The Problem with Star Wars

[Ankh-Morpork Guard]

If you think I'm wrong, if you think George Lucas is a great (or even a pretty good director), can we please talk about his directing? Rather than his money-making abilities? What exactly about the directing in TPM or AotC pleases you? What about the writing struck you as good? I'm willing to listen to any arguments that focus on his abilities as a director (like your comments on American Graffitti -- now that was a (start of a) conversation). If all you have to offer is that he's popular, well, I agree. I just think that history has shown again and again that crappy artists can be (and are) popular.

Funny thing is, I don't really have any arguments as to why he's a good director. I don't have a "He's Great!" to match up with all of your "He Sucks!". Instead, I'm simply not annoyed by the many things you guys have brought up. The dialogue IS stilted at times, but not all the time and it just doesn't bother me. The love story IS slow and done in a way that isn't usual, but it doesn't bother me. These two people are supposed to fall in love. So they do, and we get that over with so we can get back to that action. Whether you believe it should have been handled that way or not is, of course, a whole different matter.

Young Anakin? I liked it, and for me it works. For me, really all the things you've complained about aren't problems. Of course, your comments were aimed at Vigilance, really.

Not really. He farmed out the art design, because he's not good at that. He farmed out the acting, because he can't do it all himself. He farmed out the set building, because he doesn't have the wherewithal to literally build his sets himself. If he also knew that he wasn't a great screenplay writer or director or editor, why did he not farm that out as well?

I'm sorry, but I think your interpretation simply doesn't make much sense in this case.

Maybe he felt he could do it better than anyone else could? Whether or not this is true, we can't say, though, as no one else did do it. Sure, it worked for Empire, but it didn't really work on Jedi. Its not something that works everytime, so it seems that Lucas just decided he could do it best and went ahead with it. He STILL could have known his own limitations and decided that he could still do it better than anyone else.

That doesnt mean he was RIGHT, but it still makes sense as an interpretation. At least, to me it does.

Bottom line is this:

If you like it, go see it. If you don't like it, then don't spend any money on it, but don't stop the fans that want to see this from seeing it.

Lucas makes the story as he wants, and that is his right as an artist. Our right, as the audience, is to decide if we want to see it or not.

Yep. But if people THINK they're going to like it and spend money on it they feel the need to complain. That's fine and all, as the internet was made to gripe about movies. But I can't help but wonder why some people KEEP SEEING these movies and are suprised they have the same complaints. Many even say the same things about A New Hope and Jedi, so it really shouldn't come as a surprise when Lucas' way of doing things isn't liked.

Of course, that's no different than any other director or writer. Some people simply don't like certain directors/writers/whatever for the way they work. Lucas isn't above that, and if you like Star Wars but don't like how Lucas does things, you're just going to have to live with it because they're stuck together.

You can't really argue with barsoomcore, since he doesn't like the movie and it's therefore bad, and if you, following his definition, like the film, it's good. It's easy, simple, and not subject to change (at least not easily). But you can show me where Lucas did well, did right, in storytelling aspects, where he followed a great master-plan that will lead us logically from whiney and lucky Anakin to fearsome Darth. You can convince me that Episode I and II were indeed, good films.

Try it.

None of you have convinced me or Vigilance that they were BAD films, so do you really expect either of us to convince you they're good? Its not that this is going in circles, its that its not going anywhere. And it won't. We're all stubborn and we know what we like and we've already made up our minds. Its really no different than all the Edition Wars threads that pop up over in General every so often.

And if anyone really thinks that they're convincing the other side that they're right, then please take a look at this thread one more time. No one's switched sides yet. Besides, barsoomcore's got a solid argument. How in the hell can anyone debate "It sucks" ?

 

[Desdichado]

Maybe he felt he could do it better than anyone else could? Whether or not this is true, we can't say, though, as no one else did do it. Sure, it worked for Empire, but it didn't really work on Jedi. Its not something that works everytime, so it seems that Lucas just decided he could do it best and went ahead with it. He STILL could have known his own limitations and decided that he could still do it better than anyone else.

That doesnt mean he was RIGHT, but it still makes sense as an interpretation. At least, to me it does.

No, that makes no sense. If you know that you're not very good at something, you don't think you can do it better than anyone else. Those are directly contradictory statements.

 

[Berandor]

Besides, barsoomcore's got a solid argument. How in the hell can anyone debate "It sucks" ?

Easy.

"No, it doesn't."

