[yourUsername]

And what does Lucas being able to "buy and sell [his] ass in a second" have to do with the substance of the argument?

Because he's trying to maintain that he's somehow above all that Lucas has done. He's not, because he's doing the same thing, in a sense, with his critique.

the important thing is that I understood what he was saying. It made sense, so unless it was a strange and unlikley coicidence, I dare say he did too...

Well, I can't vouch for the sincerity of this statement. I doubt you'd say that it didn't make sense and that you were just agreeing cuz it was cool to agree.

"Why must we always cover our own insecurities with such transparent bullshit?"

that sounds like a question better directed at Lucas. the man who keeps adding alterations and amendments to an already successful and appreciated franchise.

I would agree that the question needs to be asked all around. The only thing is is that I wouldn't care if Lucas did a thousand remakes. At least he puts out something that serves its purpose and that you can enjoy, something that intends to build, not destroy.

such an argument, falls far outside of anything fight club was ever trying to say...
(and again that particular quote is better suited to the people who think their special because lucas keeps updating their favorite films).

Fight Club was all about the hypocrisy of Project Mayhem and what Tyler was trying to accomplish. It became exactly what Jack hated about life in the first place. Jack moved on, Tyler didn't. Project Mayhem became another thing to package, another week-end retreat, another mindless consumer producing machine.

The point of my post was that these Space Monkeys are flinging poo at Lucas but fail to see that they are the other side of the coin, the same product of a society with a paint variation. All that they shit on Lucas about, they do themselves. They are what they most hate about Lucas.

[showmethemoney]

You are right!! We are all Luca's concience punishin himself. And God we hate ourselves!

[barend]

Well, I can't vouch for the sincerity of this statement.  I doubt you'd say that it didn't make sense and that you were just agreeing cuz it was cool to agree.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

but i agreed with the guy while everyone else was insulting him, calling him redundant, etc. so i don't know about it being 'cool' to agree...

the global majority are the ones who LOVE lucas...

but then you could argue that i was 'rebelling' to be cool, as people often like to diamtrically oppose their own arguments when arguing with me, not that we're rally having an argument here, nor am i suggesting you were about to do that...
i just want to make sure that this does turn into another one of those arguments were we run around in cirles for pages and ultimatley get no where...

(like i just did then)

I would agree that the question needs to be asked all around.  The only thing is is that I wouldn't care if Lucas did a thousand remakes.  At least he puts out something that serves its purpose and that you can enjoy, something that intends to build, not destroy.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

i don't care what he intends to do... he IS destoying...

Fight Club was all about the hypocrisy of Project Mayhem and what Tyler was trying to accomplish.  It became exactly what Jack hated about life in the first place.  Jack moved on, Tyler didn't.  Project Mayhem became another thing to package, another week-end retreat, another mindless consumer producing machine.
The point of my post was that these Space Monkeys are flinging poo at Lucas but fail to see that they are the other side of the coin, the same product of a society with a paint variation.  All that they shit on Lucas about, they do themselves.  They are what they most hate about Lucas.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

i hang shit on lucas, but i don't do the things lucas does...

in what way is complaining about a film you didn't like based on a film you did in anyway tantamount to being in the same position as the man responsible.

i know abyss quotable, but just because you attack something doesn't mean you have actually become that thing...

[yourUsername]

but i agreed with the guy while everyone else was insulting him, calling him redundant, etc. so i don't know about it being 'cool' to agree...

I'm saying that you might have considered it cool to agree with this guy, not with the crowd here, because you mentioned that you were

a condescending elitist ivory toewer jerk too...

like the guy that wrote that review. So it was cooler to agree with him.

i don't care what he intends to do... he IS destoying...
i hang shit on lucas, but i don't do the things lucas does...

But he's doing something constructive out of his own imagination, not tearing another person's vision down. A vision that does nothing for society and is for entertainment. If one were to say that GL is doing society harm by dumbing us down or something, then it might have validity, but nobody is actually claiming that, unless they're being a smart-ass (which is cool!).

in what way is complaining about a film you didn't like based on a film you did in anyway tantamount to being in the same position as the man responsible.

Because, take, for example, the complaints about the PT. "Sellout", "No consistancy", "Decline in substance". You could say the same thing about the arguments against GL. Certainly the latest installment of "Reasons to Hate Ep. Whatever" are guilty of all the arguments leveled at GL and the PT. People are claiming that GL has fallen because he has human tendencies, tendencies shared by those people who are harping on him. The difference is is that GL is not actively destroying anybody's vision, other than what people have done to his own vision. I don't care if you don't like it for whatever reasons, but to put so much energy and insubstantial reasoning into those reasons reveals that a lot of bashers are into the "edginess", image, and feelings of superiority of rebelling against SW and GL.

i know abyss quotable, but just because you attack something doesn't mean you have actually become that thing...

