PDA

View Full Version : At last, I'm not alone!



stoic_75
23 May 2004, 03:02 PM
No, I have not found love on the holonet! I have finally found an author who agrees the new movies are not God's gifts to fanboys. You can read the article at: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4980465/

Emperor Xanderich II
24 May 2004, 06:02 AM
sounds about right, to be honest.

Darth Bile
24 May 2004, 06:06 AM
actually, i disagree with bahn, so what if lucas doesn't make the movies to everyone's expectations, they are still good storylines, are not that boring, and are still some of the best movies to come out of hollywood in recent years. i mean come'on, nothing is gonna live up to the expectation of the fans, just sit back, relax and enjoy the movies on their own merit, and as for the critics, i ignore what they say, they dont' say how good a movie is for me or how bad it is, i'm the only one that can say that, not anyone else, so until the films actually are bad, i'll stick up for them.

Faraer
26 May 2004, 08:02 AM
As I posted on ENWorld,
So he says Episodes I and II are bad and unlike IV-VI without even trying to make the case, makes a bunch of tired and transparently fallacious assertions, and says make Star Wars better by making it something other than what it is? Why does this deserve attention?

That's an extraordinarily crass and nearsighted way to speak of an unparalleled visionary who has a limited number of decades to live.Finally found? That's been the journalistic and fanboy orthodoxy since 1999.

proxima centauri
26 May 2004, 11:50 AM
I think Bahn is full of it.

He thinks he can do better than Lucas, but all he can do is make a fool of himself in his article. He's not credible one second. In fact, WTF is Bahn?

Gyp Ryol
26 May 2004, 04:52 PM
Christopher Bahn is a freelance writer in Minneapolis

Saw this at the bottom of the article. Thought you might like to know.

Personally, I only have a problem against Episode 1. I enjoyed Episode 2, but I've always been an adreniline junkie. Episode 1had several themes of Star Wars (the teachings of the Jedi, the Force of course, hidden evils, space battles, general heroics) but it didn't have a good pace. All the action was lumped in the middle (the Podrace) and the end (the Gugan offensive, space battle, and the castle assault). I also did not like the characters of young Anakin and Jar-Jar, but I think that may be true for most people. I liked the relationship between Qui-Gon and Obi-Wan and a few of the discussions they had, but Qui-Gon taking a liking to Anakin could really, in my opinion, be only justified by the statement: "He had to in order for the plot to advance."

Just my two cents.

Thinithil
26 May 2004, 09:00 PM
I disagree. The master-apprentice bond seemed as strong with Anikan-Qui Gon as between the elder Jedi and Obi Wan. Although I agree it bogged down a little here and there one of the better scenes was the bit out on the patio between Qui and Ani which displayed a sensitive side in Qui and the innocent idealism of the young Anikan. In fact that one scene made, to me, the inevitable fall to evil that much more tragic. All those years between that scene and his eventual redemption.

And I'm not sure Qui "took a liking" to Anikan as much as he, when he discovered his abilities, felt that the Force had led him to a task he had to perform. He was nearly ready to throw Jedi orthodoxy out the window to train him not because of a purely invented "liking" but because he felt a task had been demanded of him by the Force.

I know I'll always get action in a SW film but it's the character development that makes 'em great.

ANH= Luke-Ben
ESB= Han-Leia
RotJ= Wicket-Leia...
just kidding...Luke-Vader/Anikan

and the development in the prequels is sometimes overdone but essential to explain the fall of Anikan to the Dark Side.

PM= Anikan-Qui Gon, Anikan-Mommy
AotC=Anikan-Obi Wan, Anikan-Padme, Anikan-Mommy

What might seem tedious is that Anikan is the central character, the only real CENTRAL character in the prequels and he must be the focus of nearly every plot twist. GL is using these movies to try and really explain Anikan's motivations. Motivations that turn a Good idealistic child into one of the most nefarious villains in cinema history.

and i'm sorry but my tired eyes are making me think i spelled Anikan wrong at every turn...and how do you spell Schmi, Shmi, Shmiiii...