 

[Ankh-Morpork Guard]

No, that makes no sense. If you know that you're not very good at something, you don't think you can do it better than anyone else. Those are directly contradictory statements.

Just because you aren't very good at something doesn't mean you still can't do better than others. How do you know putting someone else in WILL do better than Lucas? You can't. Lucas can't know that either, and he's obviously decided that whether or not he's a best of the best, he IS the best for the job of making HIS movies.

Its not as contradictory as you may think, but it does sound odd. It is a kind of justification many people use all the time, though.

Easy.

"No, it doesn't."

Which is all this really boils down to in the end, I guess.

 

[Cassiel]

I feel it's as valid your latest addition. You are aware that "begging the question" is considered a fallacy, correct?

Actually, begging the question is a valid form of argument, not a formal fallacy. It may be annoying to people who disagree with you, but that's another issue. Given your insistence on logical discourse, I thought you should know this. There is a bit of question begging in The Serge's argument that Empire is the best SW movie, that Lucas was least involved with Empire, that Lucas is incompetent, for example. Because you agree with The Serge, you neglect this, but because you disagree with AMG, you single it out (even though it's not actually a fallacy, nor is it an argument AMG actually makes).

For example, your argument that Serge cannot say Lucas doesn't know his own limitations as a filmmaker because he doesn't know Lucas personally is 'begging the question' because it works from an unwarranted assumption--that personal knowledge is the only valid method to come to such a conclusion. But as you have no desire to learn how to mount effective arguments, I'll cut this part short.

While the argument you characterize here would be begging the question, it is not an argument AMG made, or even came close to making. So, when you say,

However, the arguments you mount to support your opinions are poor. They damage your case and make you seem peevish and irrational.

it's your "logical discourse" that's at issue. A straw man may not be a formal fallacy any more than begging the question is, but it isn't reputable rhetoric either.

 

[barsoomcore]

I'm simply not annoyed by the many things you guys have brought up.

See? THAT'S the sort of thing we can talk about. The dialogue in these movies doesn't bug you. Presumably things in these movies delight you. Certain things delight me -- that one army droid that gets its top blown off and is just a pair of legs walking around for a while. Hee. The sword fight at the end is one of the great sword fights in history, no question.

Here's one reason, though, why I think TPM is a failure as a cinematic experience: it doesn't work with the sound off. I think truly great films are films that are so well-told visually that you could turn the sound off and still follow and even be thrilled by the story.

Star Wars does this perfectly. As do most of the movies on my Perfect list. You can turn off the sound and watch and enjoy the story unfolding.

Well, okay, maybe not His Girl Friday. Or at least, you'd be missing so much brilliant dialogue, why would you do it?

But TPM doesn't work at all. It doesn't make any sense if you can't hear all the exposition that everyone has to deliver. Who are these underwater guys? Who are these funny-looking guys? Why is that kid driving that big machine? What is that spooky-looking guy trying to do?

I think that's some of the best evidence that TPM is a cinematic failure. It's not a great film.

In fact, to take the risk of repeating myself, it sucks.

Of course, your comments were aimed at Vigilance, really.

With laser-like targetting.

None of you have convinced me or Vigilance that they were BAD films, so do you really expect either of us to convince you they're good?

I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything. I think this whole "If I'm right you must be wrong," attitude is at the heart of why so little actual discourse happens in modern society.

I don't want you to agree with me. I DON'T CARE if you agree with me. I already know I'm right, I don't need more opinions to reassure me.

But I do want to know what you think, and why. Because I'm interested in your opinions. If I think you've overlooked something, or are misinterpreting something, I'll bring it up, but I'm not trying to "win" here. I'm just having fun seeing what people think about stuff.

Because that's how I get new ideas. And new ideas are good. I know they're good, because I like them. Remember? That's what "good" means.

Besides, barsoomcore's got a solid argument. How in the hell can anyone debate "It sucks" ?

Easy.

"No, it doesn't."

Ber! Don't give away my secret!

 

[Vigilance]

How, exactly, do you make an objective judgement of quality? Because if I don't like something, it's because it isn't very good. If it were good, I would like it. You seem to be conflating popular with good, yet again. I don't understand. Are you saying it is impossible for large groups of people to love and support crap?

There is a perfectly valid way to make an objective judgement of quality.

I don't like musicals. Never have never will. Thus your statement that Singing in the Rain is a "perfect" movie, has no bearing on my opinion whatsoever.

