PDA

View Full Version : Same Old Sith: Salon Review of EP III


NewChief
05-18-2005, 11:01 AM
http://www.salon.com/ent/movies/review/2005/05/18/star_wars_iii/print.html

Same old Sith
What's not to love about light sabers, wookies and a brutal sendup of George W. Bush? Plenty! But that doesn't mean "Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith" will disappoint legions of Lucas fans.

- - - - - - - - - - - -
By Stephanie Zacharek



May 18, 2005 | For years fans of the "Star Wars" series have been trying to convince us nonbelievers -- and, to an extent, themselves -- that George Lucas is a genius whose work plumbs deep universal themes, a fact that would be self-evident if only we'd accept Joseph Campbell as our personal Lord and savior. Somehow, a series that began as an enjoyable tongue-in-cheek amusement has turned into a runaway train wreck of convoluted yet facile mythology, one that inexplicably invites, but can't support, constant defense as a serious work. It's not enough that the "Star Wars" movies are the work of an occasionally clever but mostly simple-minded auteur-wannabe; they've also been hijacked by zealots who insist on assigning weight and meaning to every idiotic frame, spoiling the fun even for average moviegoers who simply have a nostalgic fondness for the original trilogy.

The release of "Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith" marks the beginning of a new era: one in which there are no more "Star Wars" movies to look forward to, or to dread. If you've read anything at all about this new "Star Wars" picture, you've probably heard that it's a scathing indictment of the Bush administration, complete with a power-hungry villain who overrides the Senate willy-nilly in his megalomaniacal quest to control the Galactic Empire. Stop the presses: George Lucas has had a thought! All this time we thought he was interested only in swinging around his mighty light phallus -- uh, saber -- and writing dialogue like "Remember what you told me about your mother -- and the Sand People."

Fans of the light-saber stuff and "You're soaking in it!" dialogue won't be disappointed by "Revenge of the Sith" -- there's plenty of both. But before we all hail George Lucas for raising the level of political discourse in American cinema (and on that score, the accolades have already begun to roll in), let's remember that all of the "Star Wars" movies -- even the genuinely superb "The Empire Strikes Back" -- have a relatively simple piece of rhetoric as their backbone: Good must triumph over evil.

There's nothing inherently wrong with that as a theme for a series of fantasy movies. But it's much too simplistic to be taken seriously as a political statement. And it's the kind of oversimplification that plagues both sides of the current political divide. Neither of the Georges -- Lucas or Bush -- seems to realize that a black-and-white ethos is no template for a world that too often includes shades of gray.

But before we talk about that, a few other points: Some critics I know have been asked by their editors not to actually review "Revenge of the Sith." "Just tell people whether or not they should spend their money," the directive goes, a huge victory for critical thought in the media. So some of you may be wondering: Is "Revenge of the Sith" entertaining? Are the action sequences exciting? If I'm a fan of "Star Wars" overall, will I have to force myself to pretend that I like this one, as I did with the wretched "Attack of the Clones," or is there a chance that I may actually have fun this time around? And what the heck happens in this one, anyway?

Last question first: We finally learn exactly how Anakin Skywalker (Hayden Christensen) became Darth Vader, after betraying his mentors, Jedi Master Yoda (as always, the voice of Frank Oz, and, as always, a charming presence) and Obi-Wan Kenobi (Ewan McGregor, once again valiantly attempting to give a real performance in a picture that has little use for actors). It turns out that Chancellor Palpatine (Ian McDiarmid, slapping sleaziness all over his performance with a trowel), who we thought was one of the good guys, is actually a bad guy -- uninterested in democracy, he instead hopes to become the all-powerful dictator of the Galactic Empire. Anakin is, of course, secretly married to former Naboo ruler and current Republic Senator Padmé Amidala (Natalie Portman, in a succession of hairstyles that make her look like a zonked-out '70s supermodel). He returns to the city-planet Coruscant -- he's been fighting the so-called Clone Wars, as well as doing stuff like rescuing Palpatine from the separatist faction that has taken him hostage -- to discover that she's pregnant. "Something wonderful has happened!" she informs him, the doughnuts clamped to either side of her head quivering with hormonal joy.

But Anakin is haunted by nightmares: He fears Padmé is going to die. What can he do to save her? Our galactic Robert Johnson finds himself at the crossroads. What's more, he grows resentful when he's appointed to the Jedi Council (yay!) but is not allowed to become a Jedi Master (boo!): He expresses his displeasure at this decision by glowering and pouting and stomping around noisily. Meanwhile Palpatine, grooming Anakin to be his right-hand man, whispers sweet nothings in his ear in an attempt to lure him to the dark side. He's the friendly stranger in the black sedan, and Anakin hops inside his car.

