[civilian_number_two]

I have one question...how is this any different from Chef writing his reasons? The guy liked the movie, and wrote why to try to show people who hated it why he liked it.

I agree with Vwing: This guy's critiques and praise rest briefly on a small bit of mudslinging ("those who didn't like TPM just didn't understand it, or were naysayers who lined up for hours just to hate it going in"). But after that he launches into a careful analysis of his reasons for liking the film. In fact, his analyses of TPM actually made me like the film more, if only for the duration of the reading. His main point, that nay-sayers should step off and wait for the rest of the films before attacking the story, has a kind of hopeful authority to the; I'd like to see what he thought of AOTC.

Most importantly: he admits to failings of the film, and his complaints are reasoned and there is not a bit of "so what?" about them. He really feels Lucas dropped the ball on a film he liked regardless. What can you say about that?

http://www.lardbiscu.../ilovetpm6.html


I think his biggest weakness is pointing out that he has an English degree. You won't earn extra respect for it, and it only draws attention to itself when you misspell "its." No, he should have kept that in his autobiographical information, which aused me when I saw that he drew the same parallel between STARWARS and comic books that I did in another topic on this forum. We have that much in common I suppose, but then maybe so do we all. Another thing we have in common is disappopintment with JEDI:


http://www.lardbiscu.../ilovetpm7.html


Which ain't all bad.

[Just your average movie goer]

He was disappointed by Return of the Jedi? You're right. He can't be all that bad then. I have to say I haven't had time to read his whole article. I started but his introduction was pretty offputting - the notion that it's our fault if we can't appreciate Lucas' vision. I would have read on, regardless, but I didn't have time.

Anyway, I'll have a more careful look later.

[Jordan]

Lucas has always had a bad habit of not mentioning the names of supporting characters in the Star Wars movies, making it end up that only the devoted fans and action-figure collectors know what all these people are called. The famous example is Boba Fett, whose name was never uttered until Return of the Jedi. And more surprisingly, if less importantly, the word "Ewok" was never spoken at all. But in The Phantom Menace, the persistent withholding of names has gotten out of control. 

I never knew that. I knew what an Ewok was going into the movie! Boba Fett is also a name I never understood. Being young, and stupid, I thought his real name was Bounty Hunter.

About that degree bit, is that why you were so quick to snub Mike on all his movie critiques? I always kind of figured that was the case.

This post has been edited by Jordan: 26 June 2004 - 06:32 AM

[Just your average movie goer]

I think you'll find that Civilian snubs Mike's movie critiques because generally they are really weak. If you want to see examples, have a look at a recently locked thread* and the Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom thread in the Movie Section. The evidence is all there.

*For the record, no, I will not get into any more Return of the Jedi arguments with Mike or Rory or anyone else in that camp - it's both a waste of my time and theirs.

[Just your average movie goer]

OK - it's Saturday night. My girlfriend is busy. I'm stuck at home, my computer's DVD player is giving up the ghost, preventing me from watching a Lord of the Rings movie, and my guitar needs new strings....

... so for lack of anything else to do, I have read the article. It was a lot better than I expected and the guy wrote some good points. His best point was the concept of Jar Jar as the wise-fool. He actually argued that one very well.

I disagree with a lot of the other points he made, as most of us no doubt did, but he presented them well.

For the most part, he did not condescend us prequel haters but there was a few times when he went very far out of line. In the introduction, he basically said that people who didn't like Episode I did not have a true appreciation of Star Wars and that we lacked appreciation for subtlety.

And sadly, he, like many other prequel lovers, fell back on that awful argument that no intelligent individual should bother us with -

It's George's story and he can do what he likes with it.

It is George's story and yes, he does have the legal rights to it - so he can do what he wants to. However, this does not automatically make anything he does good - and nor should we be expected to treat everything he does as high art.

He also said that no-one else could have made a better movie or a movie as good. Am I to presume that he hasn't read Timothy Zahn's novels?

But mainly, I got the impression that he is an apologist for Lucas, despite the fact that he stated that he was not. The great things he claims to see in Episode I are not there. He even said it himself -

The Phantom Menace is very much like the cave of evil that Luke had to confront during his training on Dagobah: you will find inside it only what you take with you.

I just took my eyes and ears in with me and I saw a really terrible film. He apparently took in a magnifying glass and a notebook to try and find some decent things in the film.

I admire him, I do. But I feel that he is a die-hard fan of Lucas, not Star Wars. He refuses to believe that his idol has lost his edge and is desperately trying to see some good in The Phantom Menace - and he believes he has. He believes it's there so strongly that he thinks it's real.

Perhaps if he came over here and read around the various threads a bit, he might be able to finally let go and move on with his life.

However, I am curious as to what he thinks now. Because so much of his argument centred around the fact that this was the beginning of the prequel trilogy so we should wait and see what happens next. He liked Anakin Skywalker in this film and thought that Darth Maul was killed so that Anakin would take his place - yet in Episode II, Anakin is the biggest jerk in the universe and we have yet another disposable villain in the form of Count Dookoo, and now we know we'll get yet another one with General Grievous in Episode III.

Perhaps he has already seen the light. One can only hope.

[Commoner]

In my last post I meant to say, "in time he'll be proven WRONG.." not "right."

