posted 06-12-99 03:52 AM ET        

1. You should not include 1/2 hour long commercial tie-ins for run-on-rails computer games in supposedly epic movies.

2. You should not use said tie-ins to take the piss out of the chariot race in Ben Hur.

3. You should not include saturday morning cartoon character types on the basis of marketing information or a desire to give your aforesaid epic movie more widespread appeal to a younger audience.

4. You should not use said saturday morning cartoon characters to take the piss out of the pitched battle scenes in Braveheart.

5. You should not try to aggressively show off your knowledge of roman history when making epic Sci-Fi movies. Thank you, George, we get the picture, you passed Classics 101 in college. Now stop it.

6. You should not invent cool evil warrior types, make them fight like demons for hours on end, and then have them meet their untimely death by reason of inexplicable stupidity or a severe bout of neuro-muscular paralysis. It's getting REALLY goddamn irritating.

7. We all know the F-111 Blackbird is a really cool plane, George. That doesn't mean that every ship in the movie needs to look like it.

8. You should not try stretch the audience's suspension of disbelief to near breaking point by giving near impossible skills to young children.

9. You should not add interesting new technologies (shields, battle droids, etc) to movies that supposedly occured BEFORE the original epic.

10. Likewise, you should not start explaining anything that will afterwards go unexplained in the remainer of the epic. Bio-metaphysics is a current Sci-Fi fad, George, not a legimate basis for plot developement.

Again, don't get me wrong. I LIKE this movie. It has a lot going for it. But I can't seem to shake the odd home-shopping-channel feeling that I was left with afterwards. Like maybe I've missed the wholepoint of the story, and that rather than have purely enjoyed it, I should have felt the need to go shopping instead.

posted 06-12-99 04:00 PM ET            

What, you expect the King of Merchandising not to merchandise his newest product?

2. You should not use said tie-ins to take the piss out of the chariot race in Ben Hur.

The Pod Race is one of the best race sequences I've seen in any movie. I haven't seen Ben Hur, so I can't tell you if it was any more exciting or not, but Lucas publically acknowledges he gets inspiration from classics.

3. You should not include saturday morning cartoon character types on the basis of marketing information or a desire to give your aforesaid epic movie more widespread appeal to a younger audience.

Eh, you're just suffering Hype and Marketing Backlash. Yea, some of it is a bit extreme (Jar Jar Tounge Suckers? Ye gods!), but didn't they do this with Jurassic Park, too?

4. You should not use said saturday morning cartoon characters to take the piss out of the pitched battle scenes in Braveheart.

This is just a generic battle scene...it didn't have much Braveheart to it. No horse spears, no pale asses, no sudden flanking manuvers that caused a defeat for bad guys (the bad guys won the fight in TPM, remember?).

5. You should not try to aggressively show off your knowledge of roman history when making epic Sci-Fi movies. Thank you, George, we get the picture, you passed Classics 101 in college. Now stop it.

Erm, where, exactly, was all of this?

6. You should not invent cool evil warrior types, make them fight like demons for hours on end, and then have them meet their untimely death by reason of inexplicable stupidity or a severe bout of neuro-muscular paralysis. It's getting REALLY goddamn irritating.

Don't most villians usually die by inexplicable stupidity? It's the usual route. Palpatine died because he was too arrogant to see the flaws in his plans, the British lost in Braveheart because they were too arrogant to see the resolve the Scots had. The aliens in ID4 were brain-dead when it came to identifying infiltrating craft. Etc.

7. We all know the F-111 Blackbird is a really cool plane, George. That doesn't mean that every ship in the movie needs to look like it.

SR-71. The F-111 is an aging swing-wing vietnam-era fighter/bomber now used by countries with small air forces.
I'm not quite sure why Lucas let such an obvious design reference into the movie, but I wasn't annoyed by it. The Naboo starfighter doesn't look much like it, and the TF fighters and cruisers looked -nothing- like it.

8. You should not try stretch the audience's suspension of disbelief to near breaking point by giving near impossible skills to young children.

What's so impossible about Anakin Skywalker (-the- Anakin Skywalker) having such amazing skill? This is Darth Vader we're talking about here. He's mechanically minded...probably no more skilled at this than Mozart was at piano when he was 10. He's very strong in the Force, so he's an excellent pilot.

9. You should not add interesting new technologies (shields, battle droids, etc) to movies that supposedly occured BEFORE the original epic.

The original epic occured in a time of strife and galaxy-wide suppression by a totalitarian government, and occured almost entirely on third-rate backwater worlds. TPM occurs during the height of the Republic, on a world where style accounts more than ruggedness, and cheap and easy control counts more than trained soldiers.
Also, remember there are two distinct cultures between TPM and the first epic. The Empire, where equipment is more valuable than personel, and the Rebellion, where they couldn't afford to keep their ships in prime condition and fully armed. The Trade Federation, a corporation-state with minimal battle experience, warships merely converted cargo ships, and a huge budget but valuable people; the Republic, a bloated, corrupt, buracracy; the Naboo, a style-concious people where form comes before function.

