I Sense A Problem With The Force

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
I guess in the end, it depends if you consider a good movie to just be one that is entertaining or a good movie to have some artistic value.

Not really, the artistic value is inherent in the film, while whether you find it 'entertaining' or not is completely subjective and so is not a good way to define a movie.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Entertaining can be what you use to judge if a movie is good. Plenty of people do so. That's why you hear many people say Mel Brooks movies are good.

[Japher]

And movies that aren't entertaining are considered good too, that's why ppl say Woody Allen movies are good.

[Dis]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
I guess in the end, it depends if you consider a good movie to just be one that is entertaining or a good movie to have some artistic value.

people watch movies to be entertained, not for art value. If a movie is not entertaining, it's crap.

[Dis]

Originally posted by Japher
And movies that aren't entertaining are considered good too, that's why ppl say Woody Allen movies are good.

his movies aren't good. And for those people who do actually think his movies are good, find them entertaining.

[joncha]

Originally posted by Dissident


too bad it doesn't belong in a star wars thread.

My favourite part of the movie is when Captain Picard uses his laser sword on the wookie.

[Brent]

The (Trade) Federation is way better than the Republic. Star Wars ripped off the YWing Starfighter design from the Enterprise. But Star Trek ripped off the Bothans. And that droid on an early Voyager episode.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
ANH introduces the story and the main characters. Most of it is very relevent for the rest of the story. It also introduces the force. And it, as well as ESB, stresses the mysticism and spirituality of the force. If is something more than simply allowing more action, like it is done in RotJ. The mysticalism of the force is what makes Star Wars more than just a Buck Rodgers ripoff.

Oh brother. The Force...here we go.

The Force is a crap philosophy that is so riculously shallow and poorly thought-out that I have to seriously wonder why anyone would think it's what makes Star Wars so grand. I like SW in spite of the Force, and the whole midichlorian thing in Ep I only reinforced what a mind-numbingly stupid thing it is.

People give Lucas way too much credit by imagining there's some deep philosophy behind the Force. There isn't.

So excuse me if I'm not impressed by claims that ANH made some sort of mystical statement, because it really didn't.

Even for you this argumentation is pathetic. Cliche doesn't mean that a few people did it in the past. It's more pervasive than that.

Yup, and that's exactly the case. The trope of a rogue being redeemed by joining a good cause is pervasive. I'm not saying it's bad that it's a part of SW, but let's not pretend it was some brilliant new plot device that changed movies--that's patently ridiculous.

You do realize Lucas ripped off the plot for ANH from other movies, don't you? Ever see any Kirosawa movies? There's Lucas's "muse" right there.

What's more, it's decidedly weak in ANH. They don't even establish Han as much of a rogue, and then all the does is come back in the last 5 minutes and shoots a few ships. Such redemption...

Pretty good redemption right there.

Nothing you described sounded remotely compelling as a story of redemption. A character who was only superficially established as "bad" comes swooping back in (as a needed Deus Ex Machina, btw) at the last minute because he has a change of heart. Oh, such monumentally new filmmaking that was...

If you want a good redemption story, RotJ is far better, 'cause it's got Vader's. His redemption is perhaps the most poignant moment in the entire series. That's one of the reasons RotJ is a better movie--much more emotionally moving. The only real emotion ellicited by ANH was awe at the special effects and visceral good vs. evil story.

Well, I'm also awed by the awful dialogue and acting.

Actually what it indicates is YOUR crap taste in movies. The fact that you think Face/Off or Forest Gump are horrible movies shows that you have no clue what you are talking about.

Oh lord. First, I didn't say they were horrible (at least, not Face/Off). What I was pointing out was that their critical reviews are vastly overrated, so going by the critics is not always a wise thing to do. You have to take into account that a) most critics suck and b) most are easily influenced by "me too!" bandwagons when it comes to movies that are predicated on a gimmick. Both of these films certainly meet that criteria.

If you think Face/Off, which was a passable action flick with some atrocious acting, qualifies for a 92%, you're batty.

Pretty low = bad? There is that reading comprehension again. And I said it wasn't bad, if you read.

No, Imran, you're making up things you said. You said "piss poor." That certainly implies bad, despite any weaseling you try to do.

And it is pretty low. 78% is a C level, which isn't all that great. Rotten Tomatoes, as well as university grades, have somewhat of a 'grade inflation' where B is good and C is average.

Oh come on. You can't apply academic standards of grading to the tomatometer. They aren't based on the same scale, even an idiot can see that.

The percentage of the tomatometer refers simply to the ration of positive to negative reviews. If a film gets 78% positive reviews, that's a pretty good consensus that the movie is decent. That means only 22% of critics didn't like it, which is a relatively small number.

They even help the slow with this concept at rottentomatoes by showing the 78% as a solid red tomato which means good. See, red tomato = good, green splat = bad. It's not a hard concept.

You don't think 80% is piss-poor compared to 93%? And the Cream of the Crop ratings (which I've said are more important) were at 64% for RotJ. That's piss poor under any standard.