I know it doesn't mean that, but to have such passionate vehemence against something, to destroy instead of construct, certainly shows some subconscious tendencies that GL is being attacked for reasons other than those portrayed.

(What's an "abyss quotable"?)

[DarthTherion]

It seems we haven't even discussed what the review actually says yet.

The reviewer accuses Lucas of carrying typical movie "vulgarity" (which all movies contain, he says) to astonishing new heights, to the point that Lucas has invented a modern puritan morality play in which all individuality, humanity, and imperfection is blotted out in favor of shiny special effects and apocalyptic imagery that seems oh-so grand but really means nothing.

I think nothing could be further from the truth.

Many serious fans would probably prefer that Lucas had used less CGI in the PT, myself included. However, this is not to say that Lucas' primary motivation was to place a "plastic sheen" over everything human in these new movies. It is obvious that the plotline of the PT is intended to revolve around the emotions of the characters -- whether it succeeds or fails is an entirely different question. The apocalyptic events that end Episode III (complete with a Faustian pact with the devil and a trip to hell) do have significance for fans who understand the storyline and the backstory and who have lived with the Star Wars universe for over 30 years.

To suggest that Lucas is attempting to subdue his world to "near-fascistic" order (wtf??) is ridiculous, and what makes this "argument" (if you want to call it that) worse is that it is couched in a bombastic language that is attempting to lend credibility to a position that is laughable.

The Prequels take place in the Old Republic; the pristine surface merely conceals the filthy, interior corruption that eventually overruns the galaxy from the inside.

If you don't like the prequels, say that "The overuse of CGI is annoying; more time should have been spent on character development." That's a respectable opinion. Don't say that Lucas is working on a "puritanical dream" to purge his world of bodily functions because of a "near-fascistic rage for order."

Now, let's get to the real question at hand -- how many Star Wars movies do you think the reviewer has actually seen? My guess is 1/2.

[Patrick Bateman]

Has anyone said yet who wrote that review. It reminds me of a review in the New
Yorker by Anthony Lane. It may be the same in which case I really need to quit drinking. If it isn't that review then you should check it out, I remember him twisting the knife into George with a nice little cheeky grin.

[WalkingCarpet]

R2-D2 a "beeping trash can"!?!?!

Slander! Take it back at once!

[barend]

I'm saying that you might have considered it cool to agree with this guy, not with the crowd here, because you mentioned that you were  like the guy that wrote that review.  So it was cooler to agree with him.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

i have always found that i am villified when ever i encourage cynacism. if being cynical, or having the capacity to summon enough independant thought to question the quality and motivation swings of actions behind products and establishments were in any way 'cool' or fashionable, no one would listen to top40 music.

it's never been 'cool' to dislike the popular or superficial. we live in a shallow world where effortlessness and social complaceny are rewarded.

But he's doing something constructive out of his own imagination, not tearing another person's vision down.  A vision that does nothing for society and is for entertainment.  If one were to say that GL is doing society harm by dumbing us down or something, then it might have validity, but nobody is actually claiming that, unless they're being a smart-ass (which is cool!).

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

i've been constantly claiming that he's been dumbing us down.

that he's lowered the bar fo filmmaking by withdrawing effort from the more important parts of storytelling and trying to hypnotize us with bright flashing lights and explosions when he should be ensuring that the actors know their motivations and have something, anything real around them with which to interact.

he managed to get some pretty poor performances out of otherwise decent actors...

he told them next to nothing.

i'm not going to list everything here, shop around the forums and look at the many threads...

Because, take, for example, the complaints about the PT.  "Sellout", "No consistancy", "Decline in substance".  You could say the same thing about the arguments against GL.  Certainly the latest installment of "Reasons to Hate Ep. Whatever" are guilty of all the arguments leveled at GL and the PT.  People are claiming that GL has fallen because he has human tendencies, tendencies shared by those people who are harping on him.  The difference is is that GL is not actively destroying anybody's vision, other than what people have done to his own vision.  I don't care if you don't like it for whatever reasons, but to put so much energy and insubstantial reasoning into those reasons reveals that a lot of bashers are into the "edginess", image, and feelings of superiority of rebelling against SW and GL.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

if anything, lucas' major problem is his lack of humanity.

he's put together the creepiest love scenes i've ever witnessed, and robbed us of characters with true depth. he had three movies to develope anikan, but instead wasted time showing us a 10 year old in a go cart race... by the time we get to annie-noir in ROTS he may as well be wearing a hat, cape, and curly mostach tying girls to railraod tracks...

