Sundown

Actually, I think I'd agree that the Force is just that... the Force. There isn't necessarily a duality of nature within the Force, a good side and a bad side competing in conflict with itself. But as the movies seem to imply, there's certainly a "right" way to use the Force, and apparently a "wrong" way to use it. I think the differences in its use and observable effects aren't merely due to human perspective and projection-- looking at the same thing in two different ways and seeing two different things. But rather it's two different approaches resulting in two very different and observable effects. And one of these ways appears to the using the force with balance and harmony in mind, while the other appears to be using it with power and gain in mind. So I think it's more than just a matter of "different perspectives"... but a matter of different application leading to real and actual differences in result. I don't think we can characterize the Force as completely ambivalent to how its used and maligned, and thus maligned, chaotic, and "evil" uses of it are merely due to our constructs and exist only our imaginations. Order and harmony seems to be preferred. -Al

I do actually agree. She's not important in the scheme of things. I was just somehow lead to believe that she was, given all her hype, much of it from Lucas affiliated sources themselves. Basically her scene didn't live up to my expectations, but this isn't necessarily Lucas's fault. Still though, although she's of minor import, there are still storytelling and presentation issues with the scene that I have, primarily surrounding the fact that it made me want to chuckle more than it made me feel any sort of sadness at her betrayal. Maybe I'm just twisted. I actually kind of like Boba Fett's "death". The fact that he was apparently eaten by the Sarlacc is gruesome enough for me. I'm actually irate at his promotion to near-god and father of all things cool in Star Wars... he was a two bit character and I think that's where he should have stayed. Or at least he shouldn't have been tied incestuously to just about everything. Well, I suppose I'd argue that the simple rule of minor character=minor death misses out on all sorts of opportunities to use their deaths in powerful ways to move the plot and convey greater emotion. The green tentacled dancer in Jabba's palace was an even lesser character than blue chick... but her death (and I don't mean how she dies in the SE, in the midst of a silly musical number) definitely had more impact, how ever little her total screentime was. -Al

There's a difference between a Jedi who might occassionally and mistakenly use the Force for his own purpose, but overwhelmingly uses it for the good of others, versus a Sith who uses it largely for his own purposes alone, and seeks its power for only that. There's also a difference between making one's own purpose about others and one's own purpose about themselves. Just because something happens to be one's purpose doesn't mean they're being selfish for following it. Conversely, Anakin showed that even though he made his purpose "about" Padme, it was largely about his own fear of loss. The fact that it's Palpatine who suggests that the Jedi serve only themselves should warn us not to buy that line line, hook, and sinker. Saying that there aren't at least two shades to the Force tends to go against everything Lucas has ever said or shown on screen of the Force. I don't think Lucas set out to show that the entire conflict in his 6 movie epic masterpiece is simply due to outmoded dualism and silly human perceptions and misunderstandings. But it might be understood that the light side of the Force is the Force in balance and as it "should" be, and the dark side is the Force corrupted. If you would believe Lucas anyway. But I don't believe that the manifestation of the Force in the very different ways we see is simply just human projection upon something that isn't there. It's one thing to see the same thing two different ways. It's another thing to see two different things as being... well, different. -Al

I just wasted half an hour and too much typing. Because this here says it all and much better. -Al