No, it's only "piss-poor" by the arbitrary "I'll interpret the numbers to mean what I want" standard. I'll reiterate that by rottentomato standard (see, little red tomato?) that it's considered good. So only to you does it seem like such rankings are "piss poor."

If it was all about a 'new spectacle' why is ESB considered to be rated higher then ANH? Did not ESB come AFTER ANH? According to your spectacle theory, ANH should have been rated higher!

Um, no, because it isn't the spectacle that drives ESB, it's the story. Disregarding the special effects, ESB is a good movie.

ESB isn't that much better in script and acting. The difference is that ESB is a far darker movie which ends on a downer. That, IMO, makes it better than ANH, but just barely.

What? You're really off your rocker now. Talk about pwning yourself...I doubt you'll find many SW fans who agree with that conclusion. It's a fundamentally shallow look at the movies (which isn't surprising to me at this point, I guess).

ESB has a vastly superior (and much more original, it should be noted) script than ANH. The direction is also noticeably superior. Kershner's pacing runs rings around Lucas's dull plodding. And the simple fact is that ESB wonderfully explores the relationships of the characters, something ANH barely even touches on. We also get in Yoda at least a better expounding on the Force which makes it much fuller than the juvenile prattlings about it in ANH.

The other great thing about ESB is the interior look at the workings of the Empire as shown by Vader's officer corps. All those nuances make it quite compelling.

I can't believe anyone would assert that the mere fact it "ends on a downer" is what makes it better. Talk about thoughtless. Even if it hadn't ended such, it would have been a better movie than ANH.

Actually they didn't. There are more than a few that defend 'Titanic' and 'Forrest Gump' today from unwarrented attacks (the pendulum swung too far the other way).

Yeah, I'm sure you have some support for this assertion.

Titanic and Gump aren't "bad" like Battlefield Earth is "bad," but in terms of scripts, stories, acting and directing they are decidedly mediocre. They are gimmick films that enthralled people with something that was "new" (super-duper ship effects and the cutesy "let's insert Tom Hanks into historical footage") and later on people came to their senses. My point is that the films were initially quite overrated.

ANH has a better plot, better characterization, and emphases on the spirituality of the force.

No, No, and only if you've got a really shallow definition of "spirituality." ANH was fairly mediocre on the first two, and RotJ beats it out for emotional engagement, particularly wrt to the Vader/Luke plot. The Leia/Han plot is also a good thing about it.

The transcendant nature of the Force made, IMO, Star Wars such a cultural phenomenon and spawned geeks everywhere. Wouldn't have been the same with just space battles.

Again you show how little understanding of just how shallow the Force is in ANH. It wasn't until ESB that it actually got some meat to it. In ANH, it's just silly.

And you think that's what spawned the geeks? No, I doubt it. Consider ST was able to spawn even more geeks without any mystical mumbo-jumbo. I've never heard ANY SW geek tell me the main reason they like SW is because of the brilliant philosophy behind the Force. For the vast majority of people, the thing they liked were the cool space battles and the space opera aspect of it. The only reason people think the Force is cool from ANH is because it enables Obi Wan and Luke to do some neat tricks, not because there's a grippingly deep philosophy behind it.

And wtf is up with blast visor thing anyway? Talk about retarded. Who would make a useless thing like that anyway?

ANYWAY, the bottom line is that it just comes down to a matter of opinion and taste. And my opinion is that your taste sucks.

[monolith94]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
ESB > RotJ > ANH > AotC > TPM. That's the only acceptable ordering.

Exactly right, although one could make a very good case for ANH over RotJ. ANH has really great Han Solo and Obi-Wan moments and skeletons.

But then, RotJ has A. Ackbar. Hmmmmmm.

[Brent]

The Force is based on reality!! It's not shallow, it's elegantly simple.

Superficially bad? But he shot first! Hey, I thought I liked him not shooting first... darn.

Critics are like politicians. When they make it a career, they lose their sense.

Trek always had some mystical mumbojumbo, it just wasn't central. Noncorporeal beings? Mind melds? Gary Mitchell? Trelane? Amusement Park Planet?

[TCO]

Originally posted by Agathon
Reminds me of this great video

http://askmen.com/video/2004_dec/dec15_star_wars.html

We should form a gang just to beat up on people who line up like that.

Lot of nasty spyware at that site. Pinko.

[Imran Siddiqui]

The Force is a crap philosophy that is so riculously shallow and poorly thought-out that I have to seriously wonder why anyone would think it's what makes Star Wars so grand. I like SW in spite of the Force, and the whole midichlorian thing in Ep I only reinforced what a mind-numbingly stupid thing it is.

OMG... without the Force, SW is Buck Rodgers and everyone forgets it in a few years. There may be a sequal, who knows. WITH the Force, it becomes a cultural phenomenon. Why do you think people were so pissed about the midichlorian thing in TPM? It was because Lucas was trying to science up the mystical nature of the force.

The fact that you said you liked 'Star Wars in spite of the force' indicates that you have no knowledge of what an actual Star Wars fan is. Star Wars fans love the trilogy because the force is what is underlying it. That is why all the shows and behind the scenes and all that focus on the force and it's effects on the SW universe. KOTOR and KOTOR II, arguably the greatest SW video game series of all time, make their gravy on challenges with the force and turning people from the force, wiping their powers, and what the consequences are.