In a weird way, the story actually makes sense on-screen: Lucas (who also wrote the script, in case you couldn't guess) seems to have taken some care this time, and compared with its predecessors, at least, the picture moves along reasonably swiftly and with an almost shocking adherence to dramatic logic. "Revenge of the Sith" also looks much better than "Attack of the Clones" did: It doesn't have the flat, bland-bright color sense of the earlier picture, and its characters, thankfully, don't look so much as if they'd been pasted in after the fact. The action sequences, most notably the big showdown between Anakin and Obi-Wan, which takes place against some cool orange molten goo, are at least as exciting as the moment Padmé gives birth: George Lucas is not one to give short shrift to the miracle of life. I suspect this picture is pretty close to what fans were hoping for, and for their sake, I'm glad it's markedly better than the two that preceded it.

But "Revenge of the Sith" is still crap. "I sense Count Dooku!" Anakin Skywalker announces warily in one of the movie's early scenes, and he's right -- the smell is all around. The performers either act all over the place (McDiarmid) or slink through the picture with vague embarrassment, waiting for the whole thing to be over (McGregor). Others, like Samuel L. Jackson and Jimmy Smits, keep their heads down and their noses clean, perhaps hoping to get through a scene before anyone says their character names out loud. (There's no greater humiliation than to be minding your own business on the skywalks of Coruscant only to hear some yobbo yell out, "Hey, Senator Organa, how's it hanging?") Christensen, a young actor who has already given us one great performance (in the 2003 "Shattered Glass"), is especially thick and dull as he wavers sluggishly between good and evil. Why can't he just scoot on over to the dark side and be done with it?

"Revenge of the Sith" might be tolerable if it weren't designed to be taken seriously. But Lucas intends the whole damn thing to be funny as a crutch: Of the four "Star Wars" pictures he's directed himself, this is clearly the most ambitious, and the most highfalutin. Clearly, the hope is that moviegoers will find it rousingly topical. At one point Padmé, furious that the Senate has been so easily steamrollered by Palpatine's slimy promises, cries out, "This is how liberty dies -- to thunderous applause." Anakin, as he's becoming less Jedi knight and more dark knight, snarls at Obi-Wan, "If you're not with me, you're against me." Obi-Wan shoots back, "Only a Sith lord deals in absolutes."

Funny, but all Lucas knows is absolutes. "Revenge of the Sith" doesn't work as a political statement because for all the lip service Lucas pays to democracy, he barely seems to know what it is. In the "Star Wars" series, democracy may be the alleged goal of the Republic, but what the movies really value is order: Democracy -- the genuine kind, which means you just might get stuck with a president you don't like -- is too messy and complicated for the "Star Wars" worldview. The very scale of these movies prevents anything but the most obvious moral readings: Preoccupied as they are with good and evil, with so little gray in between, the "Star Wars" movies are more like faux Wagnerian epics that have been clumsily retrofitted with democratic ideals. They ask us to tremble in the face of their greatness even as they claim to be on the side of the little people. Lucas doesn't realize he can't have it both ways.

So is Palpatine supposed to be George W. Bush? It appears so, because he's ruthless, unappealing and arrogant. He's a cartoon baddie, like Ming the Merciless, or Mumbles, or the Penguin -- all of these are very bad men, just like that bad old George W. If Lucas really knew what he was doing, he'd have given us a character who believed with all his heart, as George W. surely does, that he's on God's side. That would have made for a truly creepy and treacherous villain.

But Lucas doesn't have that much imagination, or that much subtlety. Any point he makes is bound to be as obvious as a light saber through the sternum. "I pledge myself to your teachings," the now-evil Anakin tells his guru Palpatine, who responds, with homoerotic fervor, "I feel your power. The force is strong within you." In its thirst for wisdom, "Revenge of the Sith" asks many questions, but none more important than this one: Is that an absolute in your pocket, or are you just glad to see me?


- - - - - - - - - - - -

About the writer
Stephanie Zacharek is a senior writer for Salon Arts & Entertainment.

Douche Baggins
05-18-2005, 11:03 AM
Moron. This film has nothing to do with present-day politics.

keg in kc
05-18-2005, 11:08 AM
Moron. This film has nothing to do with present-day politics.Yep.

As I recall, this Stephanie Zacharek has posted a number of reviews that left me just scratching my head and wondering what the hell she's talking about.

Donger
05-18-2005, 11:10 AM
Moron. This film has nothing to do with present-day politics.

