A new, amazing, thorough and hilarious critique of The Phantom Menace (2 Viewers)

[Pete-D]

Originally Posted by TravisR /img/forum/go_quote.gif
My mind is as equally boggled (if that's a word) about how much people have to keep telling people how bad the SW prequels were. There's no other movies in human history that make people, a decade after the release of the first one, go on and on about how bad they were. I think it's fair to say that The Matrix sequels, Batman And Robin or even Superman III and IV were disliked by a large number of people but no one spends as much time trying to point out why they were bad movies as people do with the Star Wars prequels.

It's because Star Wars was placed on a pedestal those films weren't. The Matrix was a pleasant surprise, but it was only one film. That would be more akin to Empire and Jedi being huge dissapointments compared to A New Hope, Star Wars probably would've quietly just fizzled into the 80s.
I think part of the issue is that Star Wars was supposed to be the flagship movie franchise for how to have good storytelling, great characters, and just the right amount of special effects magic. In the 90s, when you'd get a bloated blockbuster that didn't work people would always say stuff like "see ... these guys need to go look at how George Lucas does it".
When 1998's "Godzilla" had was mega-hyped and then was a let down, the Starwars.com website even mocked the film's slogan "SIZE MATTERS", with a "PLOT MATTERS" mock page in the Godzilla font. Lucas and Star Wars was looked at the blue print of what a great story + character driven epic could be.
So when TPM happened, and in the opinion of some was an incoherent, dull mess of a story with really bland characters and bland politics ... it was as if "The Chosen One" turned to the dark side as it were, lol. It was like being stabbed in the back by a dear friend to some people. Not saying I agree with all that, but that's my take on why this issue is still so pervasive and discussed even to this day. What's the old saying? The worse thing you can ever do to someone is not live up to their expectations.

 

[Paul_Scott]

Originally Posted by Cameron Yee /forum/thread/296068/a-new-amazing-thorough-and-hilarious-critique-of-the-phantom-menace/60#post_3641175
I feel like those who don't appreciate the humor of the review should get a stripped down, humorless version so they can see some of the insights the guy actually has about storytelling and character.
Anyone wanna do these guys a favor?

Would they really consider that a favor?
Besides, the irreverent humor seems to me as much of the whole point of the thing as the critical points he's making. The timing of some of the jokes, both in the verbal delivery and the sequential editing, is getting to be quite polished (compared to the previous Star Trek reviews).
But if someone is that turned off by the style of the piece, and since I love to hear myself talk, I'll give it a shot.
the criticism mostly falls into two areas
1) broad conceptual problems ( things that apply to all stories across all mediums- what is the story about; how well defined are the protagonist/antagonist and their conflicts; how sympathetic are the characters; how well does the plot drive towards it's final conflict- does it gather steam and focus, or is it dispersed over too many fragmented plotlines with conflicting emotional beats; etc)
2) pragmatic details (specific instances of inconsistent character behavior, abilities, motivations; bad dialogue; poor line readings; foolish plot details that don't make sense, etc)
A couple of examples of the first area would be
the climax- in SW, the narrative is honed to the culmination of one specific plot line- destroying the Death Star before it destroys the rebel base. It is what the entire film has been driving steadily towards.
Each film in the series subsequently folds in another parallel plot line, until you get to TPM which divides its time between 4 seperate sequences. Rather than amping up the audiences investment, the cross cutting only serves to dilute it as we ricochet back and forth and around 4 separate sequences, each with their own specific emotional beats incongruent of the whole.
The opening- In SW, the tiny rebel ship and the Imperial ship, shot from a low angle which slowly grows to dominate the frame- this, without a word of dialogue, immediately sets up the main conflict in a clear and vivid visual way.
As the guy in the review (facetiously) says, it's so good, someone besides Lucas had to have come up with it, and Lucas likely fought to have it taken out of the film.
Contrast this with the opening visuals of TPM. A nice special effects sequence that lacks any cinematic sense of metaphor- the images function only as cool, perfunctory, nuts and bolts sp fx shots.
Some examples of the second area -
The Jedi holding their breath as gas is pumped in the meeting room, yet for the swim to the gunga city they pull out breathing apparatus.
Why would it be a good idea to split up on the journey to the surface, when they might find themselves separated by thousands of miles once they land on the surface?
What possible space supplies would such a lush, resource rich planet like Naboo (with the apparent capacity of a monumental power structure like the one that hosts the lightsaber dual at the end of the film) desperately need that the absence of for several weeks imperils the entire planet?
Why does a trade organization even have an army?
Why is the trade federation even motivated to take orders from Sidious?
Why does Sidious need Amidala to sign a treaty, when signing the treaty would undercut Palpatines whole convoluted plan of seizing power?
etc etc
But remember, the movie is impervious to all this criticism because it was made primarily for children. And as most of us are well aware, children always love a good movie about the settling of trade disputes.

