A new, amazing, thorough and hilarious critique of The Phantom Menace - Page 4

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."

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

Does this new forum have a Post of The Day nomination? Because you, sir, have my vote!

Felix for the win!

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”…

A post about a 10 year old Star Wars movie, and RobertR is bashing Lucas.  I'm shocked!  Shocked I tell you!

No less shocked than I am that some people would rather talk about ME than the movie. 

I guess you're talking about the movie.  It sounds to me like you're crying over nit-picky details like a woman.

I don't have to guess about what you're obviously obsessed with talking about. 

Well if the movie is as bad as you say, might as well talk about something else.

You should take your own advice if you think I'm "bad".  Your obsession with me ignores the fact that I didn't start this thread, and I'm far from the only person critiquing the film.

"if the movie is as bad as you say"

Never said YOU were "bad". 

I'm sure you only think positive things about me.

Really don't give you much thought, I'm just trying to kill time at work.  I suppose I'm just a troll.

Yes, now let the rest of us get back to film discussion.

Who died and made you the king of the board?

So I guess that makes you the king.  Ahhhhhh, no I believe this is the first time.

I think you're right but that's another topic.




Just to clarify, I've got no hostility towards the people that I've responded to in the thread. Maybe they're hunting me down as I type but I've got no problem with any of them.

Actually, I thought we were having a mostly civil discussion, at least for those who were talking about the subject at hand.

Especially since the discussion involves Star Wars. That's a topic that can get real ugly, real fast.

 The funny (or not) thing about some of the criticisms is that George himself had originally planned to go in the direction the "fanboys" wanted. 

For instance, in earlier drafts of Episode I, Obi-Wan WAS the main character. He discovers Anakin and all that. Qui-Gon only shows up later when they arrive on Coruscant. Now I like Liam Neeson in TPM a lot, but this would've considerably streamlined the story and given the audience a definite protagonist to get behind. 

Darth Maul was supposed to have more dialouge/scenes. 

Anakin was originally supposed to be 13/14, not 8/9. 

I think if he had gone with his initial instincts on that and made a couple of other changes -- 

1.) Jar-Jar is the outcast wandering warrior-type, not a goofball take on Roger Rabbit

2.) Darth Maul doesn't want to get the Queen to sign a treaty -- he wants to KILL the Queen, and is relentless in hunting the heroes (an inexperienced Obi-Wan) throughout the film. Lets raise the stakes here, treaties and trade blockades aren't terribly exciting on screen. 

3.) The Midicholrian thing ... uh, just axe that stuff entirely. It belongs in Star Trek, and not even good Star Trek.

Those changes in unison with what Lucas had originally I think would've resulted in the film a lot of people wanted and those who liked Episode I anyway probably would've liked this iteration just as much if not more. 

 

Edited by Pete-D - 12/22/09 at 2:29pm

I certainly would've enjoyed TPM more if things had gone in that direction.

On #2, raising the stakes is nice, but the PT is all about intrigue, betrayal, plotting, and revenge. There's a reason these stories didn't get made first, after all. It's why the OT is a lot more fun (though I still find the PT interesting).

On #3, I think the failure here was in the execution, not the idea. The OT already established that the Force was at least partially hereditary...the midis were just the explanation behind that. Still, could have been explored differenty/better for sure.

I like it much better, Pete.  I can't imagine anyone saying he'd prefer what we got to what you described.