Luca's recent comments at Cannes could certainly lead one to believe that it does.

Douche Baggins
05-18-2005, 11:11 AM
Jesus. I want to reach through the internet and strangle this bitch.

Douche Baggins
05-18-2005, 11:12 AM
Luca's recent comments at Cannes could certainly lead one to believe that it does.

I guess he's a frigging prophet then because the general plotline for Episode III was outlined 30 years ago.

NewChief
05-18-2005, 11:12 AM
Yep.

As I recall, this Stephanie Zacharek has posted a number of reviews that left me just scratching my head and wondering what the hell she's talking about.

Yeah, I'm really not that big of a fan of hers. She tends to use her reviews as platforms to spout off about her own views about politics, life, culture, and the state of moviemaking. That's fine for non-fiction essays and all, but it's not really a "review."

I still thought she had some funny lines in this review, though.

NewChief
05-18-2005, 11:13 AM
Jesus. I want to reach through the internet and strangle this bitch.

Mission Accomplished. ROFL

Salon also had a bunch of their staffers write up testimonials about when they "lost the force" and stopped buying into the Star Wars hype. I might follow this thread up with that, just to see if I can give you an anuerysm.

Donger
05-18-2005, 11:14 AM
I guess he's a frigging prophet then because the general plotline for Episode III was outlined 30 years ago.

It's called "drawing parallels."

And then came the zinger, with the protagonist, Anakin Skywalker, saying just before becoming Darth Vader: "You are either with me — or you are my enemy."

To the Cannes audience, often sympathetic to anti-Bush messages in cinema as last year's triumph here of Michael Moore's "Fahrenheit 9/11" attested, that immediately recalled Bush's 2001 ultimatum, "You're either with us or against us in the fight against terror."

Lucas, speaking to reporters, emphasised that the original "Star Wars" was written at the end of the Vietnam war, when Richard Nixon was U.S. president, but that the issue being explored was still very much alive today.

"The issue was, how does a democracy turn itself into a dictatorship?" he said.

"When I wrote it, Iraq (the U.S.-led war) didn't exist... but the parallels of what we did in Vietnam and Iraq are unbelievable."

He acknowledged an uncomfortable feeling that the United States was in danger of losing its democratic ideals, like in the movie.

"I didn't think it was going to get this close. I hope this doesn't come true in our country."

Although he didn't mention Bush by name, Lucas took what sounded like another dig while explaining the transformation of the once-good Anakin Skywalker to the very bad Darth Vader.

"Most bad people think they're good people," he said.

The political message, though, was for the most part subsumed by the action and heroics the series — set "a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away" — is known for.

Get it?

Donger
05-18-2005, 11:14 AM
Jesus. I want to reach through the internet and strangle this bitch.

Why?

Brock
05-18-2005, 11:15 AM
Lucas began researching how democracies can turn into dictatorships with full consent of the electorate.

In ancient Rome, "why did the senate after killing Caesar turn around and give the government to his nephew?" Lucas said. "Why did France after they got rid of the king and that whole system turn around and give it to Napoleon? It's the same thing with Germany and Hitler.

"You sort of see these recurring themes where a democracy turns itself into a dictatorship, and it always seems to happen kind of in the same way, with the same kinds of issues, and threats from the outside, needing more control. A democratic body, a senate, not being able to function properly because everybody's squabbling, there's corruption."

Donger
05-18-2005, 11:16 AM
"Revenge of the Sith" might be tolerable if it weren't designed to be taken seriously.

Cue gochiefs.

Jesus. I want to reach through the internet and strangle this bitch.


ROFL

Douche Baggins
05-18-2005, 11:17 AM
Why?

Because she needs to be killed.

keg in kc
05-18-2005, 11:17 AM
I guess he's a frigging prophet then because the general plotline for Episode III was outlined 30 years ago.And the script was written several years ago, and production began several years ago, and filming began a couple of years ago. It's not like films of this kind pop up overnight. We're not talking about a documentary here (and they don't pop up overnight, either); this things been under development for decades.

Any political themes would be underlying themes that have more to do with Vietnam than the current day. The things she emphasized, the dissolution of the senate and the Emperor, all date back to the original film. She might have a point if this was a standalone film.

Donger
05-18-2005, 11:18 AM
And the script was written several years ago, and production began several years ago, and filming began a couple of years ago. It's not like films of this kind pop up overnight. We're not talking about a documentary here (and they don't pop up overnight, either); this things been under development for decades.