Kordeth
27 May 2004, 10:54 AM
It's Anakin and Shmi. :)

Fingon
27 May 2004, 02:39 PM
YES!!! Thank you!! Lucas finally took a hint.

But seriously folks, I think the new movies had HUGE potential for improvement. Maybe the third movie will be able to reach its full potential.

Jame
6 June 2004, 03:29 PM
The only thing I'll say absolute "yes" to is "get rid of the midichlorians." I'll say "maybe" to "rip off more Kurosawa," but I have to see some Kurosawa first (d@mn my lack of VCR! D@mn, D@mn, D@mn!)

Rostek
7 June 2004, 12:15 PM
Frightenly true in some places... a little hyperbole-ic (is that even a word?) in others, but kinda funny.

Kale Jerre
10 June 2004, 07:15 AM
Originally posted by Jame
The only thing I'll say absolute "yes" to is "get rid of the midichlorians."

I agree. To top it off, that whole 'virgin birth' crap for Anakin was just trite beyond words. I can still hear the combined groans of disbelief from everyone in the fully-packed 300-person theater I saw TPM in.

Fingon
17 June 2004, 05:12 PM
To top it off, that whole 'virgin birth' crap for Anakin was just trite beyond words. I can still hear the combined groans of disbelief from everyone in the fully-packed 300-person theater I saw TPM in.

I second that. On both parts.

I mean, was that supposed to be symbolizing the birth if Christ or something?

Rostek
17 June 2004, 05:30 PM
Originally posted by Fingon
I mean, was that supposed to be symbolizing the birth if Christ or something
Probably. Lucas, I imagine wanted it to be as signifigant an event is his universe, epic proportions, or something closer to the epic hero myths mixed with Christian Theology. Needless to say, he didn't quite pull it off, and it came off as kind of cheesy (not to mention blasphamous ;) ).
He probably should have stayed away from trying to explain the Force (as should the NJO people, but that's just my personal preferance that the Force stay a mystical presence).

Fingon
17 June 2004, 08:17 PM
Or just say the father died... Geee

I wouldn't consider it blasphemous, however. Chessy, very.

Ardent
18 June 2004, 07:56 AM
It can't be blasphemous unless the film has a continuing anti-church rhetoric. Which it doesn't (to my knowledge, anyway). Besides, Christians just borrowed the immaculate conception from a pagan religion. ...and saints. ...and Easter. ...and Christmas. Yanno, I think I'll just stop there, let you make up your own mind. ;)

As far as Christopher Bahn doing a better job...well...honestly, I could probably do a better job than he could. That doesn't really say much, does it? Certainly not enough to warrant my being hired to rewrite Star Wars.

Rostek
18 June 2004, 09:31 AM
Hence the smilie ;) . You could look at it as an implied referance to his character as being an equal to the Biblical story (I don't, I may be Catholic but not a Catholic ), which in literal terms could be construed as such (but of course only a real hard-liner would interpret it like that).
;) (And this time I really mean it!)

stoic_75
17 July 2004, 08:58 AM
This thread is still alive? Move on people! It's just a movie.


"Get a life You there, in the back. Yeah, you with the ears. You ever kiss a girl?" - SNL

Nova Spice
17 July 2004, 10:22 AM
Besides, Christians just borrowed the immaculate conception from a pagan religion. ...and saints. ...and Easter. ...and Christmas.

Well, this isn't true. The Old Testament predicted the virgin birth nearly 700 years before Jesus was born. So, Christians didn't "borrow" the immaculate conception. Hebrew prophets predicted the virgin birth--Christianity wouldn't emerge for another 733 years.

Ardent
18 July 2004, 04:54 PM
Originally posted by Nova Spice
Well, this isn't true. The Old Testament predicted the virgin birth nearly 700 years before Jesus was born. So, Christians didn't "borrow" the immaculate conception. Hebrew prophets predicted the virgin birth--Christianity wouldn't emerge for another 733 years.

Immaculate conception solidified in the Pharoaic dynasties of Egypt. You seriously don't want to get into this with me...and this isn't the right forum to anyhow. ;)