 

[Sam Posten]

Fantastically put PeteD and Paul_Scott.

 

[RobertR]

Well done summary, Paul, although as you said, I don't think those who object to the piece really care about its style--it's the subject matter they really object to.

Why does a trade organization even have an army?

I always wondered that myself. The so-called "trade federation" behaves like anything but that. They seem more like a government or a criminal organization. Such entities don't engage in trade so much as theft and force. And what power or payoff are they promised? For that matter, why are "separatists" depicted as sinister? Why is separation from the Republic a bad thing? We're never told.

But remember, the movie is impervious to all this criticism because it was made primarily for children. And as most of us are well aware, children always love a good movie about the settling of trade disputes.

It does seem like a contradiction to say the movie's for children, but the trade dispute stuff is there to give it "adult sophistication". The problem is, I've never heard any ADULT say he cares about the particulars of the "trade dispute".

 

[TravisR]

You make some good points but...

Originally Posted by RobertR /img/forum/go_quote.gif
I always wondered that myself. The so-called "trade federation" behaves like anything but that. They seem more like a government or a criminal organization.

That's the problem, the Trade Federation is doing whatever they want.
"For that matter, why are 'separatists' depicted as sinister?"
Because they're being manipulated by the Sith to help break up the Republic.

 

[Larry Sutliff]

Originally Posted by DaveF /img/forum/go_quote.gif">

Quote:
That's nonsense.

Arguing from the commentary structure:Batman The Dark Knight has an obvious hero: Batman. It has an obvious villain: Joker. It has a simple story: Hero must stop Villain. It has simple character tension: Hero must succeed without becoming Villainous himself. It has internal logic: Batman behaves in Batman-y ways. Joker behaves per his internal logic. The entire thing hangs together. (there are issues in details: Joker executes impossible feats of organizational planning and execution. So be it.)

The argument against TPM is that it fails in all these regards. No hero. No villain. Main characters behave without regard to their internal character logic. It lacks character drama. Nothing about it hangs together.

Maybe that's a flawed analysis. But that's the analysis as I understood it.

I basically agree with you, but what you and Paul are talking about are two different things. Paul doesn't like TDK because he sees a lapse in logic every other minute. But most people don't see these things in the proper context of the story(as you aptly stated in your analysis of TDK and its structure). There's a huge difference between what you are saying, and someone saying "How can he have a Batcave under his mansion, that's impossible!" or "How can a guy glide around on simulated batwings?". If you can't buy those ideas in the context of a film, then it's probably best to avoid a movie about a guy named Batman.

 

[Citizen87645]

For those who liked the review, it's probably worth watching it again. There's some hilarious stuff I missed the first time. For example, when he talks about how the protagonist usually gets the girl as icing on the cake, in the the multi-frame collection of examples, he uses the scene of Charlie Bucket and Willy Wonka hugging in the elevator.

 

[RobertR]

Originally Posted by TravisR /forum/thread/296068/a-new-amazing-thorough-and-hilarious-critique-of-the-phantom-menace/60#post_3641227

You make some good points but...

That's the problem, the Trade Federation is doing whatever they want.

"For that matter, why are 'separatists' depicted as sinister?"

Because they're being manipulated by the Sith to help break up the Republic.

Then why not call them "space pirates" or some such thing? The "trade federation" label doesn't fit ("traders" don't have ARMIES).

And why is breaking up the Republic sinister (if it's broken up, it can't be ruled by a single, power hungry Emperor)? That's never explained.

 

[TravisR]

Originally Posted by RobertR /img/forum/go_quote.gif
Then why not call them "space pirates" or some such thing? The "trade federation" label doesn't fit ("traders" don't have ARMIES).

