THE PHANTOM MENACE - YES!!

[kodiakthejuggler]

A better director might have gotten some decent performances out of the romantic leads in Episode Two (both of whom were uniformly horrible, though both are talented actors). Writers and directors who are, or at least understand, women could have Amidala something to do in the third film, besides look worried and die.

You mean, Padme... dies??

...

NNNOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[James of LinHood]

There were some environmentalist political undertones in TWO TOWERS that I didn't like as well.

Weren't there environmentalist political undertones in Two Towers BEFORE PJ got his hands on it? :^)

Pak Man, I assume your question is rhetorical but I'll answer it anyway.

Yep.  There was a definite environmentalist overtone in the novels.  The movies, being a fairly true adaptation of the novels, simply took that from the novels as well.  You can't blame Mr. Jackson for that, Darthvedder.

[sarcasm_made_Easy]

uh your kidding right?  any tones of any kind in those books are based on the bias of the reader.  Thats not a direc qoute from tolkein but it fairly kinda almost close.  when he wrote it he intentionally left any sort of metaphor out of it, becuase he felt it would add to the books meaning.

[Msampo]

First of all I should say that I loved the LOTR movies overall. But...

Mainly I thought the LOTR films lacked the charm and tone of the novel. I understand certain things have to be omitted for the sake of brevity (Tom Bombadil, etc.) but the feeling just wasn't there for me. Where were the ballads and merriment? The novel wasn't all darkness and wraiths and epic battles.

I never minded when things were cut for brevity. What bothered me was when things were cut for brevity, and then completely pointless, Jackson-invented, plot cul-de-sacs (Aragorn falls off the cliff is a good example, but there are many others) were inserted, taking up screen time that could have been filled with the stuff they were cutting for brevity!

LOTR used to have sort of an underground, cult-following sort of feeling that was totally lost as soon as the movies came out. Maybe that's why I object to the movies more than anything else?I just miss the old days when it wasn't an enormous movie franchise.

I hear ya, but there's a flip side to that. Before the films, Tolkien was generally relagated to the kids' table and the literary thanksgiving dinner, if you know what I mean. It was dismissed as escapist nonsense, pulpy kid/geek stuff. The movies made critics take Tolkien seriously, or at least more seriously, and for that I am grateful.

Frankly I didn't like Peter Jackson or his co-writer wife's attitude about the material either. In one of the special features on the Fellowship DVD I remember hearing them almost bashing Tolkien and saying he "dropped the ball" when it came to the Arwen/Aragorn romance and that's why they played that up.  Excuse me? Who are you people? You made low budget New Zealand schlock and puppet porn and now you think Tolkien didn't know what he was doing so you put in a completely unnecessary romantic subplot into your adaptation. Uh-huh.

Weeeell, you're right and wrong, IMO. During the filming I remember how they kept telling the fans that they were sticking as close to the book as possible, that actors were carrying the book on the set and referring to it in discussions about how scenes were shot, stuff like that. That heartened me, as I'm sure it did a lot of Tolkien fans. But you're right, in some of the extra material that came out with the DVDs, an increasingly alarming cavalierness (is that a word?) regarding the source material began to leak out. "That won't work on film" became the excuse for not TRYING to make it work. Where I disagree with you is on the Aragorn/Arwen stuff. That's IN the book and Tolkien DOES muff it a little by sticking it all into the appendices. So they're sort of right about that. (I even understood substituting her for Glorfindel--though I didn't like the Jackson-invented stuff about her "fading" or whatever that was.)

There were some environmentalist political undertones in TWO TOWERS that I didn't like as well.

That didn't bother me so much. What bothered me was when Jackson simply overwrote Tolkien. If LOTR is about anything, it is about the choices people make. Aragorn explicitly says so in the book. What I objected to most was when, at crucial decision-making junctures, Jackson had the characters make exactly the opposite decision from the one the character made in the book (Faramir decides to take Frodo with him is one example; The Ents decide NOT to go to war is another, but there are more). Again, he is cutting stuff from the book because the movie's too long, but these opposite choices add a lot of sceen time, as each character discovers he's mistaken. Why not just have them make the right decision the first time?

McKellen said at one point that it's a shame that it is such a massively costly undertaking to mount a production of the Lord of the Rings. It would be wonderful if, like Hamlet, we could see many different directors and actors interpret the work in their own way. For better or worse, we're stuck with Jackson's vision for at least a generation.

Sampo

[sarcasm_made_Easy]

i like your post there sampo i agree with most of it especially this line

Faramir decides to take Frodo with him is one example; The Ents decide NOT to go to war is another,

basically ruined faramir and the ents wisdom in one big blow.  huge screw up if you ask me. 

one of the places i disagree with you is here

I didn't like the Jackson-invented stuff about her "fading" or whatever that was

that was in the book, or at least it was eluded to.  on quite a few occasions.  elves dont die they go to the west.  or rather over the sea.  Thats what she was talking about.  it was far more overt in the movies but it was in the book.  its also one of the things i like most about the tolkein elves.  they have an after life.  and all they need is a good travel agent to get there lol.

