It's sad though that seemingly everyone is so convinced that Episodes I and II were so much worse than IV, V, and VI. They really weren't. They were different in some ways because they had to be (the hero cycle isn't going to work the same way, for example) but they were of similiar quality. I wonder how many people will see the earlier prequels in a different light once the saga is completed.
-Nick
P.S. While you're here do you think you could respond to my unscientific poll?
Re: OT: Star WarsbadmojoeMay 11 2005, 03:39:02 UTC
I'll admit to this, but I have justifications. I was just so hyped about it, and both of them had really dazzling endings. But when I stopped to think about the movies, the stories, the structures, they were just so lacking, and where the original trilogy was so robust, so hardened against most negative contemplation, eps 1 and 2 were just very easily picked apart.
Re: OT: Star WarsbadmojoeMay 12 2005, 00:21:57 UTC
Ok, well, I agree that the new flicks have some value. But, I think the central figure of eps I and II, Anakin fucking Skywalker, is so incredibly lacking and wrong, that every other aspect of each of these films could be cinematic gold, pure liquid genius, and it just wouldn't make up for how wretchedly Anakin's story has been butchered.
I'm sure I've made clear before my objections to how Anakin's backstory was handled.
Re: OT: Star WarsbadmojoeMay 12 2005, 02:45:54 UTC
Alright, here it is: Anakin is not supposed to be a whiny fucking loser. As it is, the only thing Anakin has to offer is his Forceness. His abilities. He's like Superman, when he should be so much more like Batman. My vision of Anakin was always thus: supreme badass, most awesomest Lightside Jedi, super-efficient awesome dude of very little fault, a man of few words, hardcore and completely devoted and obedient to his master(s). He was supposed to be the best, and the best-intentioned
( ... )
I hadn't heard this before. In principle, I agree with you. More Batman and less Superman from our movies would be a welcome thing. The Matrix, especially, would have benefited from a more Batman-style approach. But I think that in the particular case of Star Wars Anakin had to be more of a Superman-type character
( ... )
Re: OT: Star WarsbadmojoeMay 12 2005, 05:38:53 UTC
Well, yes, I understand that's how it went, but it didn't have to. I simply don't wanna watch a story about a whiny bitch. I want to watch a story about a badass. I have full confidence that Anakin's story could have been written in such a way that we didn't have to sit through two movies of him being lame, just for the payoff in the third movie.
Yes, it could have. But it would have destroyed the best part of Star Wars - the tension between the Jedi and the Sith. You need Anakin to destroy the Jedi Order, and he has to do it because of the faults of that very Order. There's no way to square that with the desire to have him be more Batman.
Re: OT: Star WarsbadmojoeMay 12 2005, 17:18:25 UTC
No way, you crazy fuck! Don't you understand? Anakin was supposed to be supreme Jedi, the very embodiment of Light Side awesomeness. And still, despite his awesomeness, there was nothing he could do about his mother getting killed which was an indirect effect of the bureaucratic mess the Jedi had made of the Republic. This is when he becomes ultimate Sith, aka Darth Motherfucking Vader. How simple is that? How much more awesome would that have been to watch, in the first two movies?
Your desire to see Batman on the big screen has blinded you to the fact that Batman-Skywalker simply wouldn't have fallen to the Dark Side for that reason. He'd have grabbed the Light Side Order by the scruff of the neck and dragged them, kicking and screaming, into awesomeness. And the Jedi would have went along, because they would have used the Force to see that he was right, because "he's Batman".
It has to be Anakin's flaws, not his strengths, that lead him to the Dark Side.
Reply
That link was quite great.
It's sad though that seemingly everyone is so convinced that Episodes I and II were so much worse than IV, V, and VI. They really weren't. They were different in some ways because they had to be (the hero cycle isn't going to work the same way, for example) but they were of similiar quality. I wonder how many people will see the earlier prequels in a different light once the saga is completed.
-Nick
P.S. While you're here do you think you could respond to my unscientific poll?
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
Do you know people who did that?
-Nick
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
That's too bad. I was hoping perhaps you'd just read such sentiments on the Internet.
-Nick
Reply
I don't join bandwagons.
Reply
Reply
I'm sure I've made clear before my objections to how Anakin's backstory was handled.
Reply
If you have done so in my presence, I've forgotten the specifics.
-Nick
Reply
Reply
I hadn't heard this before. In principle, I agree with you. More Batman and less Superman from our movies would be a welcome thing. The Matrix, especially, would have benefited from a more Batman-style approach. But I think that in the particular case of Star Wars Anakin had to be more of a Superman-type character ( ... )
Reply
Reply
Yes, it could have. But it would have destroyed the best part of Star Wars - the tension between the Jedi and the Sith. You need Anakin to destroy the Jedi Order, and he has to do it because of the faults of that very Order. There's no way to square that with the desire to have him be more Batman.
-Nick
Reply
Reply
Your desire to see Batman on the big screen has blinded you to the fact that Batman-Skywalker simply wouldn't have fallen to the Dark Side for that reason. He'd have grabbed the Light Side Order by the scruff of the neck and dragged them, kicking and screaming, into awesomeness. And the Jedi would have went along, because they would have used the Force to see that he was right, because "he's Batman".
It has to be Anakin's flaws, not his strengths, that lead him to the Dark Side.
-Nick
Reply
Leave a comment