Presumably, they started out as traders and built themselves up to the point where they had so much money that they had personal armies and could do whatever they wanted and even the established government didn't have enough power to stop them.
"And why is breaking up the Republic sinister? That's never explained."
Because it leads to the brutal dictatorship run by the Sith. It's established back in Star Wars that when the Empire took over, it was the "dark times" and that "the Jedi were the guardians of peace and justice before... the Empire" so the Republic collapsing is a bad thing.
Like I said, you raised some good points but I think the answers to those questions are things that can be figured out on your own or are established in previous movies.
EDIT: "(if it's broken up, it can't be ruled by a single, power hungry Emperor)?"
Palpatine is already running both the Republic and the Separatists so either side coming out on top works out basically the same for him.

 

[RobertR]

Originally Posted by TravisR /forum/thread/296068/a-new-amazing-thorough-and-hilarious-critique-of-the-phantom-menace/60#post_3641264
Presumably, they started out as traders and built themselves up to the point where they had so much money that they had personal armies and could do whatever they wanted and even the established government didn't have enough power to stop them.
"And why is breaking up the Republic sinister? That's never explained."
Because it leads to the brutal dictatorship run by the Sith. It's established back in Star Wars that when the Empire took over, it was the "dark times" and that "the Jedi were the guardians of peace and justice before... the Empire" so the Republic collapsing is a bad thing.
Like I said, you raised some good points but I think the answers to those questions are things that can be figured out on your own or are established in previous movies.

It seems silly then to keep referring to them as "traders" (Lucas insists on calling the events of the story a "trade dispute") when they've obviously long since ceased to be any such thing (of course, this begs the question of why they decided to become warring criminals if engaging in trade was making them so fabulously wealthy. Why cease doing something that's making you so successful?). There is no "trade" in having your planet invaded by an army. Since they're obviously criminals threatening a peaceful member planet of the Republic, why doesn't the Republic Police Force show up to put a stop to this stuff (two Jedi skulking around hardly qualifies)?
I think you missed the gist of my question regarding the separatists. You're focused on the transformation of the Republic into a dictatorship, and I'm asking how does wanting to break off from the Republic equate to wanting a dictatorship? "I want to separate from being governed by the Republic so I can be ruled by the Empire". Huh? There's a logical disconnect there. It makes FAR more sense to keep the thing together so it can be transformed into the Empire.

 

[Paul_Scott]

Originally Posted by Larry Sutliff /forum/thread/296068/a-new-amazing-thorough-and-hilarious-critique-of-the-phantom-menace/60#post_3641230
I basically agree with you, but what you and Paul are talking about are two different things. Paul doesn't like TDK because he sees a lapse in logic every other minute. But most people don't see these things in the proper context of the story(as you aptly stated in your analysis of TDK and its structure). There's a huge difference between what you are saying, and someone saying "How can he have a Batcave under his mansion, that's impossible!" or "How can a guy glide around on simulated batwings?". If you can't buy those ideas in the context of a film, then it's probably best to avoid a movie about a guy named Batman. /img/vbsmilies/htf/smiley_wink.gif
Of course, it's also possible that I've completely misunderstood what Paul(and everyone else in this thread) was trying to say in the first place. Wouldn't be the first time./img/vbsmilies/htf/blush.gif

I disagree with Dave about the structure of TDK being entirely sound, or hanging together- but I refrained from making a comment because I don't want to keep harping on something that is only tangentially related to the original topic.
But since it has been brought up again-
TDK would, I believe, have been a far better film if Nolan had chosen one of two options
1) split the film into a part one and two- with part one concluding with the capture of Joker and part two focused on preventing or circumventing Two-Faces 24 hr revenge odyssey
or
2) shift the all the revenge material with Two-face, and his death, to before the final show down with The Joker. Doing that would have invested the Jokers take down with even more significance- as the entire film would have built to that showdown.
As the film is now, there is this whole 4th act that is attached to the film like a third arm.
Was the film about Batman vs Joker, or was it about Batman vs Two-Face, or was it about the rise and fall of Harvey Dent? Saying "all of that" as if more plot lines and conflicts automatically = a more potent story, seems a bit of a cop out to me. The structure of the film as is, diffuses the focus.
OTOH, the film could have contained these elements in such a way that didn't need to confuse and shift the focus- or it could have been (unlike POTC and the Matrix movies) a far worthier use of a pt1/pt2 split.
Either of these would have presented a film(s) that had a sharper focus.
That's the main structure problem to me, and my main conceptual criticism.
The majority of my problems with it are in the nature of pragmatic details- specific plot points, character behavior, etc
No, I can not honestly say I think the film is as flawed a work as any of the Prequels, especially TPM- but it has enough problems abutted with the righteous kick-ass elements, that it makes watching it a truly frustrating experience for me.
Cameron-I was watching it for a third time last night, and caught that. I'll probably watch it a few more in the next few days. That's why I 100% agree with Lost co-creator and Star Trek producer Damon Lindelof, who is quoted on Sams original link as saying "This is astounding film making."
Amateur or not, it really is a phenomenal job- especially if it was only one or two people.