You may ho hum the force, but, in the end, it IS the thing that makes Star Wars a 25+ year phenomenon. It's the reason there are 6 SW movies. The force is what captures the imagination and has us asking for more.

The trope of a rogue being redeemed by joining a good cause is pervasive. I'm not saying it's bad that it's a part of SW, but let's not pretend it was some brilliant new plot device that changed movies--that's patently ridiculous.

non-cliche = brilliant new plot device. I see. I think you don't understand the meaning of the word 'cliche'.

Nothing you described sounded remotely compelling as a story of redemption. A character who was only superficially established as "bad" comes swooping back in.

Of course its a compelling redemption. Han was only in the adventure due to promised monetary returns. He thinks of the Force as a 'hokey religion'. There is a sliver of the redemption when for the first time all movie he looks guilty while walking out on the rebels. Then he says "May the Force be With You" (Han says it first, btw, NOT Obi-Wan, who says "The Force be with you"). At the end, he appears and casts the deciding blow, making the redemption complete.

In it for himself rogue comes through in the clutch? Done before, yes, cliche, no.

If you want a good redemption story, RotJ is far better, 'cause it's got Vader's. His redemption is perhaps the most poignant moment in the entire series.

Vader's redemption is a result of 3 movies of buildup. RotJ standing on its own doesn't make the redemption worth a damn. It means something because of Vader's killing of commanders who fail him, his chocking of high ranking military leaders who disagree with him on the force, his use of whatever means necessary to try to get Leia Organa to talk, his ruthless desire to destroy the Republic, his attempt to get Luke to turn to the Dark Side and rule the galaxy. Without all that, the redemption loses much of any emotion it elicits.

The only real emotion ellicited by ANH was awe at the special effects and visceral good vs. evil story.

You need to watch the movie again. Han's turn is good cause to yell with joy, not because of the effects, but because of his turn from neutral to good.

I doubt you'll find many SW fans who agree with that conclusion.

What's the first time SW fans say when you ask about ESB? "Luke, I am your father". Many fans find the cliffhanger, downer ending to be what elevates the movie to the top of the scrape heap. That is why MOST SW fans see Ep III as a great oppertunity. It will be the most dark of any of the 6 movies and thus, so we surmise, will be very good.

The darkness makes it work. The good vs. evil is turned on its head, when evil wins. Makes it bloody brilliant. Look at the ratings, it is rated high, but ANH is right there with it. The ending is what makes ESB.

If the good guys won, it wouldn't be as talked about and as held up.

You said "piss poor."

Yes, 78% is piss poor compared to 93%. That's a spread of 15 percentage points. Quite a gulf.

Also you admited that you thought Forrest Gump was mediocre. It's rating? 78%. That's also the rating for Clueless and Ghost Dog: Way of the Samurai.

Compared to say Million Dollar Baby which got a 91% (not even the same as Star Wars). Or Hotel Rwanda which also got a 91%.

And yes, while I think Forrest Gump is entertaining and a fun movie, it is piss poor compared to Hotel Rwanda.

If a film gets 78% positive reviews, that's a pretty good consensus that the movie is decent. That means only 22% of critics didn't like it, which is a relatively small number.

Another film with 78% was 'Open Range' (Kevin Costner and Robert Duvall). One of the greats or just entertaining? I like Westerns and found it fun. Wouldn't say its another Million Dollar Baby though.

Yeah, I'm sure you have some support for this assertion.

Yes, you even the attacks are unwarrented . Many people claim Titanic is horrible and Forrest Gump is crap and you say that isn't the case for either. Just that they are 'overrated'.

I disagree that they were as overrated as you think they were. There probably was some overrating, but no more than the average Oscar winner or nominee. The pendulum swings the other way and then Titanic and Forrest Gump were crap and weren't deserving of nominations.

Both were entertaining movies with slapdowns as a result of the hype mostly. Forrest Gump, especially, is a movie which is entertaining even to today, even if its a 'classic'.

And you think that's what spawned the geeks?

DUH!! How many Buck Rogers geeks do we have around. The Force is the ONLY reason the SW geek exists. Big space battles last only a few years in the minds of people. Couple with something intriguing like the Force and it becomes a phenomenon.

When people discuss the SW universe on forums like SMDB, they are talking about the force and discussing the nature of the force and whether Anakin did balance the force (something I'm debating right now in another forum).

The Force is it... it's key.

Consider ST was able to spawn even more geeks without any mystical mumbo-jumbo.

It's also a utopian's dream where all races and creeds live together nicely in the Republic. As JohnT and I were discussing, it appeals to the utopian in people, where replicators makes classes obsolete.

And my opinion is that your taste sucks.

Likewise

RotJ is a decent movie that ties up the loose ends and has a great ending, but it's no ANH.

[Ted Striker]

I don't think you have really thought this thing out Imran.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Ha ha... True Star Wars geeks defend the force's honor, Ted .

[Ted Striker]