Plinkett gets REVENGE

[flemm]

It's simpler to just integrate the forbidden love story with the Jedi-rules story. The Jedi rules should be onerous, to give Anakin more of a motive to rebel, so that synchs up in a nice, streamlined way.

At best I guess we can imagine that it might have, if the script had been entirely re-written It's true, though, that there's nothing inherently flawed about linking these two stories together.

The more basic problem is Anakin's utter lack of charisma, which would have prevented any story angle from working effectively.

That can be explained away if the Force makes sure there's always X% of Force-sensitives spontaneously being born, even to families with no genetic history of it. Or maybe there are so many Force-sensitives that not to curtail their population would result in a dangerous number running around.

Or more simply, the pseudo-explanation provided in TPM for force-sensitivity should just have been deleted, thereby eliminating the problem, which is at any rate minor and fanwanky when compared to the gigantic flaws in basic storytelling on display in the PT.

Anakin falls to the Dark Side because he loves power, nice and simple. He doesn't need to be trying to save Padme or thinking she's fooling around with Obi-Wan, or a naive idiot, or anything else.

I agree, but some basic story coherence is also necessary. If suddenly jealousy is going to be a motive, then there has to be a least some reason for it. Again, this part of the story would need to be marked for deletion (along with most of the rest of it, honestly ), or it would need to be developed in a more plausible manner.

 

[Whofan]

Agree with most of Plinkett's points, except he's wondering why there isn't a senate rebellion. There is, it's just kind of cut out of the film and in the deleted scenes, and of course that "Delegation" grows into the Rebel alliance (Notably among the delegation is Mon Mothma, the redheaded british lady from ROTJ).

I found it kind of odd, considering that Plinkett uses some footage from the deleted scenes in his review.

 

[Mach5]

do you really not know the name of one of the most famous fictional characters in the history of human culture?

well, i wouldn't go that far.

I would, at least as western civilization is concerned. Obi-Wan has long become a synonym for a mentor. My God, I've even heard the phrase "Obi-Wan has taught you well" spoken by some Eastern-European folks who don't even like SW.

How many fictional characters can you name, that get referenced in modern media, movies, literature etc. as much as Kenobi?

Besides Yoda, Vader and Sherlock Holmes, of course.

 

[Gojira]

I love Plinkett's reviews and although I often agree with him on his critique of the Star Wars prequels it doesn't stop me from enjoying them. They are what they are..throw backs to the B science fiction of the 50s with state of the art special affects.

 

[Mach5]

I love Plinkett's reviews and although I often agree with him on his critique of the Star Wars prequels it doesn't stop me from enjoying them. They are what they are..throw backs to the B science fiction of the 50s with state of the art special affects.

Beautifully put. A lot of people want these movies to be something that they were never meant to be.

To be realistic, the original movies weren't exactly good plot and character driven films either.

If Star Wars (ep IV) came out today, it would be instantly slammed as boring, badly written and badly acted.

The thing is, SW 1977 was successful mostly because it was groundbreaking. TESB was successful because it was a long awaited sequel to that groundbraking movie, and because it was, well, amazing. And ROTJ, well... It completed the circle nicely, but it wasn't exactly something to write home about - teddy bears everywhere, the final battle basically a rehash of the one seen in the first movie (only on steroids) etc...

 

[flemm]

To be realistic, the original movies weren't exactly good plot and character driven films either.

I think that's true, but only to a point. There's plenty of dialogue in the original that's smile-inducing and eyeroll-worthy and so on, but there's no denying the energy of the stories (especially 1 + 2) and the charisma of the characters. Alec Guinness gives a masterful performance as Obi Wan (the key to the whole mythology) and Harrison Ford is great as Han.

The PT has no soul and includes some of the most mind-numbingly awful sequences of dialogue I have ever seen in any movie ever. I don't think it's just a question of accumulated reverence toward the OT. I mean, some of those scenes between Anakin and Padmé make similar scenes in run-of-the-mill daytime soaps look like Shakespeare.

It's a level of terribleness that is rarely attained in a Hollywood movie and that's saying something.

 

[Amaris]

I love Plinkett's reviews, and these are spot on as usual.

 

[Alex1939]

To be realistic, the original movies weren't exactly good plot and character driven films either.

but there's no denying the energy of the stories (especially 1 + 2) and the charisma of the characters. Alec Guinness gives a masterful performance as Obi Wan (the key to the whole mythology) and Harrison Ford is great as Han.

Let's not miss the major point of these reviews.


The "story" in each of the prequels MAKES NO SENSE. The motivations for the characters are lacking. The decision making and reasoning behind the characters is abhorred.

And besides stolen dialogue and similar (almost identical) scenes, the prequels don't flow into the original at all.