 

[Paul_Scott]

Originally Posted by TravisR /forum/thread/296068/a-new-amazing-thorough-and-hilarious-critique-of-the-phantom-menace/60#post_3641264
It's established back in Star Wars that when the Empire took over, it was the "dark times" and that "the Jedi were the guardians of peace and justice before... the Empire" so the Republic collapsing is a bad thing.

Guardians of peace and justice? they are introduced to us as mediators in a trade dispute.
Why are the Jedi particularly qualified to mediate a trade dispute? Isn't that more along the lines of a job for a bureaucrat?
Also- if the chancellor sent the Jedi to settle this dispute, why upon their return to Corscuent (sp?) does he not immediately act on their direct assessment of the situation?
And why does the leader of a 'peaceful planet' keep side arms hidden in the armrests of her throne?
And why does Anakin build a protocol droid when he says he is building something to help his mother around the house? And why does Watto want/need a slave who only seems to ever work in her own house for the benefit of her own family?
The questions this film poses seem near endless.

 

[Carlo_M]

Multiple reasons for this phenomenon:

1. The originals for most of the movies listed below (Matrix, Batman/Batman Returns, Superman I-II, Spider-man 1-2, Transformers) don't even come close to the popularity and pop-culture importance of the original Star Wars trilogy.

2. For those that do (Godfather/Indy), there is only one movie that does injustice to the series. It's easier to ignore/explain away/rationalize one movie vs. an entire trilogy.

3. Further, for GF/Indy, in neither case did the creator go back and tinker with the originals in any way (outside of an attempt to rename the packaging for Raiders of the Lost Ark).

4. For the record, as I write this I'll confess I'm also not a big fan of GFIII or IndyIV, but even at their lowest points, IMO they are superior films to TPM, and even AoTC.

5. For most of those sequels below, with the exception of Batman and Robin and Superman III-IV, I have come across quite a few people in my private (non-HTF) life who like them. Particularly Matrix 2-3 and Spider-man 3. I just realized one thing, and again I realize I'm only giving anecdotal evidence: the only people I've ever heard say they liked the PT are in this very forum. I'm a movie fan, and I talk movies with most of my friends/families/coworkers/acquaintances. Over the decade since TPM was released, this would probably encompass hundreds of people. Not one professed even liking the PT, only in HTF do I know people who like the PT.

When you look at the reasons above, it's clear that the phenomenon below can be explained by the near-universal love of the original coupled with the near universal disappointment with the PT. Star Wars OOT took moviegoers higher than any of the original films below, and the PT took them lower than any of the sequels below. So to me it's not surprising that the conversation continues.

I think it's fair to say that The Matrix sequels, Batman And Robin or even Superman III and IV were disliked by a large number of people but no one spends as much time trying to point out why they were bad movies as people do with the Star Wars prequels.

In addition to the movies you mentioned we also have Spider-Man 3, Indiana Jones IV, The Godfather III, Transformers 2 and countless other big franchise sequels that sucked epically, but the only ones people continue to bitch about to this day are the SW prequels.

 

[TravisR]

Originally Posted by RobertR /img/forum/go_quote.gif
Since they're obviously criminals threatening a peaceful member planet of the Republic, why doesn't the Republic Police Force show up to put a stop to this stuff (two Jedi skulking around hardly qualifies)?

The Jedi are the closest thing there is to a Republic police force. The Republic has no army so the Trade Federation having one makes them pretty powerful.
"It makes FAR more sense to keep the thing together so it can be transformed into the Empire."
Without the Separtist threat, Palpatine wouldn't have been able to stay in office way past his elected term and gain more political power. And he wouldn't have had the war to make himself look like a great leader which helped people not object to him declaring himself Emperor.

