Formus said:
The first trilogy was a mindless, entertaining amalgamation of Western mythologies. The second trilogy is the exact same thing.
Minus the mythology and archetypal characters.
Wait. No mythology? Um...what? The mythology is there; it's just not any different from the original trilogy.
No, it really isn't. The force is a genetic disorder.
Incorporating science into mythology makes it automatically not count? Wait, what?
When it negates an entire concept, sure it does.
When, in A New Hope, Luke puts away the targeting mechanism and shoots "using the Force", there are several ways of looking at it. Maybe he's relying on himself. Maybe he's relying on a higher power. Maybe he's got some connection with fate and is relying on that. But however you look at it, he's giving up the crutches he's been restraining himself with, and with a single shot chooses the path he wishes to take.
When, In Phantom Menace, Anakin steals a ship and lays waste to an army of droids, he does so because he was born with superpowers. That's it. He might as well put on spandex.
Or , it's like a Scooby Doo cartoon ( stay with me here ) . Like when the kids find out that the Miner 49er isn't a ghost & is just a guy in a mask . It takes the sense of the supernatural out of it . And in a sense makes it less fun . Especially if your a ghost/monster loving kid like I was . Also , " the Force " give you more of a feeling of a universal good vs evil when thought of as a metaphysical thing , rather then a super gene of some kind .
Aw,we ALL know that we're going to watch the Star Wars shows.....I'm hoping they'll be more like Empire and less like Phantom..........but I actually WANT to see them,and then decide if they suck.
I think one of the central problems with the prequel trilogy is the lack of a single strong villain recurring on the stage. I mean, yes, there's technically a little bit of Darth Vader, since it's his story. But each movie pretty much entirely had its own villain - Phantom Menace had Darth Maul, who barely spoke or had any characterization whatsoever. He's basically a moving platform for his dual-bladed lightsaber. Ooh, menacing. Attack of the Clones (and the first little bit of Revenge of the Sith) had Count Dooku/Darth Tyrannus. Okay, so Christopher Lee's great and all, but there was no build up. He came out of nowhere, he loomed some, he made a few speeches and fought saber battles a couple of times and then, whack. And Revenge of the Sith had General Grievous. Who REALLY came out of the blue (unless you'd been paying attention to Expanded Universe content), and was oh so menacing with his three-packs-an-hour coughing jags and his tendency to run the fuck away after three seconds of combat. Pity, too. In *other* Star Wars material, Grievous was a seriously scary badass with his lightning-fast use of multiple lightsabers. But not Episode III.
104
Formus
Milwaukee, WI
May 2007
OCT 22, 2007 07:52 PM
formerviking said:
Or , it's like a Scooby Doo cartoon ( stay with me here ) . Like when the kids find out that the Miner 49er isn't a ghost & is just a guy in a mask . It takes the sense of the supernatural out of it . And in a sense makes it less fun . Especially if your a ghost/monster loving kid like I was . Also , " the Force " give you more of a feeling of a universal good vs evil when thought of as a metaphysical thing , rather then a super gene of some kind .
Oh, I see. Because Lucas isn't appealing to what you think he should, his vision fails.
As for the Force, as I recall, the mitochondria or whatthefuckever were able to communicate with it, but they weren't it. So that's just bullshit for people who fish for problems to try to justify their unwarranted hatred of a movie that's only slightly worse than the originals.
105
Formus
Milwaukee, WI
May 2007
OCT 22, 2007 07:53 PM
malkav11 said:
I think one of the central problems with the prequel trilogy is the lack of a single strong villain recurring on the stage.
You mean like Palpatine? It's not like it was a secret that he became the Emperor.
malkav11 said:
I think one of the central problems with the prequel trilogy is the lack of a single strong villain recurring on the stage.
You mean like Palpatine? It's not like it was a secret that he became the Emperor.
He played pretty much the same role in all the movies. More time on screen in the prequels, granted. But most of that was "good guy" time. You didn't really see much of him as an out and out villain until Episode III. (Of course, you knew perfectly well what was going on if you'd seen the original trilogy.) Certainly no replacement for Vader.
formerviking
Denver, PA
May 2006
OCT 21, 2007 06:33 AM