO have a problem with people clapping at any retarded bone Lucas throws to the fanboys.

2. "McDonald's has been providing great food that has been making Americans fat for so many years!" How about some personal responsibility? McDonald's doesn't make people fat--lazy bastards who don't watch what they eat or exercise make themselves fat. (Yes, I know that has nothing to do with Star Wars). Morgan Spurlock's movie was funny, but I wouldn't buy into it quite so much...

3. "There was no attempt to make it look dirty in the PT, and I think this is partially because Lucas recognized he was supposed to be creating a cleaner more "regal" world in the PT." Um, the "regal world" theory is pretty weak. I'd like to hear what others think of that one. To me it's endemic of how far some Lucas fans will go to defend a really bad idea. There was no excuse to use the amount of CGI in these films other than Lucas thinking, "because I can." Sure, you can do a lot with green screens (Sin City is an excellent example)...but under the wrong direction it can go horribly wrong. I could have put up with the green screens if the writing and acting were up to speed, but from what I've read Lucas is just like, "Do it. Act." to his actors. That's a recipe for disaster.

[Paladin]

I found his review to be far too harsh for my tastes. I know that George Lucas may deserve plenty of negative criticism, but this is just over the top on its attacks.

Other than the excessively harshness of it, there's not much I can argue with most of it. Maybe a point here and there, but I'm just not in the mood right now.

[Patrick Bateman]

It may seem harsh but I think taken in context (criticism with a nod and a wink) the review is valid.
Also, without seeming like too much of a Lucas hater, he deserves a little bit of a slap from time to time, anyone who refers to his movies as his 'vision', who acts as a one man film revisionist army, who adds characters simply to add another billion to his bank account and THEN refuses to acknowledge that perhaps anything but pure artistic urge has influenced him... well they deserve the odd reminder that in the real world hypocricy does not go unnoticed