Any political themes would be underlying themes that have more to do with Vietnam than the current day. The things she emphasized, the dissolution of the senate and the Emperor, all date back to the original film. She might have a point if this was a standalone film.

Peh. See above. Lucas himself is the one drawing parallels.

Donger
05-18-2005, 11:19 AM
Because she needs to be killed.

And you need to get laid. It's just a movie, you uber geek.

Douche Baggins
05-18-2005, 11:19 AM
And the script was written several years ago, and production began several years ago, and filming began a couple of years ago. It's not like films of this kind pop up overnight. We're not talking about a documentary here (and they don't pop up overnight, either); this things been under development for decades.

Any political themes would be underlying themes that have more to do with Vietnam than the current day. The things she emphasized, the dissolution of the senate and the Emperor, all date back to the original film. She might have a point if this was a standalone film.

Yup. Excellent points. Any perceived "political commentary" is coincidence.

It's a bad comparison anyway. Did Bush create an army and assume a dictatorship? Hell no. F*cking liberals.

BCD
05-18-2005, 11:21 AM
****ing Liberals! Why do they have to inject politics into everything...

Bowser
05-18-2005, 11:22 AM
This ditz shot herself in the foot with her opening line "For years fans of the 'Star Wars' series have been trying to convince us nonbelievers....." She loses all credibility right there. I'm not saying that you have to be a Star Wars fanatic to review the film, but if someone goes in with the attitude that it's going to suck and be a big waste of time, they'll more than likely find reasons as to why it sucks and is a big waste of time.

And what the hell was that reference to bluesman Robert Johnson all about?

keg in kc
05-18-2005, 11:23 AM
Peh. See above. Lucas himself is the one drawing parallels.Yes, about Vietnam, as I mentioned. Everything that happens in the film has been outlined for decades. This isn't some new thing written as a commentary about the present day. If there are parallels to today's world, then that would be the world matching the story, not vice versa.

Donger
05-18-2005, 11:23 AM
Yes, about Vietnam, as I mentioned. Everything that happens in the film has been outlined for decades. This isn't some new thing written as a commentary about the present day. If there are parallels to today's world, then that would be the world matching the story, not vice versa.

And Iraq. Read his own comments.

Pants
05-18-2005, 11:24 AM
****ing Liberals! Why do they have to inject politics into everything...

I'm a liberal and I don't do that. I think that whore is a dumb bitch. She writes those reviews with one thing in mind - controversy. She's getting what she wants from threads like this.

NewChief
05-18-2005, 11:25 AM
And what the hell was that reference to bluesman Robert Johnson all about?

Umm. Deal with the Devil. Anakin sells his soul to the dark side. That was one of the parts of the review I liked.

Bowser
05-18-2005, 11:25 AM
I'm a liberal and I don't do that. I think that whore is a dumb bitch.

Heh. Neo-Lib.

Bowser
05-18-2005, 11:26 AM
Umm. Deal with the Devil. Anakin sells his soul to the dark side. That was one of the parts of the review I liked.

Obviously, I need to study Robert Johnson more, and speak out of my ass less.

keg in kc
05-18-2005, 11:30 AM
And Iraq. Read his own comments.I don't give a flying f*ck about politics. I'm concerned only with the misconception that the things she mentioned had anything at all to do with events in the world today. Anyone who knows the original trilogy at all knew that the things she mentioned, again the senate dissolution, the rise of the emperor and the change of Anakin from light to dark, were going to happen twenty years ago. They aren't new ideas. They're all mentioned in the old films.

And that's that. I'm not going to continue arguing this. It's a waste of time. If you want to believe something that isn't true, for whatever reason you have, then by all means do so.

Douche Baggins
05-18-2005, 11:30 AM
I don't give a flying f*ck about politics. I'm concerned only with the misconception that the things she mentioned had anything at all to do with events in the world today. Anyone who knows the original trilogy at all knew that the things she mentioned, again the senate dissolution, the rise of the emperor and the change of Anakin from light to dark, were going to happen twenty years ago. They aren't new ideas. They're all mentioned in the old films.

And that's that. I'm not going to continue arguing this. It's a waste of time. If you want to believe something that isn't true, for whatever reason you have, then by all means do so.

Don't sweat it, Keg. This bitch doesn't like Star Wars and it means she's smarter than everyone that does.

Donger
05-18-2005, 11:33 AM
I don't give a flying f*ck about politics. I'm concerned only with the misconception that the things she mentioned had anything at all to do with events in the world today. Anyone who knows the original trilogy at all knew that the things she mentioned, again the senate dissolution, the rise of the emperor and the change of Anakin from light to dark, were going to happen twenty years ago. They aren't new ideas. They're all mentioned in the old films.