 

[Trekker4747]

To be realistic, the original movies weren't exactly good plot and character driven films either.

I think that's true, but only to a point. There's plenty of dialogue in the original that's smile-inducing and eyeroll-worthy and so on, but there's no denying the energy of the stories (especially 1 + 2) and the charisma of the characters. Alec Guinness gives a masterful performance as Obi Wan (the key to the whole mythology) and Harrison Ford is great as Han.

The PT has no soul and includes some of the most mind-numbingly awful sequences of dialogue I have ever seen in any movie ever. I don't think it's just a question of accumulated reverence toward the OT. I mean, some of those scenes between Anakin and Padmé make similar scenes in run-of-the-mill daytime soaps look like Shakespeare.

It's a level of terribleness that is rarely attained in a Hollywood movie and that's saying something.

Yeah, the OT has some dialogue problems too but, somehow, it's more than made up for by how the dialogue is delivered and presented. I mean Harrison Ford could read Vogon Poetry and make it fascinating no matter how well the direction is. I'd argue that Liam Nesson is the same way (he was probably the most likable character in the PT) but Hayden Christensen is someone who needs a lot of direction to get the best out of him and I suspect Lucas' sitting behind a bank of TVs and monitors drinking coffee while occasionally getting up and indifferently given suggestions isn't a good way to get the best out of Hayden.

Look at the scene in ANH with Luke, Han, Chewie and Leia in the trash compactor. Not the best of dialogue, perhaps in the scene or even really the best scene but the actors all put a lot of energy and desperation in what they're saying and doing in that scene.

In the PT the actors don't seem to put much energy, emotion or really anything into their lines and the scenes and the all CG backgrounds with the actors walking on a treadmill next to a green-screen just doesn't give one much feeling of it being "real." Some of those scenes were almost as bad as scenes in lame 80s or 90s movies or even TV shows with the actors performing in front of matte paintings, rear-projection or even other chroma-key processes and you can just see the difference between the actor and the B/G. It almost looks more CG than the actor already looks on the TV. It's just too flat and odd looking.

The scenes in the PT just look like that they look flat, boring and just not "really there." Plinkett really nailed on some very good points in this review not just with ATOC but with the entire PT. The OT has its flaws and problems too but it just seems like with the PT Lucas didn't care or got too involved in showing off the effects rather than making the movies interesting to watch. The trench-run in ANH and event he Ewok/Empire fight in ROTJ are so much better than the crowded, dense, overtly-complicated space and ground battles we see in all three PT movies.

 

[Temis the Vorta]

Agree with most of Plinkett's points, except he's wondering why there isn't a senate rebellion.

You really have to assume (and this is just another of the never-ending list of things we need to mentally add to the story to get the damn thing to work) that the Senate was as woefully corrupt, self-interested and apathetic as the Republic in general, and they might even realize Palps is up to no good (how could they not even suspect?!?) but hey, he promised some good pork-barrel projects in their district, so hurray for the Evil Galactic Empire.

Which leads to another problem - if the situation is really that far gone, Padme, Bail, and their few allies look like total idiots for sticking around to try to fight for a society so thoroughly corrupt that you might as well just burn it to the ground and start over. You'd think professional politicians would be a bit savvier about seeing which way the wind blows. They should have taken a page from the Separatists and started the Rebellion a bit early.

How many fictional characters can you name, that get referenced in modern media, movies, literature etc. as much as Kenobi?

Besides Yoda, Vader and Sherlock Holmes, of course.

Just off the top of my head: Kirk, Spock, Indiana Jones, Dorothy Gale, the Wicked Witch of the West, the Cowardly Lion, various characters from Pulp Fiction, Inigo Montoya, Dirty Harry, Travis Bickle, the The Sopranos gangsters (fuggedaboudit!), Rick Blaine and Ilsa Lund, Scarlett O'Hara and Rhett Butler, and last but certainly not least (and probably the most incessantly quoted of all), Tony Montana.

A lot of people want these movies to be something that they were never meant to be.

You mean, good?

The old B movies may not have been good, but at least they weren't boring and inept.

If Star Wars (ep IV) came out today, it would be instantly slammed as boring, badly written and badly acted.

Nah, it holds up well to the test of time. It's a simple, straightforward story that is hardly original, swiping from everything but the kitchen sink, but it has a few advantages over the PT: the story makes sense, the characters make sense, we like them and want to see more about them, and the whole thing is fun to watch and not a chore.

 

[Gaith]

What could he possibly review next? Maybe the shitty TOS films idk

I'm hoping "Kingdom of the Crystal Skulls"

THIS.

If Star Wars (ep IV) came out today, it would be instantly slammed as boring, badly written and badly acted.

