The Problem with Star Wars

[Lord Pendragon]

You would be surprised how many non-fans I know who STILL have no idea Palpatine is Sidious. I just explained it AGAIN the other day when one of the undergrads in my lab was watching the trailer and freaked out when he saw Palpy charge Mace and his little posse.

How many of these non-fans actually watched the original trilogy? I find it hard to believe that, having seen the original trilogy, there is any opacity in tPM's plot. For non-fans who've never watched the OT, I can see it, otherwise...

"...the character design is wasted in a cheap death"
Fixed that for you. There was an interesting character design, but no character there to speak of. And as for Dooku.... blasphemy! I was thrilled to see an ACTUAL villain in the apprentice role instead of style over substance.

I'll accept the fix. My problem is with the waste of the design, not the character which as you point out is not a character at all. And that's exactly my problem with Dooku. In a world of Darth Vaders and Darth Mauls and Darth Sideous's, Count Dooku sticks out like a plain thumb. Yes, we had Grand Moff Tarkin in ANH, but note that he's the one that got whacked in one movie, not Darth Vader.

Plus, the sword-fights with him did a much better job of looking like someone who knew what he was doing. That asinine double-lightsaber was the second worst idea in TPM.

I disagree here. A double-bladed lightsaber works, because it can cut at any angle (unlike the D&D double-bladed sword, which is silly.) I thought Maul's combination of a staff-fighting type still and Wing Chun was fantastic visually. Indeed, it made it all the more jarring and silly when Maul died, because he'd been so badass up until he needed to be killed. :/

It is, however, dramatically useless. It is impossible to lose such a fight. Without the constraint of a body hooked to the sword, it can slip around any attack instantly and end the fight in about 1/4 of a second.

Perhaps. The Star Wars game Knights of the Old Republic II has a villain who uses such an attack, though, and it seemed dramatically viable in the game.

Besides, I find it to be of dubious coolness. Using the Force to propel his 800+ year old body into battle is cool, even if I dislike some aspects of the execution. Personally, I think they should have spent some more time studying the couple of Kali and Silat masters who are about 4'8". How those guys fight a tall opponent is freakin' cool.

I'm not familiar with the styles you're talking about, but I don't doubt it.

 

[Darrin Drader]

And that's exactly my problem with Dooku. In a world of Darth Vaders and Darth Mauls and Darth Sideous's, Count Dooku sticks out like a plain thumb. Yes, we had Grand Moff Tarkin in ANH, but note that he's the one that got whacked in one movie, not Darth Vader.

Well, the story caled for a sith that was a politician, not necessarily just a martial fighter. Enter Christopher Lee to fill that role. I'm actually pretty satisfied with Dooku. The name could have been more inspired and the bent lightsaber is silly, but otherwise I have no complaints with this character.

 

[barsoomcore]

Bad movies don't make money.

Again, you make this (or at least a remarkably similar) assertion.

This patently flies in the face of cinema history, my friend. Bad movies not only make money, they make very very very large amounts of money. Often they are more profitable than higher-quality films because they cost so little to make.

I mean, I'm sure Friday the Thirteenth Part Eight pulled in a healthy profit. Are you saying that means it was a good movie?

Bad movies DO make money. Bad music makes money. Bad products make all kinds of money all over the world, because people buy stuff for all sorts of reasons besides quality.

If you want to define "good" as "profitable" and "bad" as "unprofitable", then you're speaking your own little language that isn't English. Because those terms are different because those CONCEPTS are different.

I only like good films. I only dislike bad films. Ergo, good films are films that I like, regardless of how much money they make. And bad films are films I dislike. And I dislike TPM and it is therefore a bad film.

I hope there are no further questions.

 

[Ankh-Morpork Guard]

Alright...how about this:

Unsuccessful films don't make the kind of money that the Star Wars films do.

 

[Desdichado]

Alright...how about this:

Unsuccessful films don't make the kind of money that the Star Wars films do.

Yes... but since that's a tautology, you haven't really said anything at all.

 

[Desdichado]

I thought Maul's combination of a staff-fighting type still and Wing Chun was fantastic visually. Indeed, it made it all the more jarring and silly when Maul died, because he'd been so badass up until he needed to be killed. :/

Not if he was singing "Everybody have fun tonight" he wasn't badass.



Oh, wing chun. Sorry, my mistake.

 

[Ankh-Morpork Guard]

Yes... but since that's a tautology, you haven't really said anything at all.

Well, then we should tell that to The Serge, who has said:

...financial windfall doesn't necessarily translate into a successful film.

My point is fairly simple. Yes, it does. If the story was NOT successful, then no amount of merchandising or even the Star Wars name could get the kind of money that the prequels are making.

 

[Desdichado]

Maybe I'm not clear enough. Successful and makes money mean the same thing. They are completely synonymous. You can call me Joshua or you can call me Dyal or even JD or J-dawg, but it's still me. All you are doing is stating the definition of successful.

Which has nothing to do with how good the movie is. If you recall, that was the subject of the conversation.

You could say "Poor quality films don't make the kind of money that the Star Wars prequels made" and that would at least be a statement that says something. You'd be hard pressed to prove that, though, and I guarantee there will be folks that disagree with it.

 

[barsoomcore]

If the story was NOT successful, then no amount of merchandising or even the Star Wars name could get the kind of money that the prequels are making.

You keep stating this like it's some well-agreed-upon notion that nobody's going to argue.

I am in fact arguing precisely against that. I am asking you to demonstrate that a "successful" story is a necessity for a film to make large amounts of money.

I point to Fantasia, the 20th-biggest money-maker in history, as a film that, bereft of any story whatsoever, refutes your assertion. Indeed, I am pointing to the very films under discussion, Episodes I and II, as refutations of your assertion.

I say, "These films have crappy stories."

You say, "Films with crappy stories cannot make lots of money. These films made lots of money, ergo they do not have crappy stories."

I say, "Prove to me that films with crappy stories cannot make lots of money."

We seem to have stalled on that point. Until you can offer a defense of your assertion, it doesn't count as evidence that these films do not have crappy stories.

I mean, if you want to say, "Films that make lots of money are, um, films that make lots of money," I won't stop you. But that's a HUGE leap from, "Films that make lots of money are GOOD films."

If you're not arguing that these are good films, then no worries. We're done here.

 

[barsoomcore]

You can call me Joshua or you can call me Dyal or even JD or J-dawg, but it's still me.

Can I call you "Sugarplum"?