And that's that. I'm not going to continue arguing this. It's a waste of time. If you want to believe something that isn't true, for whatever reason you have, then by all means do so.

What isn't true? That Lucas himself injected present day politics into this film by drawing parallels between it and Iraq?

CoMoChief
05-18-2005, 11:33 AM
Just another fag boy Star Wars geek trying to ruin the damn movie for everyone. I guess if you were to be one of those nerds that dresses up like Jedi's and shit and walk around the movie theatre, or the kinds of people that Triumph the Insulting Comic Dog makes fun of outside the theatre, then you have probably already read the book or played the game and probably jacked off to it, then went and saw the movie as it disappointed you because you were being too serious about the movie.

Come on, most people are going to go see this movie because it's the last piece of the puzzle, as was LOTR Return of the King was. For years we were wondering what happened to Anakin that made him turn heel on the jedi council. With this final movie we will see the whole picture, which I guess includes the birth of Luke Skywalker, according to Capt. Spoiler's thread.


As far as this being a political statement, I think that is just flat out ignorant of you to say. I don't think Lucas would waste his time and money on something that could ruin probably one of the most grossed (money wise) movies of all time in a box office theatre. If people really cared about that, then they wouldn't go see it. I seriously doubt Lucas had planned to attack Bush throughout the movie. God damn what a ****ing stupid comment.

Donger
05-18-2005, 11:34 AM
Don't sweat it, Keg. This bitch doesn't like Star Wars and it means she's smarter than everyone that does.

Jeezus. You're taking this as personally as if someone beat your dog.

Douche Baggins
05-18-2005, 11:34 AM
What isn't true? That Lucas himself injected present day politics into this film by drawing parallels between it and Iraq?

He's acknowleding that it's an odd coincidence. He never said it was his intent.

Donger
05-18-2005, 11:36 AM
He's acknowleding that it's an odd coincidence. He never said it was his intent.

I didn't say it was his intent.

Pants
05-18-2005, 11:36 AM
Just another Rump Ranger boy Star Wars geek trying to ruin the damn movie for everyone. I guess if you were to be one of those nerds that dresses up like Jedi's and shit and walk around the movie theatre, or the kinds of people that Triumph the Insulting Comic Dog makes fun of outside the theatre, then you have probably already read the book or played the game and probably jacked off to it, then went and saw the movie as it disappointed you because you were being too serious about the movie.

Come on, most people are going to go see this movie because it's the last piece of the puzzle, as was LOTR Return of the King was. For years we were wondering what happened to Anakin that made him turn heel on the jedi council. With this final movie we will see the whole picture, which I guess includes the birth of Luke Skywalker, according to Capt. Spoiler's thread.


As far as this being a political statement, I think that is just flat out ignorant of you to say. I don't think Lucas would waste his time and money on something that could ruin probably one of the most grossed (money wise) movies of all time in a box office theatre. If people really cared about that, then they wouldn't go see it. I seriously doubt Lucas had planned to attack Bush throughout the movie. God damn what a ****ing stupid comment.

This post makes no sense.

NewChief
05-18-2005, 11:37 AM
Jeezus. You're taking this as personally as if someone beat your dog.

I almost feel bad for posting this now. I hope it's not sapping the joy of what should be a climactic week for GC.

Donger
05-18-2005, 11:39 AM
I almost feel bad for posting this now. I hope it's not sapping the joy of what should be a climatic week for GC.

Bullsh*t. Let's try to make his head explode like that dude in Scanners.

Which, BTW, was far superior than any of the Star Wars films.

Pants
05-18-2005, 11:40 AM
Bullsh*t. Let's try to make his head explode like that dude in Scanners.

Which, BTW, was far superior than any of the Star Wars films.

Episode II was a decent action flick.

Donger
05-18-2005, 11:41 AM
Episode II was a decent action flick.

Bullsh*t. They all sucked.

BCD
05-18-2005, 11:43 AM
I'm a liberal and I don't do that. I think that whore is a dumb bitch. She writes those reviews with one thing in mind - controversy. She's getting what she wants from threads like this.Ok, my bad. Media and Hollywood types...

Douche Baggins
05-18-2005, 11:43 AM
I almost feel bad for posting this now. I hope it's not sapping the joy of what should be a climactic week for GC.

Ah, don't worry. Mememe journalists can't ruin my fun...never have.

Bullsh*t. Let's try to make his head explode like that dude in Scanners.