 

[Mach5]

How many fictional characters can you name, that get referenced in modern media, movies, literature etc. as much as Kenobi?

Besides Yoda, Vader and Sherlock Holmes, of course.

Just off the top of my head: Kirk, Spock, Indiana Jones, Dorothy Gale, the Wicked Witch of the West, the Cowardly Lion, various characters from Pulp Fiction, Inigo Montoya, Dirty Harry, Travis Bickle, the The Sopranos gangsters (fuggedaboudit!), Rick Blaine and Ilsa Lund, Scarlett O'Hara and Rhett Butler, and last but certainly not least (and probably the most incessantly quoted of all), Tony Montana.

Sadly, half of the people who occasionally say stuff like "May the force be with you" haven't even seen Scarface (BTW, I bumped on it on one of Croatian channels just this night).

BTW, everyone you mentioned carries certain weight (especially Indy), but there is something about Yoda, Obi-Wan and Luke that transcends the idea of a modern pop-culture phenomenon. These are virtually mythological characters, a modern day equivalents of heroes like Odysseus, Perseus, King Arthur, Merlin etc...

Yeah, Tony Montana sure is an archetypal crime lord, but he's not THE modern day symbol of crime (Capone is ).

Yoda however is THE symbol of pure wisdom (more than, say, Gandalf and Dumbledore put together), Obi-Wan is THE symbol of mentorship and guidance, while Luke is a typical "hero on a journey", a symbol of growing up, maturing and "fulfilling a destiny" (meaning reaching adulthood and excepting responsibilities).

(Yeah, I've been reading / watching too much Campbell, I know...)

Similarly, Sherlock Holmes is undoubtedly the biggest modern-day symbol of wit.

You could say that Spock is a symbol of logic and equanimity, but let's face it, to most people he is just that guy with the pointy ears.

If Star Wars (ep IV) came out today, it would be instantly slammed as boring, badly written and badly acted.

Nah, it holds up well to the test of time.

I don't think it does. Ask anyone under the age of 25, which SW movie he or she likes the least. It will probably be Attack of the Clones, but most people I know find "Star Wars" to be the least entertaining of the six.

It's a simple, straightforward story that is hardly original, swiping from everything but the kitchen sink, but it has a few advantages over the PT: the story makes sense, the characters make sense, we like them and want to see more about them, and the whole thing is fun to watch and not a chore.

It's as goofy as a children's tale, as shallow as an old Saturday afternoon serial, as corny as Kansas in August--and a masterpiece. Those who analyze its philosophy do so, I imagine, with a smile in their minds. May the Force be with them.
-- Roger Ebert

But then again, here's what he said about The Phantom Menace:

As for the bad rap about the characters--hey, I've seen space operas that put their emphasis on human personalities and relationships. They're called "Star Trek" movies. Give me transparent underwater cities and vast hollow senatorial spheres any day.

Shut up Kevin, you're not Lex Luthor.

 

[flemm]

Yoda however is THE symbol of pure wisdom (more than, say, Gandalf and Dumbledore put together), Obi-Wan is THE symbol of mentorship and guidance, while Luke is a typical "hero on a journey", a symbol of growing up, maturing and "fulfilling a destiny" (meaning reaching adulthood and excepting responsibilities).

I think you're vastly overstating your case. I don't know a single person who would consider Yoda to be a symbol of pure wisdom, but rather that backwards-talking guy first and foremost. Luke is indeed a typical hero on a journey but not an especially emblematic one.

Darth Vader is probably the most iconic SW character and remains a reference as far as evilness is concerned, at least to an extent, but I think the general awareness of most of the characters has waned considerably. The whole idea of the "dark side" and the possibility of succombing to it strikes me as the SW concept most deeply embedded in the popular consciousness.

It's an influential piece of pop culture, don't get me wrong, but let's not get carried away. Other than geeks like us, most people have only a vague idea of who Obi Wan is and don't see him as symbolic of anything in particular (except perhaps bad acting and green screens due to the PT).

It's as goofy as a children's tale, as shallow as an old Saturday afternoon serial, as corny as Kansas in August--and a masterpiece. Those who analyze its philosophy do so, I imagine, with a smile in their minds. May the Force be with them.
-- Roger Ebert

But then again, here's what he said about The Phantom Menace:

As for the bad rap about the characters--hey, I've seen space operas that put their emphasis on human personalities and relationships. They're called "Star Trek" movies. Give me transparent underwater cities and vast hollow senatorial spheres any day.

If anything, those two quotes underline the immense chasm that separates the two trilogies. For the first movie, effusive enthusiasm that he is strugglingly to articulate adequately through a series of analogies. For TPM: there were some cool CGI environments and he wasn't as bored as he had been at recent Star Trek movies

 

[The Mirrorball Man]

I think we can start with Han and ask ourselves: why was there no Han-like rebellious, irreverant character in the PT? This element of the OT just disappears entirely.