Shades of postmodernism... everything is true if you want it to be. Intended meanings have no value. Sure sounds nice and lets our egos make reality for ourselves. Who wouldn't want that? Problem is, even though one can and probably should interpret what they see to find subtleties that they resonate deeper with... what they interpret cannot violate or contradict what the creator intends. If it does, then they have to fully acknowledge that their own take is not the creator's vision. They must then acknowledge that their take does not weigh as heavily as the creator's own intentions... unless one is ready to rob the creator of his means to express himself and to twist it and malign it for personal and private pleasure. Or unless the creator's whole purpose was to open things up for private interpretation alone. But I'm of the thought that art should in most cases have basic intended meaning. If art causes someone to see things entirely differently from what the creator was trying to express, the creator has then failed in expressing himself to that person. And to make meaning for ourselves that contradicts what the creator intends is to rob the creator of his own avenue of expression-- especially when we know full well what was in his mind in the act of creation. If the artist had only generic meaning in mind and left things open for us to apply as we felt like it, then we have the freedom to liberally interpret. But Lucas did not leave things open. If you say "I love pie", and I interpret you as expressing an unnatural sexual fixation for baked goods, then the mistake is mine. If you paint a painting of a freshly baked pie on a windowsill, hoping to express just how delicious pie is-- and I interpret that work of art as symbolizing how great a physical lust you have for pastry, then I rob you of your ability to accurately express yourself. You would be more than right in disowning my interpretation, and in asserting that this painting of a pie has nothing to do with sex. The painting says nothing of your unnatural desires. My "interpretation" might actually say something about mine that it didn't intend. Irony. Who cares what Lucas intends? Well, Lucas does. And if we're to treat his work and by extention himself with any respect, we should too. It doesn't apply because Lucas isn't actually saying that about his own work. We would apply it only to justify what we want the meaning to be, and using his own work to undermine his own intentions just seems to be a little bit irresponsible and a little disengenuous. But when a creator does state that their interpretation is the main intended meaning, then we ought to listen. Well, I'd argue that God gave us brains so that we could discern real and actual meanings, not to make our own up as we go along. Real meanings not unlike those intended by the creator we talk about above. But that's a whole nother discussion. -Al

Noticed this, too. I suppose it's simply because he's long winded and passionate about his views-- ones that not everyone sides with. And in certain places online, if anyone is passionate enough to defend such views at length, then they are automatically a fanatic, too into something for their own good, or simply annoying. Hey, might all be true, but this line of thinking implies that if you're terse, ambivalent, or largely unconcerned with careful and reasoned arguments-- then you're somehow more worthy of being paid attention to. I dunno, seems a little backwards to me. Good ideas and good arguments don't get much credit nowadays. Seems like it's more about rhetoric and pee pee wagging, really. I find myself argeeing with a large volume of Hurin's posts. I guess it's cause I share similar sentiments to start with. Still, I've noticed that his force of argument rarely relies on ad hominim attacks and tends to stick to the actual discussion. His line of thinking just make bloody good sense most of the time, even if one doesn't agree. I suppose his opponents probably don't care to be beaten over the head with the weight of his arguments over and over again, though. Yeah, I've noticed that ever since a few key personalities decided to direct their wrath on Hurin in the past, few around are willing to publicly concede or agree with him, even when what he says is well reasoned and sound. -Al

So it's you sending me all this spam.

If you're more comfortable with "blue chick" and "conehead guy", we can do that. I can also refer to Vader as "black plastic man" and the Death Star as "big friggin laser ball" if it would help. I don't assume that their names are widely known, and only happen to remember them from the times I've run across them. Now I did make the leap of assuming you might understand who "Secura" referred to, you know, given the context of the discussion. I also assumed that I could trust someone I was conversing with to allow proper names, and to make the connection of Secura=blue chick without him asserting all sorts of unflattering things. I'm now painfully aware of the errors of using Star Wars names in a Star Wars thread. Actually I'm happy with Conehead guy's death. His was probably the best of the Jedis'. We got a reaction. We got a vain fight. We got an inevitable ganking. In fact, Blue chick's death should be a little more like Conehead's in emotion and effect. But like I said earlier, changes to her scene might make them too similar, so something's needed to set them apart. Thing is, I never thought she was all that, either in or out of makeup. "Hot" stays in quotes. I've always rolled my eyes at how enamored fans seem to be about the character. Yay, another busty blue tentacled chick. Woo. Could not care less. But I do give a damn about story telling, about cinematography, and about effective use of apparently successful character designs. And I do care about giving fans a real reason to care about a character besides the fact that she's nicely put together. The scene was lacking to me because somehow, after all was said and done, I still didn't give a damn. And given how much attention she's gotten, I keep feeling as if I should. So I chose to point my blaming finger at the scene instead of the fans' collective lust-- however real and powerful a force the latter might be in elevating her significance, deserved or otherwise. Now I'm not exactly sure how my aesthetic convictions and storytelling sense has anything to do with presumed loneliness, but hey, thanks for caring. -Al