Sorry Peniser, it's T-11 hours to orgasm.

keg in kc
05-18-2005, 11:44 AM
What isn't true? That Lucas himself injected present day politics into this film by drawing parallels between it and Iraq?What I'm saying - for the third and final time - is that the story itself, and every single thing the 'reviewer' pointed out as shots at Bush, are decades old. If you don't believe me, all you have to do is rent the DVDs. The senate dissolving is mentioned in the beginning of the very first film. The emperor appears for the first time in the second film. Anakin going to the dark side is a theme in the third. None of that is contemporary in any way, shape or form.

If she wanted to make a point, and maybe it is a vaild point, there certainly could be a small statement about the present day added - she simply picked the wrong way to try and make it...

And in the end, the plot is decades old. That's simply a fact. End of story.

NewChief
05-18-2005, 11:46 AM
I'm sort of unclear on whether she's actually accusing Lucas of trying to make political statements or whether she's saying that those trying to make the movie political are misguided. A little of both, I suppose.

I think it's a little ridiculous that she takes what started off as some fringe blog talk (EP III is a tirade against Bush) and makes that the cornerstone of her "review."

Donger
05-18-2005, 11:46 AM
Sorry Peniser, it's T-11 hours to orgasm.

Yeah, that sounds appealing.

Sitting in a crowded room with hundreds of other socially-challenged geeks creaming their pants over a movie.

Douche Baggins
05-18-2005, 11:47 AM
Yeah, that sounds appealing.

Sitting in a crowded room with hundreds of other socially-challenged geeks creaming their pants over a movie.

Touchdown, Vader!

Donger
05-18-2005, 11:48 AM
What I'm saying - for the third and final time - is that the story itself, and every single thing the 'reviewer' pointed out as shots at Bush, are decades old. If you don't believe me, all you have to do is rent the DVDs. The senate dissolving is mentioned in the beginning of the very first film. The emperor appears for the first time in the second film. Anakin going to the dark side is a theme in the third. None of that is contemporary in any way, shape or form.

If she wanted to make a point, and maybe it is a vaild point, there certainly could be a small statement about the present day added - she simply picked the wrong way to try and make it...

And in the end, the plot is decades old. That's simply a fact. End of story.

I wasn't referring to the review at all, of course. Just Lucas' own words.

Gochiefs stated that this film has "nothing to do with politics." Lucas disagrees.

keg in kc
05-18-2005, 11:50 AM
Sitting in a crowded room with hundreds of other socially-challenged geeks creaming their pants over a movie.The socially-challenged geeks won't be going at midnight. That's much too crowded for us.

4th and Long
05-18-2005, 11:50 AM
Wow! I've never seen so many people take a FANTASY movie so SERIOUSLY.

Donger
05-18-2005, 11:51 AM
Touchdown, Vader!

Heh.

Tell me, is there anything that would lead you reach the conclusion that, after watching this film, that it was a bad film? If so, please provide some examples.

Douche Baggins
05-18-2005, 11:54 AM
Heh.

Tell me, is there anything that would lead you reach the conclusion that, after watching this film, that it was a bad film? If so, please provide some examples.

Yeah. If Darth Vader says:

"That's so wizard!"

But seriously, the only thing that would screw it up is if Lucas did something like make Qui-Gon Jinn or Palpatine Anakin's father. That would just be incredibly lame.

keg in kc
05-18-2005, 11:55 AM
Gochiefs stated that this film has "nothing to do with politics." Lucas disagrees.As I pointed out earlier, and was mentioned in your quote from cannes, the films, and the politics therein, stemed from the Vietnam era. I would say that the real statement there might be that Lucas sees today as similar to back then. But I can't really speak for him. Either way, I don't think that anyone with any objectivity and knowledge of the history and mythology of the films can honestly try to tell anyone it's an implicit shot at GWB. As I said before, if there's a shot there, it's because actions by GWB match (in the eyes of those arguing, or even Lucas, if he sees it that way) the actions in the film. Because, again, the theme of the film is the same as it has been for decades.

keg in kc
05-18-2005, 12:01 PM
Wow! I've never seen so many people take a FANTASY movie so SERIOUSLY.Hell, let people be entertained how they want. Some people like video games, some people like reading political thrillers, some people like the history channel, some people like movies about space, some people like to stare off into space. It's all the same thing in the end, we just have different tastes, and they're all serious things, important, to all of us.

buddha
05-18-2005, 12:03 PM
Yup. Excellent points. Any perceived "political commentary" is coincidence.

It's a bad comparison anyway. Did Bush create an army and assume a dictatorship? Hell no. F*cking liberals.

