Plinkett gets REVENGE
- Thread starter Flying Spaghetti Monster
- Start date
- Status
So very true. However, I've always been a complete sucker for eye candy, and I really enjoyed that particular aspect of The Phantom Menace, so I expected Attack of the Clones to push the envelope even further and blow me away with never before seen level of visual extravaganza.
Plus, The Lord of the Rings movies really raised the bar in terms of visual film making back then, and seeing Star Wars being beaten in its own game was quite disappointing.
Good start so far.... 
Man, I was going to be so pissed if we'd gotten Gaithed again.
Yeah, I especially loved the part where he spent like ten minutes bitching about Anakin wanting to help the clone troopers...
With Revenge of the Sith I do get the feeling that there is a really great movie in there somewhere, not too far beneath the surface but unfortunately unable to emerge.
I mean, I got chills when Obi Wan confronts Anakin... and then they started talking. This movie would, I think actually be greatly improved if all the dialogue were removed and it was reshot with only the visuals and the score.
As for the PT as a whole, there are so many bad choices, obviously, but the missing piece that stands out to me most is the lack of a Han Solo-style irreverant character. These movies needed that type of perspective very, very badly, and it was greatly missed.
Aesthetics are the one area in which the PT (and continuing with TCW) has the OT beat all hollow. You really get a feeling of the exoticism and grandeur of the Star Wars universe.
And of course the music contributes a lot, but I'd call the music a draw.
There's a great story in the whole PT, not too far beneath the surface, and requiring not so much in the way of rewriting and crucial additional material. I wouldn't have suspected this till I started watching The Clone Wars, where that story is actually emerging.
Have TCW writers re-do the dialogue and rejigger the script as much as possible, and reshoot it with the characters from TCW. Anakin is entirely different and Obi-Wan is somewhat, but crucially different as well. A confrontation between those two really would give me chills, instead of falling flat like it did in ROTS. By then, I was just muttering "push that stupid punk in the lava already and get this shit over with."
"Murder by Pregnancy" - LOL
"A war run by disinterested hippies"
"A war run by disinterested hippies"
Humorous and spot-on review. But I still think the guy overdoes it on the "crazy/creepy old man" thing. Just give me the damn review and do it without all of this serial-killer old man side bullshit.
People who think Ep:III is the "best one" are probably right but it's still crap. The way the Emperor acts and how much Yoda mixes up his English alone are terrible. Plus the over-done "evil" stuff, Padme seemingly shocked that Anakin could've killed "younglings" (forgetting the children he killed in the previous movie) and the whole lava-planet battle and Obi-Won's bitch fest.
Ugh. This movie was the "good one"?! Only sort of in the way that if someone keeps jamming pineapples up my ass the "better" pineapple is the smallest one.
People who think Ep:III is the "best one" are probably right but it's still crap. The way the Emperor acts and how much Yoda mixes up his English alone are terrible. Plus the over-done "evil" stuff, Padme seemingly shocked that Anakin could've killed "younglings" (forgetting the children he killed in the previous movie) and the whole lava-planet battle and Obi-Won's bitch fest.
Ugh. This movie was the "good one"?! Only sort of in the way that if someone keeps jamming pineapples up my ass the "better" pineapple is the smallest one.
Watch TCW, it's starting to make a lot more sense. The Republic wasn't a healthy democracy, far from it. It was decrepit and corrupt. There may have been some dialogue to that effect in the PT, but it isn't till TCW that any serious effort has been made to provide convincing details that would make the corruption real and believable as a factor in the story.
TCW added a crucial detail - there were Separatists who had legitimate grievances and broke away from the Republic, which they felt was unsalvageable. They weren't all greedy capitalists and evil Sith. In fact, the "legit" Separatists might have been the ones who started the ball rolling. In that case, it would make sense that the greedy/evil people would jump on, opportunistically, and the war wouldn't seem suspicious or contrived to the Jedi (who otherwise seem pretty oblivious and gullible for not being a lot more skeptical about a hugely contrived war that pops up out of nowhere).
This also has interesting implications about Anakin's political views, which I'd assumed were based on pretty much nothing. He hates democracy yet is fighting for the Republic, talk about unclear on the concept. But what if he also realizes the Republic is unsalvagable, yet comes up with his own solution, just a different one from the Separatists?
That's all well and good, but as Plinkett rightly points out - if its not in the film it doesnt count. A movie has to be coherent within its 2 hour run time. You shouldnt have to watch 3 seasons of a TV show to understand why someone does something.
"In Citizen Cane the blocking and visuals were so much more important than telling a story about a guy who became a selfish a-hole. It's such a rich film in its detail and execution and it has almost no action scenes. Well, except for the greatest room-trashing scene in cinematic history which even Tommy Wiseau couldn't top."
True, the TCW doesn't redeem ROTS.
In fact, it does the opposite - showing that it wouldn't have been all that difficult to hammer the PT into a workable or even very good story. Anakin's whole story could have been fit into six hours by jettisoning all the crap that didn't matter and focusing on the stuff that needed to be on film, but wasn't.