SPOILERS! Dang, forgot for a moment this is supposed to be the non-spoiler thread. It's just that for one character who's gotten so much fanfare (from internet geeks at least), I feel we could have seen a little more of her. If she must be shot cluelessly in the back and repeated so, then I would have at least liked to see her doing a little something of notice earlier in the film. Barring that, I'd prefer having her say, not fall on the first shot, whirling in pain to blindly force push the nearest trooper, then getting ganked anyway. Something to that effect wouldn't have made the Jedis' betrayal any less tragic, although I suppose different camera angles would be needed to set it apart from Ali Mundi's scene. At any rate, you still have a few others that were killed without knowing what hit them, so I don't think a brief reaction would have damped any sting of betrayal. In fact, it might hurt us a little more to see Secura's reaction, like we did Plo Koon's and Ali Mundi's. Just seemed to me a waste of an apparently popular character design. Except it isn't, especially since we didn't even see the fight. Actually I assume they did put up a brief but vain fight-- I don't think they stood around while Vader cut them down. I imagine a few parries, some panicked running, and a few who stalwartly accepted their fate and stood in place. The scene would also have been less powerful if Anakin cut them all down while their backs were turned, playing Jedi tiddlywinks or something. In the end, a scene's power and significance often lies in the characters' reactions, and an attempt to put up a fight is just one way to convey and magnify their reaction. With Secura, we didn't get much reaction, and hence, weren't able to empathize and feel the sting as well as we might otherwise have. She remains "some hot twilek that died." Without having her be made more familiar to us... with no real sense of loss, her death is almost comedic. I know I almost wanted to laugh, and I think I heard a few chuckles in the theater. That certainly steals any "sting" we were supposed to feel. -Al

And completely and utterly useless. She didn't even get a chance to ignite her saber. I would have at least liked to have remembered her by something other than "hot" and "pathetically ganked". For all the attention given her character, for obvious reasons, it would have been nice if she'd actually been vaguely consequential and put up a slight if futile fight. -Al

See... that wouldn't make him any less of a psycho to me. He was already deeply loved and cared for by his mentor. That should be enough for most humans to prevent from going terribly wrong. If what you say is true, then him requiring universal acceptance in order not to go flat out loony just highlights how inherently broken he already is-- especially when its his own attitude, behavior, and actions that caused-- or at last enforced-- much of the Jedis' distrust in him in the first place. Anakin is at times an ungrateful little bastich with a stupidly gigantic sense of entitlement just because he can swing a glowing stick around. Love and care was somehow not enough. That brings up another problem I have with the sudden transiton of Anakin's perspective. One moment he knew "good" from "wrong", Light from Dark. Sith from Jedi. He even wanted to win Windu's trust-- which he did eventually gain. The next moment he's able to spew whiney postmodern irrational diatribe about the "Sith" being "good" in his view. Come on. At least be honest about it. I have no problems with him turning to the Dark Side for fear, jealousy, anger, and personal gain. It made perfect sense to me why he'd lop Windu's arm off. He even whines about it rightfully. But him trying to plaster over his subsequent actions with morally relative sunshine minutes later just made me roll my eyes. I'd rather have had him spit vehemence about the Jedi in ways that rang true, that we can nearly agree with. I'd rather him wax on the Jedis' real failings. But them treating you roughly because you're actually are an angsty, arrogant, overpowered psycho isn't one of them. I know that's not the reason he turned to the dark side-- only because he was treated badly and just wasn't coddled enough. He simply wanted to save Padme... and that motivation lead both to fear and anger, and ultimately opened him to tasting a power that was too tempting in and of itself. Palpatine played upon Anakin's feelings of alienation and helplessness in order to present himself as the solution to his problems. So I guess I don't feel that Anakin "needed" the coddling, praise, respect, and adoration from all angles that he desired. He just needed to get over himself already, if he was even remotely capable of that. -Al

Now you mention it, that set me off too. Maybe Palpatine just wanted to remind you constantly that he's still there. Throughout the movie, Palpy just had... weird moments. One moment he'd be his old imposing self. Next moment he'd be this fruity ham of sorts. I'm not entirely sure I enjoyed his squealing for help at Windu's feet. Yeah, it got the job done, and got Anakin to respond. But I dunno... is there any way he can beg for mercy or aid without sounding so... pathetic? Yes, yes, I understand some will say that's the whole point. Palpy is pathetic. But he made a better villian just being scary, menacing, mocking, and creepy in ROTJ. One thing I realize now that I do like a lot about that scene. Anakin's action that causes his fall is exactly the same one that redeems him. He saves Palpatine from Mace at the last moment just as he saves Luke from the Emporer. I guess he has a soft spot for squealing and watching folks suffer slowly. At least when he's not getting to do it himself. -Al