No, he just led a nation into battle based on LIES. Thousands of people are dead and the WMDs will be found by Bush about the same time as OJ finds Ron and Nicole's killer. And anybody who feels that way is a F*ing liberal, right? Does the term fascist mean anything to you?

Douche Baggins
05-18-2005, 12:04 PM
It's all the same thing in the end, we just have different tastes, and they're all serious things, important, to all of us.

Another chance to post my favorite image macro!

Douche Baggins
05-18-2005, 12:05 PM
No, he just led a nation into battle based on LIES. Thousands of people are dead and the WMDs will be found by Bush about the same time as OJ finds Ron and Nicole's killer. And anybody who feels that way is a F*ing liberal, right? Does the term fascist mean anything to you?

Oh god. Let's please not get this thread moved into the political forum. ROFL

Clint in Wichita
05-18-2005, 12:08 PM
I can't decide which I hate more.

Idiots who wait in line...in costume...for weeks to see a Star Wars movie, or idiots who claim that the movie is some sort of attack on the Bush Administration.

According to what I've read, Lucas has basically had all 6 movies in his head since the late 60s/early 70s. He's a fuggin director/producer/prophet. Amazing.

Not to mention the fact that to draw any parallels between the Emperor and Bush is silly. The emperor is actually clever...some might even say intelligent.

If it is an attack on Bush, can we expect Cheney to assassinate Bush at some point?

4th and Long
05-18-2005, 12:10 PM
No, he just led a nation into battle based on LIES. Thousands of people are dead and the WMDs will be found by Bush about the same time as OJ finds Ron and Nicole's killer. And anybody who feels that way is a F*ing liberal, right? Does the term fascist mean anything to you?
Lighten up, Frances.

Douche Baggins
05-18-2005, 12:11 PM
Not to mention the fact that to draw any parallels between the Emperor and Bush is silly. The emperor is actually clever...some might even say intelligent.

If it is an attack on Bush, can we expect Cheney to assassinate Bush at some point?

ROFL

Donger
05-18-2005, 12:13 PM
No, he just led a nation into battle based on LIES. Thousands of people are dead and the WMDs will be found by Bush about the same time as OJ finds Ron and Nicole's killer. And anybody who feels that way is a F*ing liberal, right? Does the term fascist mean anything to you?

What lies?

Pants
05-18-2005, 12:14 PM
What lies?

It was all CIA's fault. Whaaaa whaaaa whaaaa.

Donger
05-18-2005, 12:16 PM
It was all CIA's fault. Whaaaa whaaaa whaaaa.

Another non-answer. You'd think that folks claiming that Bush lied would have some evidence to back it up.

Pants
05-18-2005, 12:18 PM
Another non-answer. You'd think that folks claiming that Bush lied would have some evidence to back it up.

Evidence? ROFL

Bush says: "There are WMD's in Iraq ready to be used by terrists"
Reality: There are no WMD's.

Bush says: "Sadam is helping them terrists, we have evidence"
Reality: There is no evidence.

This thread is now officially a political thread.

keg in kc
05-18-2005, 12:19 PM
Oh no, not the terrists.

NewChief
05-18-2005, 12:19 PM
Damnit you guys! How is this thread going to continue to make gochiefs mad if it gets relegated to DC. Stop talking politics!

Donger
05-18-2005, 12:20 PM
Evidence? ROFL

Bush says: "There are WMD's in Iraq ready to be used by terrists"
Reality: There are no WMD's.

Bush says: "Sadam is helping them terrists, we have evidence"
Reality: There is no evidence.

This thread is now officially a political thread.

You know the difference between being in error and lying, no?

If you have some evidence that Bush knowingly lied about WMDs, bring it forth. That would be quite a scoop.

Calcountry
05-18-2005, 12:20 PM
****ing Liberals! Why do they have to inject politics into everything...Because they are political geeks to a greater extent than GoChiefs is a Star Wars geek.

They have no life outside of politics.

Donger
05-18-2005, 12:21 PM
Damnit you guys! How is this thread going to continue to make gochiefs mad if it gets relegated to DC. Stop talking politics!

ROFL

Pants
05-18-2005, 12:22 PM
You know the difference between being in error and lying, no?

If you have some evidence that Bush knowingly lied about WMDs, bring it forth. That would be quite a scoop.

Are you that naive or just stupid?

Clint in Wichita
05-18-2005, 12:23 PM
Wow...you turds managed to turn a Star Wars thread into a pro/anti Bush thread.


Maybe Lucas is up to something. :rolleyes:

Donger
05-18-2005, 12:28 PM
Are you that naive or just stupid?