So I went to my sister, who loves musicals, amd she concurred with your take that it's a "perfect movie".

Therefore, in the instance of Singing in the Rain, I am willing to yield that it has a high degree of quality, even though I have never been able to sit through the whole thing.

As for defending Lucas movies... I haven't seen any cogent arguments on the other side. All I've seen are "the acting sucked, the writing sucked, Lucas is the weakest link, the movie he stayed the furthest away from was the best, he's an incompetent director".

Some of these statements were made by you, some by others. Still, they seem like emotional smackdowns, not arguments.

As for why *I* like the movies, here is what I liked:

Episode I

Qui-Gon. I thought he was a great character. A bit of a rogue. A smart mouth. Didn't give a damn for the rules, followed his heart.

Annakin's mother. The scene where Annakin is leaving her to a life of slavery, in order to follow his dream of being a Jedi was gut-wrenching to me, and I thought the woman who played that character gave a fantastic performance.

Darth Maul. This guy just oozes dread. Physical Charisma. Not all performances are about dialogue. Anyone who has ever scene a bad Falstaff can tell you that. He was a disposable villain, but he was a really *good* one.

Obi-wan. I always loved this character as played by Alec Guiness, and seeing that the crazy old man used to be a young, insecure, ambitious man who towed the Jedi Council's party line resonated with me. I see a lot of his future disdain for authority in the fact that the "party line" led him and everyone like him to ruin.

Terrance "KNEEL BEFORE ZOD" Stamp. I always love Terrance Stamp. The man is a sci-fi legend and always seems to bring his gravitas with him.

The sword fight. The Qui-gon/Obi-won/Darth Maul fight at the end was fantastic. When they backed Maul into a corner, and Obi-won gave a head fake at the moment Qui-gon attacked, I said to myself "nice, these two are working together to ICE this f***er". And the end of the fight, when Obi-won and Maul fought one on one had some blindingly fast sword moves.

Episode II

Christopher Lee. Slimy. His best charm-oozing Dracula sort of menace on display here.

Yoda fights! The moment he tossed his cane to the side and got ready to kick ass, I, along with most of the theater were on our feet. Watching it again on DVD, I noticed the many subtle homages in his mannerisms and expressions to Yojimbo. A nice, brilliant, directorial touch. Yoda as Toshiro Mifune? Daddy likes.

Annakin vs. the Sandpeople. This is where it all starts to fall apart for the tragic hero. Hayden really sold me on his ability to be pure evil in this scene. Also, having long been fascinated by the sandpeople, seeing how they live and getting another glimpse of their barbarism was nice.

The arena scene. Just a great fight scene where everyone got to shine. I liked the chemistry between Annakin and Padme and Obi-won in this scene a lot.Oh yeah, and Samuel L. Jackson kills Jango Fett. Really, what more could you want out of life.

Now I'm sure folks will now chime in and tell me how I'm wrong about all these, how the movies I liked did, in fact suck.

But oh well

Chuck

 

[Berandor]

I'm wrong about all these, and the movies I like, suck!

No, wait!

Actually, that's a nice list, and while I only agree with you on two or three scenes/things that I liked, as well, it's a nice indication of what worked for you. Thanks!

 

[Ankh-Morpork Guard]

Here's one reason, though, why I think TPM is a failure as a cinematic experience: it doesn't work with the sound off. I think truly great films are films that are so well-told visually that you could turn the sound off and still follow and even be thrilled by the story.

Now that's a very interesting idea. Of course, Apocalypse Now wouldn't really work without the sound. It just wouldn't be the same perfect movie without some of those great lines. Marry Poppins is all about talk, really. So while its an interesting idea, you do need sound, even in visually perfect movies.

But TPM doesn't work at all. It doesn't make any sense if you can't hear all the exposition that everyone has to deliver. Who are these underwater guys? Who are these funny-looking guys? Why is that kid driving that big machine? What is that spooky-looking guy trying to do?

I think that's some of the best evidence that TPM is a cinematic failure. It's not a great film.

I think its an interestin idea, but not a way to say if a movie is great or not. Can you really name a movie that works PERFECTLY without the sound where you're still able to follow the plot well enough to know what's going on? I honestly don't even think A New Hope can pull that one off all that well.

 

[Plane Sailing]

The debate in this thread has occasionally steered pretty close to closure time, but it's got back on track again thankfully.

Please remember to not get personal; the posts like vigilance's one which lays out specific things that he does like are much more productive.

Cheers