10. Likewise, you should not start explaining anything that will afterwards go unexplained in the remainer of the epic. Bio-metaphysics is a current Sci-Fi fad, George, not a legimate basis for plot developement.

We don't know what will be in the next two movies, other than a vague outline (that may not even be correct). How do you know that the Force won't be explained further?
Another thought...perhaps the 'midi-chlorians' are merely a side-effect from Force strength, and it's just some religion that some Jedi belong to who believe the organisms allow access to the Force. Remember, Qui-jonn (gonn? I can never remember) was rather rebellious and didn't really listen to the Council.

I loved this movie; not as much as Empire, more than Jedi, about the same as Hope. The only thing I have a problem with is the rampant, unbelivable merchandising (ok, I expect toys and games from movies (I even buy 'em), and fast-food tie-ins for a couple months. But some of this stuff...potato chips, soda, disgustingly designed candy, inflatable furniture...ugh.).
Oh, and don't get me started on the reviews. They're worse than the merchadising blitz.

posted 06-13-99 03:30 AM ET            

I expected to have a bigger problem with Jar Jar. He's just comic relief, and an incredible unconscious Jedi, apparently. And after the great amount of money they made on Ewoks, cutie is in apparently... as is talking like a teletubby. Oh well...

Anikin can do anything. The Force made him. Being a true miracle child of Force ( virgin conception ) apparantly has it bennies... However, I had ST:NG Wesley flash backs. But kids are cute, right, no matter how annoying they are. And the kids need someone to identify with. Luke was too old in Hope.

Nice about the droids. Circular. I suppose we can expect R2 and C3 looking after people in the LAST three movies as well.

I hadn't really connected the Nubian (their terms in movie, I think. If so, bad joke from dirty old man ) to SR71. Until my friends mentioned it on the way out of the theatre. But I can see the connect. Put a chrome skin on it, and bang. There you are.

I thought Palpatine was a Corsucant Senator. Not Nubian. Oh well...

What struck me was how much the Queen looked like Leia.

And Darth getting cut in half was a delayed action. He had done that to himself already in the fight. At least, that was the way it looked. I'm looking forward to buying the video to see if that's true.

That little critter thing... I just thought it was natural side effect. Jedi's are strong in the force, and their bodies and life essence are strong. They tend to have lots more things living in them, but not harmfully. Its in the Star Wars fiction and game system.

Battle droids aren't new. Palpatine didn't like them. He liked living creatures. They could be manipulated and tortured... and killed. As a Dark Side entity, he gained strength from Death, Terror, Fear, Hate... yadda yadda yadda. Empire loved droids and mechanical things though. And Battle Droids were mentioned in the original Trilogy. Not new technology... They had shields throughout ST. The Rebels put up shields on Hoth, remember? They just mounted them into some hi tech droids. Seemed like the smart thing to do (and I wondered why AT-ATs didn't have them during Empire...)

posted 06-13-99 11:15 PM ET            

Thanks for picking me up on the plane thing - what the hell was I thinking (F-111 indeed...).

The shields thing was overdone compared to the rest of the triology, which used large scale shields, not the personal small scale stuff shown in TPM (maybe the guns get better later on?). And I don't recall a single battle droid in the entire trilogy, save for the scout drone on hoth maybe. Given their failure in TPM, I can see why the type would be abandonned, even in favour of those abysmally crap empirial stormtroopers.
*sigh*. More commercial sensitivity, I suspect. It probably wouldn't be a good idea to have Qui-con and Obi-wan hacking and slashing their way through huge numbers of human troops in light of current attitudes.

Actually, that's probably what's bugging me about the whole movie. There seems to be a total lack of any tension in the action scenes - again, the hype of the original trilogy is replaced by that saturday morning X-men type cartoon feeling. You do feel a little tension during the fight with Darth Maul, but not nearly enough, especially given the quality of the combat.

Darkstar: I'm positive Darth Maul never touched himself with that thing. Anyway, IIRC, they use an actual staff in the filming, and then edit the sabre effect in later. So unless Ray Park actually cut himself in half while fighting, I doubt it happened in TPM, either.

posted 06-14-99 01:37 AM ET            

As far as Darth went... there are a few staff moves that he used that looked like the type one uses one's own rib cage/elbow to stop rotation. And that looked like it would SUCK as a light saber adaption. He needed more handle area.

And a REAL quarterstaffer should beat the heck out of a swordsman, or so the stories go. Not sure if that's true, but in untrained match ups I know its true . I am sure the Martial Artist can clear that up though.

Yeah, I was disappointed with the Darth, but hey, he was no Vader, after all.

I hadn't thought there were any stereotypes other than commercially cute. Ugh.

You are darned right you couldn't show Obi-won slicing people apart. But robotic soldiers make sense. You power them up when you need them, shut them down and store them otherwise. All you have to worry about is Logic and Command. With the advanced robotics that Star Wars has, it seems like a natural extension. And they don't believe in Asimov's Laws of Robotics.

As I said, Jedi like people, not machines.