Hmmm. That's it?

Pretty much what I expected.

Douche Baggins
05-18-2005, 12:32 PM
It was all CIA's fault. Whaaaa whaaaa whaaaa.

Vader lied, people died.

chagrin
05-18-2005, 12:34 PM
Funny, but all Lucas knows is absolutes. "Revenge of the Sith" doesn't work as a political statement because for all the lip service Lucas pays to democracy, he barely seems to know what it is. In the "Star Wars" series, democracy may be the alleged goal of the Republic, but what the movies really value is order: Democracy -- the genuine kind, which means you just might get stuck with a president you don't like -- is too messy and complicated for the "Star Wars" worldview. The very scale of these movies prevents anything but the most obvious moral readings: Preoccupied as they are with good and evil, with so little gray in between, the "Star Wars" movies are more like faux Wagnerian epics that have been clumsily retrofitted with democratic ideals. They ask us to tremble in the face of their greatness even as they claim to be on the side of the little people. Lucas doesn't realize he can't have it both ways.

So is Palpatine supposed to be George W. Bush? It appears so, because he's ruthless, unappealing and arrogant. He's a cartoon baddie, like Ming the Merciless, or Mumbles, or the Penguin -- all of these are very bad men, just like that bad old George W. If Lucas really knew what he was doing, he'd have given us a character who believed with all his heart, as George W. surely does, that he's on God's side. That would have made for a truly creepy and treacherous villain.

To pile on...

I didn't realize that every movie that comes out is supposed to make a political statement. these Journalists have too much "W" in their eyes. In the writing, she is separating herself from fans of the story (the entire story that is) so obviously cannot be taken seriously anyway, but the rant at the end, pouting that there is no political statement that suits her bias is sad. however I don't make it a habit of reading critics very much anyway, usually what they don't like is the movies I consider viewing the most.

the story IS about absolutes, not grey matter. there is good and evil in the force and that's it. She simply doesn't get it.

Bowser
05-18-2005, 12:34 PM
Vader lied, people died.

Heh.

Just don't ever invoke that name again, please.

Clint in Wichita
05-18-2005, 12:42 PM
I think that the 3rd penis from the left in the gang bang finale of "Behind the Green Door" represents W.

chagrin
05-18-2005, 12:46 PM
I think that the 3rd penis from the left in the gang bang finale of "Behind the Green Door" represents W.



Now HE is a movie fan! :clap:

Douche Baggins
05-18-2005, 12:51 PM
the story IS about absolutes, not grey matter. there is good and evil in the force and that's it. She simply doesn't get it.

If she was a journalist worth her craft she'd realize that all this absolutes garbage gets tossed out the window when the saga is complete (i.e. Luke).

chagrin
05-18-2005, 12:54 PM
too true

ChiefFripp
05-18-2005, 01:41 PM
The flaw with this review and reviewer is she expects to take SW seriously. All those "average moviegoers who simply have a nostalgic fondness for the original trilogy " will probably be satisfied.

This reviewer simply reminds me of people who wake up in the morning just to admire their own cleverness ...basically, the type of people I'd like to see shot. Star Wars is nothing more than an adolscent action movie and really isn't trying to be too much more. Maybe the reviewer should of thought of that before she went into super analytical hyperdrive while reviewing it.

Dave Lane
05-18-2005, 01:53 PM
This maybe the stupidest "review" in the history of the world. Good god everything is the world is not about Bush fugtard.

Dave

Frazod
05-18-2005, 06:00 PM
Like I care what this narcissistic c#nt thinks about anything. She should stick to reviewing estrogen fests like Steel Fagnolias. 4321

Douche Baggins
05-18-2005, 06:04 PM
Like I care what this narcissistic c#nt thinks about anything. She should stick to reviewing estrogen fests like Steel Fagnolias. 4321

That's rep!

tk13
05-18-2005, 07:47 PM
If you quite possibly haven't had enough Star Wars, I noticed looking at the TV schedule that A&E has a 2 hour special on Star Wars coming up in 15 minutes at the top of the hour, then again at 2 AM eastern time/11 pacific. It's supposed to feature "Never before seen footage" and "exclusive interviews".

Douche Baggins
05-18-2005, 07:57 PM
If you quite possibly haven't had enough Star Wars, I noticed looking at the TV schedule that A&E has a 2 hour special on Star Wars coming up in 15 minutes at the top of the hour, then again at 2 AM eastern time/11 pacific. It's supposed to feature "Never before seen footage" and "exclusive interviews".

Nah, it's just the documentary from the DVD. It's never before been seen on TV.