My only hope now is that Ep III will be passable, but with all of the goofy, wanker rumors, those hopes are slim.

My other hope is that someday... someday, that some rich (super rich) Star Wars fan will create his own 'prequels' and then put it on the net. Just.. a crazy, silly, pipe-dream-of-a-hope.

[Chefelf]

While I strongly disagree with with most of the points that D. Trull has, I don't think it is fair to call him a "moron". His points are extremely well presented and everything is very well written. Not to "toot my own horn" but I think he spent just as much time outlining and presenting his points as I did with mine even if he is the yin to my yang.

I really respect his views and how he considers the validity of his points. I think that both camps (those for and those against the prequels) both feel like they are the minority in this situation.

The problem is that the majority of both sides tend to take a relatively unconstructive approach in their criticism of the other. "They suck... this movie rules!!" or "This movie sucks, d00d!!"

If someone can carefully construct and defend reasons (as I feel this "D. Trull" gentleman has) then that's far more valuable. I respect his views because he isn't just one of those mindless fanboys (or mindless haters) of the prequels. His points are well thought out and quite well written. Browsing through the rest of his site I certainly respect him.

I can see what some of you are saying about his "arrogance" however I'm sure fans of the prequels -- and of his articles -- would likely call me arrogant (and indeed have... in MANY emails) if they read my articles on the matter.

Anyway, I respect Mr. Trull and would love to extend and invitation for him to join this forum (which would be a pretty brave move on his part considering the general sentiment here ). I think he makes some good points and while the general population here does not agree with him the posters here are intelligent enough to conduct open-minded debates on the matter. Luckily there is a minimal amount of flaming here on these forums... as it should be.

In short, I would ask you to respect D. Trull for his opinions and the fact that he does build a strong case for his reasons.

[barend]

I agree, but he feels like an intelligent man who doesn't know his wife is cheating on him despite all the evidence presented to him, and dispite the fact that a 'pool man' named Hank keeps comming around even though he doesn't have a pool!!!

he's no fool, he just refuses to let go...
(it's one way to react i'll give you that!)

however, his arguments are well put and it's a shame he chose the dark side on this one, but I respect where he is comming from, and how he is going about it... but his general argument feels much like the McDonalds rebutle in regards to 'supersize me'
the "...we could have told him that" speech

[Private Zod]

His points make sense. I thought they were well constructed, and with some exception, they did not resort to fanboy admiration too much. His Return of the Jedi critiue was very good and brought points I never thought of before. Han, Leia and Luke are Zoloft-out in their demeanors...no passion as opposed to the first 2 films. No originality in plot, scenes or ideas (I do not even count Leia and Luke being bro and sis, since it is just an offshoot of Vader being Luke's father.)

The one thing that is really enforced in this forum and his, amoung other avenues as well, was really how good of a film Empire STrikes.

I would be interested in seeing what he feels since Attack of the Clones came out.

[Just your average movie goer]

I like the idea of inviting him here to join us in our forum. I think that's much better than Jordan's idea of bringing over the idiots from the Star Wars forums who just pat each other on the back and debate with anyone of a different opinion with four letter words, general slander and blocking their access.

On the contrary, D. Trull argues intelligently and thoughtfully. I really liked his discussion about the difficulties one faces with creating the prequel trilogies. No, I don't agree with him about the good points of Episode I - but I respect his ability to present his argument well and that he has actually thought about his stance.

However, if you are going to invite him to the forum, Chefelf, I think it is only fair that you warn him that the majority of us here are people from the other camp.

[civilian_number_two]

The "other camp?"

You mean we're gay?

[Jordan]

D.Trull is the greatest man alive, now that I think about it.

[Despondent]

Lucas has always had a bad habit of not mentioning the names of supporting characters in the Star Wars movies, making it end up that only the devoted fans and action-figure collectors know what all these people are called. The famous example is Boba Fett, whose name was never uttered until Return of the Jedi. And more surprisingly, if less importantly, the word "Ewok" was never spoken at all. But in The Phantom Menace, the persistent withholding of names has gotten out of control. 

I never knew that. I knew what an Ewok was going into the movie! Boba Fett is also a name I never understood. Being young, and stupid, I thought his real name was Bounty Hunter.

Kenner advertised the New Boba Fett character's action figure as a special offer, at least a year before Empire's release. He was also introduced, by name, in that lame Holiday Special. (which I never saw originally. Some sockhop or such at the school, and for some reason, it was never rebroadcast.)

day after Jedi's release, the local radio team were talking about the film. (female) "What? you didn't like the teddy bears?" I'm guessing it was a short matter of time before that became: "why DIDN'T you like the ewoks?"

Negative press moves fast. On one troubled 7th grader's first day of Junior High School, he bragged about having sex the prior summer with a dead cat. By third hour, EVERYONE knew him as "catman," and his life was changed beyond control.

back to character names: Spielberg had Elliot in E.T. fill us in. "this is hammerhead. and this is snaggletooth." were they accessorized with guns? Beverages would have fit their only scene.

[barend]

I went into Empire strikes knowing who bobba fet was, I'm not sure why...

maybe because of the SW:Holiday Special...

[Commoner]

What gets me is that he's so critical of ROTJ, but he can't see the same faults in the PT's. His arguments don't hold for me. ROTJ is only 50% good to me, and that's it. PT's are about 10-20% good.