I'd have to replay my movies of the middle trilogy. I thought they had mentioned battle droids, but I could be wrong. Considering how much SW fiction I read and SW RPGing I did, it could have slid over in my mind from one of them.

posted 06-14-99 10:24 AM ET            

All sorts of mythological references are there in spades. Lucas admits it, and I don't see why someone would complain about it. This is a good part of the reason the Star Wars movies have been so successful. The most enduring stories are the oldest ones, after all.

--"The shields thing was overdone compared to the rest of the triology"

Again, look at the differences in the time-period. I expected to see a lot more shield usage. During ANH, ESB, and RotJ, what do we have? We have a huge Empire, whose ruler doesn't care two beans about individual life, fighting a bunch of Rebels who have second-hand, black-market, cobbled together duct-tape and bailing-wire technology. There's no room there for individual shields. TPM was set at the end of the Republic, where this sort of thing was widely available, especially to legit forces like the Gungans and the Trade Federation (especially the Trade Federation). I expect a lot of personal shields in the next movie, but probably not many in the one after that.

--"Given their failure in TPM, I can see why the type would be abandonned,"

I believe this is being discussed in another thread as well The Trade Federation has more money than excess population, so they'd favor things like the droids (those Destroyers were pretty damn nice, IMNSHO). The Emperor doesn't care about life, and he's got a huge empire to draw troops from, so why spend money on droids when he can use it on Star Destroyers and pack them will Stormtroopers?

--"there are a few staff moves that he used that looked like the type one uses one's own rib cage/elbow to stop rotation."

I don't recall seeing any of those, and the stunt coordinator on this was pretty careful about that sort of thing.

--"And a REAL quarterstaffer should beat the heck out of a swordsman, or so the stories go."

Aye, but his lightstaff (or whatever it's called) isn't a true quarterstaff. Darth's got a lot more problems, what with not being able to shift his grip down too far (ouch) or being able to use his own body as any sort of assist in starting/stopping the staff's movement. He's also got a more limited area that he can use for blocking, since (as we saw) it is vulnerable to being cut in half if he doesn't block with the blade. It is a rather odd and exotic choice of weapons, and Darth has to be very skilled and dextrous to use it at all. I will note, however, that he didn't have much trouble finishing off Qui-Gon once he got him alone, and would have easily taken out Obi-Wan if he wasn't toying with him. A two-on-one fight is pretty rough, and with his doublesabre thingy, he had to be really careful not to let a parry push his blade around He did, however, make time to sidekick Obi-Wan a couple times, and both times should have been able to kill him if, again, he wasn't toying with him. Sidekicking someone in the face during a sword fight is a bit of a sign of contempt

posted 06-14-99 03:06 PM ET            

And Wraith, I agree with your difficulties listed with the light staff. Better if Darth had been a two saber man. Or choose another time to show off. But the gene pool needs to be scrubbed out every now and then...

posted 06-14-99 05:39 PM ET            

One the other hand, fencing is something I can talk about. You can do stuff with a light sword (unavoidable pun, I mean a blade that is not particularly heavy) incredibly fast, so I'd still favour the sword against the staff, even with darth maul jumping around like that.

posted 06-15-99 03:50 AM ET            

Either way, I wouldn't want to face ANYONE with Steel or Staff out to kill or harm me.

posted 06-16-99 07:20 AM ET            

I think 'reach wins' is a bit simplistic, and violates a fairly simple rule of economics to boot. In that a staff is a great deal cheaper than a sword, but most armies wanted swords instead of staves. That, even to a complete novice with either weapon, says a lot.

posted 06-16-99 04:27 PM ET            

In feudal western times, most armies had few swords. Those were reserved for the elite. Most people used staffs with knives tied on, or spears (or members of the spear family). In most feudal disputes, I, Sir Darkstar, would take my loyal retainers, and charge your pessants. You, Sir Shining, would take your loyal retainers, and charge my peasants. Each set of peasants wished they had swords to chop off the mount's armored legs. Rarely did knight fight knight, as that was a way to die quickly. Medieval swords rarely had much of an edge... you just whacked the heck out of your opponent. The basic shape, strength, and power determined a lot of the damage.

Or so the journals of the family go. (Along my father's line, we are descended from a few well known (in their times) King Axe-Men (as in, he was sent to challenge and KILL you)). Not very exciting or stylish, but...

The commoners were happy to beat each other up whatever was handy. You only need steel to get through steel, after all, and if you can pull a knight of his horse, the fall tends to wind him. That leaves time for your buds to swarm him and try to finish him off through weak points on him.

Sword's advantage over Staff is speed. Staff's over Sword is reach. So, once skill and luck are aside, its at that age old debate... speed to first strike vs. reach to first strike.

Personally, I think you are better off sheathing or dropping the sword, but that's because I have more experience horsing around with and versus a staff. (You never horse around with Steel or Fire-arms, after all.) And the closer you are to a staff man, the worse off he generally is. (Same with any armed person other than a skilled knife person).

But, as I said, I am not a artiste martial... merely someone that liked to spar and watch and didn't mind getting a bruise or three dozen in the play.