He had one line. I believe it was "excuse me". Okay, that was the one entirely out of place line that jarred me. Thought it was a droid, cause it sounded just as silly. It felt entirely purposeless and distracting... not to mention adding zero to the value and mood of the scene. It really isn't a big deal, and it doesn't begin ruin the film for me. But I keep wondering why Lucas insists on inserting these little jarring bits and antics into the movie. I guess it's for the kids... but the same sorts of things in the OT occurred without bugging the adults into thinking... "what the heck..?" With possible exception to the ewoks (whom I'm impartial either way about). -Al

Anakin by a long, long shot. At any rate, Ford mailing it in is more entertaining and convincing than most of the actors giving it a real shot in the PT. Sure, Hamill wasn't awesome... but he did have to act nearly an ENTIRE MOVE (the one considered best by most SW fans) opposite a prop robot and a muppet. Not everyone can pull that off with any degree of believability. -Al

I thought some of them were okay by themselves. Just didn't agree with when and where they were placed. And they were a little in your face. Umm... Longer? At least a few more moves, I suppose. Tell you the truth, I was expecting that scene to have occured much llater in the movie, and Anakin to have been much more angry, conflicted. Perhaps that being the moment where he falls. But I definitely didn't see him having to do with Mace's death coming... which was good except for some of the acting. Abrupt because he actually seems to recognize "good" and move towards it for a moment, and then becomes pure evil the next. After finally seeing him be something besides being arrogant, whiny, and annoying, I'm just a little dissappointed to see him drop it so quickly. Yes, the fall's been hinted at and a long time coming. But the character change itself is rather abrupt. That's just how it seems to feel, and exposition still doesn't change how it plays to me dramatically. At any rate, love doesn't make people act like psychopaths that murder children who aren't directly connected to the harm or well being of their loved one at a simple command of a master they thought was "a good, kind man" two days before. Especially when right before that, he acknowledges "what have I done?!" Apparently to Anakin, the appropriate action that immediately follows such remorse is to kill children. I could believe him defending Palpatine, and being responsible for Windu's death. I thought that was pretty well done, if Jackson didn't ruin the moment by screaming like a girl. I just couldn't follow that the next action item is: kill kids. Maybe if they left out his profession of remorse, and just show him resigned and defeated. Still would be a hard sell... to me anyway. The Nostalgia card. Except that as a kid, I didn't care about "tactics", "battle flow", and "pacing". I just wanted to see X-Wings and the Falcon blow stuff up. And I was satisfied. I knew the battles captured my imagination, but I didn't know why. It wasn't until more recently that I've watched the films again and appreciated how well they borrowed from real life engagements for that touch of believability and authenticity. I'm not speaking of entirely of the Imperials. I'm speaking of the Rebels. Formations. Orders. Communication and coordination. A battle plan. Some attempt to use cover. Even the Imperials looked like they had specifically well-defined objective to accomplish-- destroy the generator-- defend the bunker-- and we could see them execute it. We were privvy to the exact importance of each of these targets and what the consequence of losing or winning them were. I'm not saying that EP3's battles didn't have purpose as a background fact. We just weren't allowed to watch it unfold. We usually get dropped either in the middle of a battle or cut away in the middle of another. The audience isn't clued in on the big picture... hence why some folks feel that none of the battles have any sort of climax. It just ended up appearing to be show for the sake of show. I agree that the battles in OT eventually deteriorated into chaos. But they aways started with some semblance of organization, plan, and goal in the beginning. And in the chaos, the objective is still accomplished, usually by our heroes as they either follow their original plan or improvise if it fails. And yes, the Imperials tended to be a little dense on strategy. I suppose it makes sense that the Clones follow suit, except Clone Wars shows the exact opposite, strangely. I will give you that Ep 2 has a bit more of that with the troopers, and we can see their objectives and intentions better. The Battle of Endor shows the ebb and