True, the TCW doesn't redeem ROTS.
I agree with the fact that TCW doesnt redeem ROTS, but from what Plinkett said about the films from a purely visual standpoint which I hadnt noticed before, its obvious Georgy Boy was creatively bankrupt on more than the story level of things. These films need to be holiday special'd and remade with fresh blood if anyone wants to take the story of young Anakin and do it seriously.
Speak for yourself - seeing the trailer for this review, which had the "hooker" coming to kill plinkett was just as entertaining as any other trailer this year.
I was speaking for myself. 
He raises a good question that I don't think I've encountered before (and that's an accomplishment given the sheer volume of PT-bashing I've plowed through ): Does Anakin's story need to be told?
Certainly not on the basis of Anakin being a hero. Lucas' notion that Vader/Anakin is any kind of hero because he turned on Palps is nonsense; I might as well try to become a hero by knocking over a liquor store and then going back later and secretly putting money in the cash register.
The reason to tell Anakin's story is because Vader is a popular cultural icon and people were understandably curious about him. But why would the audience be curious about him, other than the cool/mystery factor, which is inevitably going to be destroyed in his backstory?
I can think of two reasons: 1) because Vader represents a fantasy of irresponsible, unrestrained power and we want to know how he got that power so we can imagine doing it ourselves; and 2) because we became emotionally attached to his kids before we knew they were his kids, and are fearful or morbidly curious how the same thing that happened to Dad might happen to them as well.
To cover #1, we need to see the "positive" aspect of the Dark Side - why it would be attractive. The story we get is too negative. The Dark Side is for preventing something bad (Padme's death), not getting something good (the sheer, addictive fun of unrestrained power). Plinkett points out that Palps is the only fun character in the story, because he's pro-active and having a blast. Why can't Anakin be the same?
To cover #2, Anakin needs to be depicted as someone who, at one point in his life, was as likable as Luke or Leia. How hard is that? Leia's a bitch and we liked her. Characters don't have to be perfect to be essentially likable. But they do need some appealing characteristics. In the last two movies, there was nothing appealing about the guy at all.
Also for #2, it would have helped to have some foreshadowing that his kids might possibly follow in his footsteps. Have him realize that Padme is pregnant with twins (it's implausible that their level of medical technology wouldn't reveal this anyway). Have him start talking ominously about the possibilities this represents (Padme can be clueless; isn't it nice that Anakin is already planning for the kids' future). The twins are a large reason why Anakin's story is being told in the first place, so let's see more of a connection there.
I'm not sure I'd dump the Space-Jesus idea, as long as it could be pulled off in a less ridiculous fashion. Star Wars has always had that grandiose element. But he's right on target saying this story should have been far more character-focused. Nobody was clamoring to see Anakin's story so we could get a dour civics lesson about the fragility of democracy.
): Does Anakin's story need to be told?Certainly not on the basis of Anakin being a hero. Lucas' notion that Vader/Anakin is any kind of hero because he turned on Palps is nonsense; I might as well try to become a hero by knocking over a liquor store and then going back later and secretly putting money in the cash register.
The reason to tell Anakin's story is because Vader is a popular cultural icon and people were understandably curious about him. But why would the audience be curious about him, other than the cool/mystery factor, which is inevitably going to be destroyed in his backstory?
I can think of two reasons: 1) because Vader represents a fantasy of irresponsible, unrestrained power and we want to know how he got that power so we can imagine doing it ourselves; and 2) because we became emotionally attached to his kids before we knew they were his kids, and are fearful or morbidly curious how the same thing that happened to Dad might happen to them as well.
To cover #1, we need to see the "positive" aspect of the Dark Side - why it would be attractive. The story we get is too negative. The Dark Side is for preventing something bad (Padme's death), not getting something good (the sheer, addictive fun of unrestrained power). Plinkett points out that Palps is the only fun character in the story, because he's pro-active and having a blast. Why can't Anakin be the same?
To cover #2, Anakin needs to be depicted as someone who, at one point in his life, was as likable as Luke or Leia. How hard is that? Leia's a bitch and we liked her. Characters don't have to be perfect to be essentially likable. But they do need some appealing characteristics. In the last two movies, there was nothing appealing about the guy at all.
Also for #2, it would have helped to have some foreshadowing that his kids might possibly follow in his footsteps. Have him realize that Padme is pregnant with twins (it's implausible that their level of medical technology wouldn't reveal this anyway). Have him start talking ominously about the possibilities this represents (Padme can be clueless; isn't it nice that Anakin is already planning for the kids' future). The twins are a large reason why Anakin's story is being told in the first place, so let's see more of a connection there.
I'm not sure I'd dump the Space-Jesus idea, as long as it could be pulled off in a less ridiculous fashion. Star Wars has always had that grandiose element. But he's right on target saying this story should have been far more character-focused. Nobody was clamoring to see Anakin's story so we could get a dour civics lesson about the fragility of democracy.
- Status
Similar threads