I know it doesn't mean that, but to have such passionate vehemence against something, to destroy instead of construct, certainly shows some subconscious tendencies that GL is being attacked for reasons other than those portrayed.

(What's an "abyss quotable"?)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

the reviewers job was to critique a film. and he did it with passion.
the PT if nothing else definatley feels like passion was left well and truley out of the picture...

HA! out of the picture... (sorry)

i think his passion reflects the fact that ,like many of us, he grew up on star wars and found a big fat dissapointment of a trilogy that lacked everything that made the originals great.

[dougte]

if anything, lucas' major problem is his lack of humanity.

he's put together the creepiest love scenes i've ever witnessed, and robbed us of characters with true depth. he had three movies to develope anikan, but instead wasted time showing us a 10 year old in a go cart race... by the time we get to annie-noir in ROTS he may as well be wearing a hat, cape, and curly mostach tying girls to railraod tracks...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Nice! That’s a sweet critique.

No offense to ‘yourusername,’ but I’ve noticed that people who quote Fight Club usually have just recently been introduced to it and think it’s the deepest thing they’ve ever seen. Then they go around spouting off some nihilistic, pseudo-intellectual psychobabble...

"We're all fakers..." "We're all pawns of greedy corporations..." "we don't know what we think we know..."

[JW Wells]

It is indeed Anthony Lane of the New Yorker.

I'd also like to add that if people think this review uses excessively elevated language and obscure phrasing, then I fear for the future. The most complex word Lane uses is "apotheosis", and all his phrases seem to be perfectly reasonable to me.

[yourUsername]

that it is couched in a bombastic language that is attempting to lend credibility to a position that is laughable.

Exactly.

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

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

i think his passion reflects the fact that ,like many of us, he grew up on star wars and found a big fat dissapointment of a trilogy that lacked everything that made the originals great.

Well, here's the truth of the situation, at least.

No offense to ‘yourusername,’ but I’ve noticed that people who quote Fight Club usually have just recently been introduced to it and think it’s the deepest thing they’ve ever seen. Then they go around spouting off some nihilistic, pseudo-intellectual psychobabble...

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

[Giff]

Again, the irony is that the first few movies had sets that looked "lived in", seedy dive bars, backwater planets, etc.  Sci-fi too often has a clean, spotless version of "the future".

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yeah, Lucas always mentioned the thing that made his movies "real" was the Used-Universe. It looked like it had been lived in.

There was dirt, grime, muck.

You could see the bolts holding the spacecraft together.

[DarthTherion]

I'd also like to add that if people think this review uses excessively elevated language and obscure phrasing, then I fear for the future.  The most complex word Lane uses is "apotheosis", and all his phrases seem to be perfectly reasonable to me.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

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*

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.

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.

And can we please stop attacking each other and talk about the review?

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?

[Despondent]

"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.

If you have a problem with the author, let him know. (If you haven't been following, you'll find his name in my signature.) The old-heads of this forum AGREE with what he said, for the most part, so I suppose it's the apologists who are being the rebels here. Wow. Rebel Scum actually has meaning for me now

Space Monkeys? You mean like that Wonderful Corellian Space Monkey S.P. Crumb that some gusher was praising during the endless "thank you George Lucas" portion of the AFI "tribute"?

"Fuck You, George Lucas."

[JW Wells]

For reference, the phrase "near-fascistic rage for order" comes in the sentence:

Illumination is provided not by daylight but by a dispiriting plastic sheen, as if Lucas were coating all private affairs—those tricky little threats to his near-fascistic rage for order—in a protective glaze.

I think Despondent has a better counter to this - this is what computer graphics look like. The "shininess" comes from ray-tracing and light reflection algorithms that have trouble with dirty and/or irregular objects. George Lucas clearly prefers CGI to real sets, even when it makes his settings look antiseptic and reduces his actors to looking and behaving like shell-shocked refugees. The reviewer thinks this is because George Lucas has a mania for the orderly, the controllable. Not sure I agree, but it's at least plausible.

For me, the hardest-hitting line in the review is:

What Lucas has devised, over six movies, is a terrible puritan dream: a morality tale in which both sides are bent on moral cleansing, and where their differences can be assuaged only by a triumphant circus of violence.

This certainly seems to be true of the prequels, and I think it's a bit worrisome. One of the reasons I hated Obi-Wan's sadism in this movie is because, in Star Wars, he was one of the few characters in modern pop culture for whom violence was clearly a last resort. I worry about the belief of the transformative power of violence displayed in this last film.