flow of a large space fleet battle. It's actually one of the most grand and tactical space battles on film. Whether those tactics are realistic or workable is another thing entirely. Ackbars' chattering helps us to follow just what's going on, and even up to the end, where you say is only chaos, there were constant commands to shift focus of attack on this ship or that. Although we see snippits, we see just the right snippets to feel as if one side is winning, losing, and what the situation looks like. Ep. 3. Just shows troopers shooting, craft flying and exploding, ad naseum. We end up hopping in the middle of the Battle of Coruscant, knowing only that the Jedi needed to save Palpatine. Why are those massive fleets there? Don't know. What is the overall objective for both fleets, and what their assignments were? Not sure. Shore is pretty though. I'm not saying that every battle needs to be broken down for the silly war buff in me. I'm saying that I'd have at least been able to follow the flow of one major engagement in the movie. To know a few of the ships, their importance, the concern of those involved in the fight of losing or destroying a capital ship because of what it means in the ongoing battle. I honestly can't remember what most of those planets were fought for... other than droids were there, that Grevious was at one of them or other, and that they were just a big set up for the Jedi to get individually ganked. I guess that's actually the only real purpose, really, as far as Palpatine's concerned. Glad we agree on something. So why is he an overblown coward? I don't mind not knowing everything about him. I do mind not knowing the reasons he's gimpy, and the things that take away from his scary bad guy appeal. If we inject a potentially irritating weaknesses, they need to be compelling and have some reason, perhaps showing something else that's admirable, interesting, or formidable. Else he's just a weaker character. I dunno, might just be all the hype over him that's been played, and my expectations of him as the butcher of Jedi. And finding out that he's just a cliche cyborg villian with bronchitis. Yeah, I couldn't tell whose fault it was exactly. She seemed... off. But she seemed like she was trying, if trying meant just making forlorn faces. I kept wondering if she just couldn't play off Hayden that well, or that the dialogue and direction just didn't give her much to work with. Just because it wasn't in Empire doesn't mean this film couldn't have used it. There were plenty of places for it, in my opinion, especially when it concerns the fate of all species involved. Let's remind folks of the scope and strangeness of what's at stake. Besides, Empire didn't have much dialogue with aliens, besides Yoda. And Vader mainly had a one-way conversation with the bounty hunters. This movie had chatter with Aliens at various points. Subtitles aren't necessary of course. If we can follow the conversation without them, it still works. I just wanted to hear more alien-speak, okay? Not sure what he's worked on lately. Maybe it's only a few scenes that felt off, and I didn't take notice of the ones that were on. I suspect the reason why the Anakin lava scene was so powerful was because of the score. I dunno. I'd like a few more galmour shots of the main starfighters and vehicles used. I guess I wanted to see a little more of the ARC fighters. Lucas might put them in the background, but he's still going to make a toy out of every last bloody one of them. I almost wonder if they don't spend any time on any one vehicle so they can cram in room for more in total. I guess I'm just a cynic. Sigh. Old people spinning about just looks bad and makes me want to giggle, not buckle in fear at the Sith Lord's dreadful power. ROTJ Palpy didn't need to flip, spin, and dance and was no less a villian for his lack of mobility. Why now? I guess 20 years has slowed him down a little, but irregardless... spastic old men is bad in my personal book. The Palpatine and Yoda fight was somewhat better than Ep 2's. I loved the way Yoda slammed the Imperial guards. The saber parts there were a tad silly though. Thought that odd, too. I expected to see a blue glowey Qui Gon, at least after Yoda's snippet about it. Or perhaps instead of it. But now how does Anakin learn of this "new" discipline? I think I would have preferred it if Lucas left it more vague... or just attributed this to happening with all uber Jedi who are emotionally prepared for their deaths. Strange to know Obiwan learns of this from Qui Gon, who from what Yoda says appears to have acheived it, when in fact it was Qui Gon's death and body that made us question why don't all Jedi dissappear. Or maybe I just misheard that bit. -Al

