Even Mores Reasons to Hate Ep I There's still more wherever you look
#1
Posted 08 April 2004 - 05:43 AM
Problem one - the droid army itself... why bother. Why not simply have an actual
human army... oh I know - good old George.
Problem two - if you cut us, do we not bleed? Why on earth have the droids been given human characteristics. They use guestures, they actually carry their guns rather than having them built into their bodies, they have ranks, they speak to one another. They shouldn't even speak to people - they're battle droids, not help-desk droids. The scene when the droids are attacking the Gungan shield fortress, and one raises his BINOCULARS and then WAVES the rest of the army on. He's a droid - an actual piece of technology, if he wants to look closely at something far way he uses his high-tech eyes - not something quite so human as field glasses.
Hang on! why am I even using "he" to describe the droid.
Problem three - Machines driving machines. The floating battle tanks are being driven by droids. If you went to the trouble of making an AI army, wouldn't the tanks be capable of driving themselves? Why make them so frightfully similar to Earth tanks.
Problem four - the destroyers. When I first saw them I thought they looked kinda cool - these rolling things which remind me of the game "Super Empire Strikes Back" on SNES where they had rolling attack droids. Anyway these destroyers roll up, JUMP somehow, open up, flash up a shield and hack down people with laser cannons. But the rolling attack implies a launcher of some description - which was mysteriously absent. Also, if these things were such good ground-pounders, why didn't they roll a few down the hill at the Gungans?
Problem five - what could have been. The droid army was there to fill in the role of the stormtroopers in the original trilogy - faceless soldiers of evil. But the stormtroopers were actually cool, and the droid army was like an aisle of Heinz Baked Beans gone psycho and out for blood. Why were they a terrible tan colour, rather than something like good old battleship grey or any colour of the rainbow? Why were they skinny sticks - rather than bulkier, more heavily armoured machines? Their movements were too smooth and flowing, like CGI droids more than something that was there when they were filming. I remember the machine army out of Terminator 2 - which looked like a machine army should look. Why did they have snouts? Why, in short, did they suck?
All in all - when you compare it to the Empire Strikes Back ground assault scene - with the actually cool AT-ATs and the snowtroopers as they went about their business in Echo Base, it looks like... the work of someone with a large enough budget to forget about things like visual impact and the limitations of taste.
#3
Posted 08 April 2004 - 10:35 AM
Excellent point.
Welcome, Mnesymone. Great first post.
The droids are worthless. As Mnesymone said:
That's exactly why Lucas brought in the droids. Any reason to avoid having any sort of real violence in these movies. The Star Wars films were never bloody but GL has gotten way soft in his old age. Now it's at the point he can't show one person killing another, they have to kill lifeless objects instead.
The concept of a droid army has a lot of potential. If they were anything like HK-47 -- the scary battle droid from the amazing game Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic -- then perhaps they could have caused fear. A droid army of ruthless killers that don't talk (or at least don't talk to issue orders or provide lame comedy relief) would have been a very scary thing.
Instead what we are left with is a bumbling, idiotic droid army that is tantamount to 20 clowns getting out of a Volkswagen.
So much potential. Such poor execution.
Buy the New LittleHorse CD, Strangers in the Valley!
CD Baby | iTunes | LittleHorse - Flight of the Bumblebee Video
Chefelf on: Twitter | friendfeed | Jaiku | Bitstrips | Muxtape | Mento | MySpace | Flickr | YouTube | LibraryThing
#4 Guest_Guest_*
Posted 09 April 2004 - 12:26 AM
This is why there should have been TWO armies of CLONES!!! ARGH!!!
FRICKIN'PISSIN'STUPID-MOTHER-HUMPIN'GIMP-TEASIN'... NERFHERDER!!!!
Idiot!! IDIOT!!!
#5 Guest_Just your average movie goer_*
Posted 09 April 2004 - 06:55 AM
It's an interesting thing, this new soft George who won't have people killing other living things in his movies anymore. Because it comes across as being quite hypocritical.
I remember a particularly disturbing, entirely gratuitous scene in Return of the Jedi where Jabba the Hutt murdered that dancer by feeding her to his rancor monster, while his court looked on and laughed. I don't know what the dispute that led to Jabba doing that was all about - maybe Jabba wanted to eat her, maybe he wanted to sexually molest her. Either way, it's pretty disturbing. And the person who could conceive such a scene in his head and then put in a film that would be pitched to children would have to be one pretty sick individual.
And let's not forget his second installment in the Indiana Jones series, that "classic" movie that had all the traits of a good family flick (child kidnapping and slavery, a gruesome cruel human-sacrifice scene, lots of torture thrown in for the sake of it).... on second thoughts, I think we should forget this film.
Anyway, I'm glad that George Lucas has steered away from such awful concepts in his later films... but I'm not quite sure what his motivation is for doing so.
Maybe he'd like us to forget he is a sick, disturbed individual and that the character of Jabba the Hutt was just an outlet for his alter-ego. Maybe he's just decided to cut down the violence for commercial reasons - with less violence, he can sell his films to a younger demographic and therefore sell more toys and video games.
But I just want to say that George is not fooling anybody. I've seen his past work and I know what a sick bastard he is. Fortunately he is so laughably incompetent, that I don't believe his twisted mind poses any immediate threat.
#6 Guest_Roar_*
Posted 09 April 2004 - 08:14 AM
#7
Posted 09 April 2004 - 12:34 PM
Exactly. That's what I've ALWAYS assumed the Clone Wars would be since I was old enough to comprehend hearing "The Clone Wars" said by Princess Leia in the first movie. I think everyone did. Sadly we get droids instead.