No it doesn't. The character you're talking about is called Jar-Jar Binks.

If you watch The Phantom Menace and the original Star Wars back to back, you'll soon realize that Jar-Jar's role is very similar to Han. He's the one that offers an outsider's perspective, isn't all that impressed with the Jedi ways, helps our heroes escape the bad guys in occupied territory, and has a pivotal role in the final battle. It's interesting to know that in some of the early drafts of Star Wars, Han is described as an amphibian alien.

Unfortunately for the Prequels, Han Solo was played by a young Harrison Ford, while Jar-Jar was an annoying space muppet.

 

[Mach5]

I think you're vastly overstating your case. I don't know a single person who would consider Yoda to be a symbol of pure wisdom, but rather that backwards-talking guy first and foremost.

Uhm... Okay.

Other than geeks like us, most people have only a vague idea of who Obi Wan is and don't see him as symbolic of anything in particular

Then I guess I could be suffering from a mild case of schizophrenia, because I literally see (hear) Star Wars EVERYWHERE. And not just in made-4-geeks TV shows like Stargate or Farscape...

For example, just the other day I went to see Tron: Legacy, and they showed the trailer for Gulliver. Most of the audience LOL'd when Jack Black said something about the Millennium falcon and Vice President Yoda.

Also, in one of the more recent episodes of Daily Show, Jon Stewart used a Star Wars metaphor ("Barack Obama, I'm not saying you don't have Jedi potential, but maybe you want to wait until term two before you let Obi-Wan back out in front of the press corps.")

 

[flemm]

Uhm... Okay.

The most famous thing about Yoda is his speech pattern. He's not a symbol of wisdom.

Then I guess I could be suffering from a mild case of schizophrenia, because I literally see (hear) Star Wars EVERYWHERE. And not just in made-4-geeks TV shows like Stargate or Farscape...

For example, just the other day I went to see Tron: Legacy, and they showed the trailer for Gulliver. Most of the audience LOL'd when Jack Black said something about the Millennium falcon and Vice President Yoda.

Also, in one of the more recent episodes of Today Show, Jon Stewart used a Star Wars metaphor ("Barack Obama, I'm not saying you don't have Jedi potential, but maybe you want to wait until term two before you let Obi-Wan back out in front of the press corps.")

Pop culture is very self-referential. Jon Stewart, for example, is constantly dropping pop culture references. Star Wars is certainly a big enough franchise to play a part in this, but not an especially important part as compared to other major franchises (that are also referenced in this manner). Probably you are more sensitive to the Star Wars references because you are a SW fan. It is only natural.

 

[Amaris]

I think we can start with Han and ask ourselves: why was there no Han-like rebellious, irreverant character in the PT? This element of the OT just disappears entirely.

No it doesn't. The character you're talking about is called Jar-Jar Binks.

If you watch The Phantom Menace and the original Star Wars back to back, you'll soon realize that Jar-Jar's role is very similar to Han. He's the one that offers an outsider's perspective, isn't all that impressed with the Jedi ways, helps our heroes escape the bad guys in occupied territory, and has a pivotal role in the final battle. It's interesting to know that in some of the early drafts of Star Wars, Han is described as an amphibian alien.

Unfortunately for the Prequels, Han Solo was played by a young Harrison Ford, while Jar-Jar was an annoying space muppet.

Agreed. Jar Jar (while not hated by me) lowered my expectations somewhat.

 

[Gaith]

It's as goofy as a children's tale, as shallow as an old Saturday afternoon serial, as corny as Kansas in August--and a masterpiece. Those who analyze its philosophy do so, I imagine, with a smile in their minds. May the Force be with them.
-- Roger Ebert

He's also written a "Great Movies" piece on ANH, something he hasn't even gotten around doing for Empire yet...

 

[flemm]

No it doesn't. The character you're talking about is called Jar-Jar Binks.

You may well be right that Jar-Jar was intended to play this role, but the character does so in such an inept manner that, for all intents and purposes, Han's irreverent perspective is absent even from TPM, and then of course from the next two films.

I think Temis is on the write track in the sense that Anakin would ideally have been imbued with some of Han's rebellious charisma.

 

[Mach5]

Probably you are more sensitive to the Star Wars references because you are a SW fan. It is only natural.

You mean, like when people make up conspiracies about the number 47 popping out everywhere, while it in fact shows up just as often as any other double-digit number?

It's just that I'm not sure it does, really. Just like I'm not sure that "It's just you" is a valid argument. I'm also a huge Trek fan, and I don't see/hear half as many Star Trek references than SW. Actually, I think that ratio would be closer to 3:1, if not higher.