Loved: 1. The Vader/Obiwan immolation scene. Legless, sliding into the lava. Obiwan distraught. Awesome. 2. At least some comraderie between Anakin and Obiwan was shown. If it were up to me, I'd make this the entire second movie. The loss would be so much greater at the end of the third. 3. Anakin struggling a little with "good", although he seems largely confused and entirely erratic. But at least he's moved from purely whiney to somewhat naive, confused, and a little stupid. But Vader never struck me as the dense and bumbling sort, when it comes to understanding peoples and motives. If anything, I always saw him as extremely perceptive and intuitive. 4. No gumby Vader arms, bent and restrained all funny like they were in the Trailers. THANK YOU. My personal problems with the movie: 1. Innappropriate use of slapstick humor in places that destroyed tension in key scenes. Ok, I got a chuckle out of the SBD kicking R2. But it killed the moment for me... our heros are captured and in jeopardy! Let us bask in the danger for a moment. A Roger Roger droid getting sarcastic with Grevious made him a lot less imposing than I thought he'd be. Overall the Roger Roger and Super Battle Droids were entirely annoying. The Rogers weren't nearly so bad in Ep. 1. There were also a lot of other extraneous interjections of speech for no purpose other than to apparently amuse children and keep their attention. Like one droid saying "excuse me" in a chripy silly voice for bumping into another person, made very loud so you would be sure to catch it. Pretty distracting. 2. Dooku too easily bested, and killed without significant remorse. Anakin does struggle a moment... but then offs him like it's nothing. Feels... off. "Oh. I... shouldn't have." is not the appropriate response to hesitating a moment and then beheading a defenseless and (literally) unarmed man. "I'm a freaking psycho, because I thought about it, twitched, and then resolutely and coldly did it anyway knowing better" is. Just didn't feel like his motivation to kill Dooku was strong enough or apparent enough-- hence Palpatine's exposition afterwards. It might have been more believable if they built up Anakin's anger during the fight. Moral decision scenes should make you struggle along with the hero... torn between how satisfying it would be for the villian to be killed, and what the right thing to do actually is. Instead our reaction is "Hey, don't do that. Whoa... why'd he? Oh, okay. Thanks for the clarification Palpy. Psycho." 3. Anakin's transformation just didn't feel altogether believable. Seemed too sudden at points... too abrupt. It was hard to empathize with Anakin's struggle the way we could empathize with Luke's. Luke was trying to do all the right things... all the normal humane things... and nearly turned to the dark side. I thought this powerful and easy to empathize with. Anakin is all degrees of creepy, vacillating between being reasonable one moment and strangely irrational the next. And him calling a Sith Lord master and embracing the Dark Side for the purpose of saving a life... all of a sudden making him a child murderer the next moment? It was hard to buy. It didn't resonate with my expectations emotionally. 4. Battles had no tactical flow. The old movies all presented battles with a tactical objective. Overarching orders were given, so you could follow who's supposed to do what... what multi-part and elaborate plan everyone had to follow in order to accomplish their goal. You could see formations, tactics, and the flow of battle unfold as one side gained ground or lost it. And you could see both sides make adjustments and maneuvers based on how the fight is going. They felt like real war flicks in some respects, except set in a galaxy far, far away. Hence the magic. Not a whole lot of that in the Prequels. It seems every battle exists only to show CG troopers shoot at someone or be shot by someone, or for starfighters to blow another up or be blown up. There's no actual battle to follow. It's just a vehicle to display CG effects and for getting the characters where they need to be... at the next saber fight. I would have liked to have some "sense" to the battles. Rather than absolute chaos with everyone rushing headlong at everyone else. I keep forgetting why each battle scene is even significant. Troopers also showed no use of formations, tactics or cover. Total departure from how they're portrayed in Clone Wars. Major departure from ground combat as portrayed or at least implied in the OT. Bummer. 5. Grevious not meeting expectations that the franchise itself set with Clone Wars. He's kind of gimpy. The cough was interesting... I understand wanting to add character by giving him a weakness. But it'd have been nice to see why he coughed. Perhaps have that play into his fight with Obiwan. Or else it's just extraneous and annoying. Plus the guy has no lungs. His voice was also overly cliche, in a campy generic bad guy sort of way. Not as imposing as I'd have liked. Did kind of like Obiwan gunning him down though, as I was thinking that it was totally out of character... until he blurted, "So uncivilized." I was the only one in the theater that laughed. =P 6. Anytime Padme and Anakin are in the same scene... and their mouths are moving. Enough said. 7. NO USE OF SUBTITLED ALIEN SPEECH?! Fictional alien languages being heard is one of the things that makes the Star Wars universe feel vast and authentic. They could have used that device here and there for atmosphere, instead of having everyone speak in 20th century english, regardless of how odd and alien they looked. Maybe could even have used it for Grevious. 8. A pretty weak score for a Star Wars film. Some moments just felt off, or less dramatic than they could have been, because the music just wasn't there... or it was just generic ambience music. 9. Not enough attention spent on the new vehicles, allowing us to see any one of them at length, or apart from the clutter of the CG dazzle fest behind it. 10. Old people should not spin, flip, and leap about like tazmanian devils on crack. Not Palpy. Not Dooku. And to a lesser extent, not Yoda. It just looks wrong. I don't care how powerful they are in the force. Palpy in ROTJ didn't need to move very much. It in fact better showed how incredibly powerful he was. Also because it's unbecoming and makes him look absolutely stupid. And somehow, his makeup actually looks worse and cheaper than it did in ROTJ. 11. Hurried exposition on just about everything: "Oh, by the way, Qui-Gon knows the way to blue gloweyhood." "Oh, by the way, some Sith master can create life from midiwhachamacallits (explaining Anakin's Virgin Birth)." "Oh, I'll name him Luke. Oh, I'll name her Leia. Oh, now I die." I think it would have been better had they left the babies unnamed. Then someone watching the movies in order would wonder a little at who this dirt farmer boy is at least for a little while. Perhaps show only a brief shot of Bail Organa holding Padme's daughter, alone in thought. Then Leia's connection to Luke might still be a bit of a surprise to someone who watching the movies afresh. I know there are a whole lot more complaints than praises. That's not to say the movie wasn't fun and enjoyable. It's just also flawed, partly due to inhereting some problems from the other films. And partly because Lucas doesn't have the same sense and style that drove the original movies, ones I personally much more prefer. -Al