 

[TravisR]

Originally Posted by Paul_Scott /img/forum/go_quote.gif

Guardians of peace and justice? they are introduced to us as mediators in a trade dispute.

They are trying to help end a blockade that is probably starving the people of Naboo. That seems like guarding peace and justice to me.

" Why are the Jedi particularly qualified to mediate a trade dispute? Isn't that more along the lines of a job for a bureaucrat?
Yes but there's been peace for a millennia so maintaining that peace through diplomacy is what most Jedi have been doing for a thousand years (rather than kicking butt and chopping off arms).

"Also- if the chancellor sent the Jedi to settle this dispute, why upon their return to Corscuent (sp?) does he not immediately act on their direct assessment of the situation?"
The Chancellor did exactly that. He took the situation to the Senate and the Trade Federation bogged it down in a legal quamire there.

"And why does the leader of a 'peaceful planet' keep side arms hidden in the armrests of her throne?"
To use a real world example, do you think the Swiss have no weapons to guard their leaders? Just because they're peaceful or pacifists, doesn't mean that they have zero weapons in case of emergency especially when they knew that they were being invaded.
And why does Anakin build a protocol droid when he says he is building something to help his mother around the house?
Fair question but C-3PO does seem to be more than just a translator. In most of the movies, he seems to be more like a butler and able to handle some menial work.

"And why does Watto want/need a slave who only seems to ever work in her own house for the benefit of her own family?"
You're seeing small segments of time in two or three days of their lives. I imagine that they both do plenty of slave work when the opportunity arises. Just because Watto isn't re-enacting Roots all the time doesn't mean that they're not slaves.

 

[Paul_Scott]

They are trying to help end a blockade that is probably starving the people of Naboo. That seems like guarding peace and justice to me.

Unfortunately, this whole crisis is another victim of one of the most banal sins you can commit in a visual medium (like comics or film)- telling not showing.
We never see any instances of this massive suffering (and for that matter, we don't even know what that suffering is actually due to- what supplies does this verdant, resource rich planet with a seemingly massive power generator in the palace, desperately need that it lacks?) Instead we get told how bad things are- several times at different points. A picture is worth a thousand words- unfortunately all we ever get are a few pages of dialogue instead.

 

[Felix Martinez]

Geez, the hostility in this thread reminds me of a past skirmish - you know, where there were riots and people beating each other when we all should just have gotten along? You may have heard about it - you know, THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION?

 

[Carlo_M]

/img/vbsmilies/htf/laugh.gif /img/vbsmilies/htf/laugh.gif /img/vbsmilies/htf/laugh.gif /img/vbsmilies/htf/laugh.gif
Does this new forum have a Post of The Day nomination? Because you, sir, have my vote!

Originally Posted by Felix Martinez /forum/thread/296068/a-new-amazing-thorough-and-hilarious-critique-of-the-phantom-menace/90#post_3641302
Geez, the hostility in this thread reminds me of a past skirmish - you know, where there were riots and people beating each other when we all should just have gotten along? You may have heard about it - you know, THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION?

 

[Darcy Hunter]

You may have heard about it - you know, THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION?

Felix for the win!

 

[RobertR]

Originally Posted by TravisR /forum/thread/296068/a-new-amazing-thorough-and-hilarious-critique-of-the-phantom-menace/90#post_3641279


The Jedi are the closest thing there is to a Republic police force. The Republic has no army so the Trade Federation having one makes them pretty powerful.

"It makes FAR more sense to keep the thing together so it can be transformed into the Empire."

Without the Separtist threat, Palpatine wouldn't have been able to stay in office way past his elected term and gain more political power. And he wouldn't have had the war to make himself look like a great leader which helped people not object to him declaring himself Emperor.

So let’s see…Lucas imagined a Republic that had NO interest in creating an armed force to defend its member planets against aggression despite its demonstrated existence (has there EVER been a government that never bothered to raise an army to defend its territory?), but had a LOT of interest in building big fleets of Star Destroyers to counter the “threat” of systems wanting to separate from it. And it managed to hold itself together with such an attitude for “over a thousand generations”…