Buy the New LittleHorse CD, Strangers in the Valley!
CD Baby | iTunes | LittleHorse - Flight of the Bumblebee Video
Chefelf on: Twitter | friendfeed | Jaiku | Bitstrips | Muxtape | Mento | MySpace | Flickr | YouTube | LibraryThing
#8 Guest_Just your average movie goer_*
Posted 09 April 2004 - 10:37 PM
And what was the deal with Anakin accidentally blowing up that droid ship at the end? Ha ha, George! That was pretty good... great slapstick comedy... you tool.
#11
Posted 16 April 2004 - 07:11 AM
The term "Padawan" annoyed me. It doesn't strike me as much of a name for an apprentice in the force. But also, in the original trilogy, Jedis who had not yet completed their training were called "apprentices". I know it's not a specialised name for a particular field of study but it worked just fine. I can't see any reason why they felt they needed to invent a new name. It also damages continuity (like everything else in the prequels).
And honestly, I did not like the Padawan haircut - that crewcut with the braided rat tail. That haircut was awful. And no way did the Obi Wan that I grew up watching ever have a stupid hair cut like that!
The other thing I remembered was just how awful Queen Amidala was (and not just the annoying decoy crap). I hated her monotonous droning voice. It was really painful to my ears and it showed a woman devoid of any personality. The moment I first heard and saw Queen Amidala, I just thought no-way is this the mother of a fiesty cool girl like Leia. It just doesn't work.
And her look - what the hell was that? I particularly hated the vertical lipstick - it looked like a great split down her lip, like they were SEVERELY chapped. And then she had that stupid Elephant ear headpiece and the pasty white makeup that did not work with someone like Natalie Portman AT ALL! Had she been a woman in the royal household of a Japanese Shogun, that would have worked perfectly. But she's a teenager with brown hair and a western teenage girl face. And seen from a distance, she looked like a giant bumble bee.
And all in all, she looked completely ridiculous!
#12
Posted 16 April 2004 - 08:53 AM
Me, too. I thought it was perhaps Lucas attempting to make himself the next Dr. Seuss by inventing cute silly nonsense words...
I'm Obi-Wan.
I'm with Qui-Gon.
I am now his Padawan.
I'm the Gungan
Jar-Jar Bink.
I lead the fans
to drink and drink.
Well, wuppzizzlezinn!
It's Anakin!
I'll rescue him!
I'm Qui-Gon Jinn!
I'm Padmemidala,
the handmaiden queen.
While Natalie Portman wouldn't
Keira's done nude scenes!
(And at only sixteen!)
I'm Darth the Maul
I'll take a fall
My lines were cut
and my part was small!
Anakin Skywalker
I'm a really poor talker
That Padme is cute...
She makes my cock hurt.
More on that Padme,
the queen Naboobie
I wanna see photos...
...from "The Hole" movie
When I was in elementary school I saw kids with rat-tails and thought they looked stupid. Plus, I loved how Obi's hair was kind of poofy because they didn't shave it enough. It looked like he had it done at the beauty academy on the south side.
Well, they had to digitally alter the voice. They also had to find a middle ground for Portman... who can't do accents (my girlfriend liked the movie "Where the Heart Is," pathetic)... and Keira Knightley, the decoy. So they dulled-down Keira's voice and told Nat to speak in a civil monotony. More bad casting choices, but who cares, because... LOOK, there's a LIGHTSABER BATTLE!
I'm guessing that Lucas wanted her to be kind of asexual... you know, having no sexual qualities because:
a) She was supposed to be 14 or 15
b) She was supposed to be a dignitary
c) Lucas is opposed to the notion of sex
Actually, of interest is the idea that Lucas was attempting, yet again, to hearken back to his Kurosawan roots by having a doll-like empress with samurai protectors. Cool concept, too bad it had to ride on Lucas' writing.
--FW
This post has been edited by Ferris Wiel: 16 April 2004 - 08:54 AM
#13
Posted 16 April 2004 - 10:16 AM
Maybe one day when everyone has heaps of time, we could run a competition to see who can write the best parody of the prequels. Maybe we'll have two competitions - so we can do one prequel at a time (or three if Episode III is out at the time). What do you think?
#14
Posted 18 April 2004 - 01:10 AM
Now, I'm not knocking the fight itself. It was excellent - the only thing worth watching the movie for.
But the location is a bit strange. We have this very old stone palace with a few modern additions. Then we take a couple of Jedis and a sith warrior underground and we're transported to something that looks like the interior of the Death Star - absolutely enormous in scope and very futuristic. I know because the lightsaber fight was the only saving grace in this film, it's not nice to knock anything in it but I thought that was really kind of... odd.
Also, I've always had a problem with Darth Maul's make-up. It doesn't look like an alien. It looks like a guy in bad make-up (also the Emperor hates aliens - look at how many aliens there are that DON'T work for the Empire in the original movies).
But the funny thing was I heard that there was a mask that had been designed for Darth Maul but it had been destroyed in a sandstorm... hence the make-up. Now my problem with this decision is, when someone is spending millions of dollars on a movie, why the hell couldn't they spare a few dollars and build another mask?
#15
Posted 18 April 2004 - 10:12 AM
There is no explanation as to what it is, what's it for, where this energy is coming from; all it is is one of Lucas' homages to an older flick ("The Forbidden Planet"). The only purpose it served was this "magnetic door" which kept Obi-Wan from saving Qui-Gon.
I had even heard that Lucas changed this scene, that it all had a different background. I'm curious to know what the old one was.
Battle for the Galaxy--read the "other Star Wars"
All I know is I haven't seen the real prequels yet.