Very true. In fact, much of what made the OT as watchable as it was was all of the adlibbing Ford did. The corny wasn't so pronounced next to the banter Ford injected. And his delivery redeemed quite a few lines that would otherwise have fallen flat. We've no Ford this time around. "There's nothing to see. I was born here you know." Meeeh. "You're going to die here you know. Convenient." Teh Win. Not sure if that one was adlibbed or not, though. -Al

What the. In fact, I can see him as a Peter Parker more than anything. -Al

Just saw it. Not bad. Not uber great. Has some good moments. Has lots that I'm not a fan of. Entertaining, but flawed in some areas in my own opinion. Basically if someone has a problem with Lucas's new filmaking aesthetic, all their criticisms would remain largely valid concerning this movie. It exhibits all of the weaknesses of the previous films: gaudy CG, battles that lack tactical flow, tension destroying slapstick in inappropriate moments, sappy love lines, poor acting, old people doing things they shouldn't be doing and looking silly doing them. It's a prequel film. If you're looking somehow for Lucas to return to the old movies' mood, pacing, atmosphere, and manner of storytelling... you're going to be dissapointed. But the movie has a few good Star Warsy moments and is considerably better than the other prequels. It does feel like they were trying too cram too much into too short a time... the scenes changed so quickly that it was hard to take any one locale in. And it was hard to emotionally understand why each locale was necessary and significant, beyond being another vehicle to show more CG. I guess that's the price we pay for squandering the last two movies on a kid and crummy love scenes, and I'm not sure there's a way to better pace the movie without cutting some things out. Blasphemous as it may be, it felt like Khasyyyk was totally extraneous. Gotta say this... even though I have issues with Anakin's character development, his last scene with Obiwan almost made me cry. Mostly due to McGregor. Was a little underwhelmed by Obiwan and Anakin's saber fight though. Not bad, but I guess I was expecting a bit more. All in all a fun ride. -Al

That's precisely the problem. Lucas has violated the basic storytelling principle of "Don't tell. Show." with the change. It requires some explaining, and although some of us can understand or hypothesize why the change was made, it's not readily apparent to everyone. The change vaguely ties the movies together at the cost of possible confusion and lost drama. That's the second part of the problem. No one really cares about Anakin anymore. They've done a well enough job in the last few movies to cause us to be really tired of him. And everything they've shown us suggests that there was no time past his childhood when he wasn't in some way succumbing to the dark side. You never ever see him embracing the light. Except at the end of RotJ. As Shaw. By removing Shaw from the final scene, we lose the final real Anakin that has actually, definitely, and finally chosen light over dark. I still really like RotJ. The end alone ties up the series well enough. Epic. Appropriate. Except now it's all screwy. -Al

No, we just simply watched the same movie. At least they like it better than some young person leering oddly. A young guy can be happy for his son. Except his son usually doesn't look older than he does. The scene might "make sense" with exposition or rationalizing, but it comes across as all sorts of weird dramatically. What we see simply doesn't resonate with what we know of father and son relationships, of how they should feel and look like. The change loses the original effect and fails to convey as powerfully the original mood and message, all in favor of force-fitting some actor Lucas is enamored with into a scene he hadn't belonged in for over 20 years. No retcon and exposition will replace what was arguably lost. At least for those of us who actually saw meaning in it, anyway. In Frequency, one of my favorite flicks, they do actually pit a young father with a young son, by way of a freaky radio that works across time. Young father and young son are seen in immediately alternating shots from their own time. But in their wisdom, they still casted the father to appear a little older than the son. And the two never meet face to face until the father ages appropriately. -Al

I'd argue that the scene feels completely different. The scene with Shaw conveys the paternal guidance and amusement the Force glowies have for the youngsters who just saved the day. Luke is seeing his father just as he saw him moments before, but now restored and made whole. Christensen just reminds us of the annoying Jedi that was. The fact that Christensen is to you Anakin as when he was last a whole man gives the scene a completely different meaning. Shaw representing Anakin restored highlights his redemption in the last moments of his life, and that he became fully himself, fully man, with his final act in spite of how much machine he actually was. Christensen as Anakin at his best puts Anakin's growth and development in statis... forever stuck as the whiney, egotistical, arrogant uber jedi the moment he turned to the dark side. At least with me, the scene with Shaw plays entirely differently. -Al EDIT: Can't speel Christensen.

Yeap. That's my major complaint with the GBP. The gigantic chestplate makes it look all kinds of wrong. Mainly because I can't see the 1J's chin because of it, and it looks a little like the old Takatokus. Would the Capt. be willing to work on a more proportionate version of the GBP's chestplate if Yamato releases it as is? I know I'd buy. Please, please, please, please. >_< -Al

Well, there were "industry standard" measurements thrown around. Like FLOPS and such. They're not entirely without meaning, but not entirely representative of what an actual game will run and look like. I did catch both the Ghost Recon 3 preview on the XBOX 360 and the Gundam demo on the PS2. Both look amazing. I'm suspicious of the latter, however, as it doesn't look to be actual gameplay but a cutscene. And it just looks too good. But yeah, it's all kind of useless and full of specious conjecture until we actually see comparative titles run on each of the systems next to each other. But I've still always felt Nintendo to be slightly lacking, whether it be in its controller, choice of media, power, or selection of games. And I'm just not big on Nintendo's own line of games, as great as they are. It wouldn't surprise me if the trend continued in some form, although that's just baseless speculation on my part. *shrug* I may still end up picking one up someday, just because I've been so envious of MGS Twin Snakes and the Rogue Leader games being Nintendo exclusives. -Al

That's a weird market strategy. Do we have any actual tech demos of what the Revolution is able to do? Reports seem to indicate that the new system is "only" about 2 or 3 times as fast as the Cube. Sony and Microsoft are posting numbers that are almost an order of magnitude greater. That's a huge disparity, and seems to me that it's too big a difference to be entirely faked and imagined. Instead, Nintendo's strategy highlights the fact that developers don't need to change much in their code to get modest speed gains. Which is another spin for "we didn't do anything particularly "Revolutionary". Yeah, I know contrived benchmarks don't tell close to the whole story-- I've actually written one for work that pits one of our chips against a very well known competitor's and has us "beating" them, when we know bloody well that in almost every other case ours would be vastly slower. -Al