[MontyServo]

First of all I should say that I loved the LOTR movies overall. But...

Am I alone here in saying that I don't care for the LOTR movies or books at all?  I've seen The Fellowship of the Ring and Two Towers and don't really remember anything special about them, and I've never seen Return Of The King.  I think I tried to read the books in high school, but couldn't really get into it.

[sarcasm_made_Easy]

maybe you should try again.  i found that worked well for me.  course i would start with the hobbit.  much easier to get into although clearly for a younger audience. 

[LadyKenobi]

Writers and directors who are, or at least understand, women could have Amidala something to do in the third film, besides look worried and die.

You are welcome to my full-on rant regarding Padme here:  http://blondechampagne.blogspot.com/2005/06/incredible-shrieking-padme.html. 

It's over a year old and I still get email about this essay.

I think Sampo raises some good points about TPM and the expectations of the audience, and I can even kind of relate a little to what Lucas may have been going through.  After all, the only negative ratings I get on RateMyProfessor.com are from the students who are pissed because they got the grade they earned, not the grade they wanted. 

What hooks so many of us into the Star Wars universe, not to mention LOTR, Harry Potter, and, yes, MST3K, is that it contains enough detail to imagine ourselves in this world, to feel confident that we could operate within it.  When reality in the form of inconsistencies, gaps in logic, and unmet expectations slap us upside the head, we feel betrayed even though that universe wasn't of our creation in the first place.  We're just tenants there.

For example, I don't read the Star Wars books past a certain point in the timeline.  I just can't deal with Chewbacca getting killed when a planet falls on him, or the disgustingly apostate (see?  See how furious I still am over this?) and completely irrational "Luke Marries Mara Jade" development.

I also highly resent the overuse of CGI/bluescreen--and, largely, the fact that I am a grownup.  I went from seven years old and "Wow!  How'd they do that?  Yoda must be real!" to twenty-seven and "This whole damn thing is just one big computer cartoon."

[Pak-Man]

Yo mod dudes! I love BOTH the conversations going on here, but they're kinda starting to step on eachother. Any way anyone can wave a mod-wand and make another thread and move all the LOTR stuff over there? :^)

[Conor]

Yo mod dudes! I love BOTH the conversations going on here, but they're kinda starting to step on eachother. Any way anyone can wave a mod-wand and make another thread and move all the LOTR stuff over there? :^)

I don't think so...I think that would require a whole lot of work.

[darthvedder81]

Okay I'm going to do my best to steer this back on topic and away from "Lord of the Rings" fan-baiting. 


"The Phantom Menace" sucks!

Or does it? I dunno people is it really as bad as "Crossroads" or "Road House"? I didn't like "The Matrix" or "X-Men" but I'll readily admit they are 1000x better than those Swayze/Spears-fests, and as a Star Wars fan I'd say PHANTOM MENACE was as well. I think the intercutting, pacing, music and energy in the last 20 minutes especially are very impressive. The lightsaber battle is one of the most poetic and elegent action sequences I've ever seen. I'll be interested to hear what Mike and Kevin "riff" with during all that other than simply reiterating to everyone how dumb Jar-Jar is. And even Jar Jar whether you hate him or, uh, hate him less was a pretty revolutionary concept and a bold decision on Lucas's part. No one had ever done an all CGI fully interactive character before (annoying or not, though personally I found Watto to be a better implemented example of that).

Obviously dialogue is not George Lucas's strength. Even he himself admits this?but two points on that:

1. It's wasn't all terrible. There were plenty of witty memorable moments in the prequels. Not as many as, say A NEW HOPE, but there were moments of creativity and old fashioned Star Wars self-awarness there ("Wanna buy some death sticks?", "Good job!" "Spring the trap!" etc.) Palpatine had some devilishly insightful things to say and I thought Natalie really emotionally charged the end of SITH.

2. I know many are wondering why if Lucas's admits his difficulty writing he wouldn't hire someone to help him out. Personally I think he wanted to win or lose on his own terms. Most of you would probably say he lost, but as someone who is involved in a creative profession I can relate to the mentality at least. Is it ego? Possibly, but then aren't we all egomaniacs in some sense? There's satisfaction in knowing that you did something on your own even if it isn't "the best."

[darthvedder81]

Writers and directors who are, or at least understand, women could have Amidala something to do in the third film, besides look worried and die.

You are welcome to my full-on rant regarding Pademe here:  http://blondechampagne.blogspot.com/2005/06/incredible-shrieking-padme.html. 

It's over a year old and I still get email about this essay.

I think Sampo raises some good points about TPM and the expectations of the audience, and I can even kind of relate a little to what Lucas may have been going through.  After all, the only negative ratings I get on RateMyProfessor.com are from the students who are pissed because they got the grade they earned, not the grade they wanted. 

What hooks so many of us into the Star Wars universe, not to mention LOTR, Harry Potter, and, yes, MST3K, is that it contains enough detail to imagine ourselves in this world, to feel confident that we could operate within it.  When reality in the form of inconsistencies, gaps in logic, and unmet expectations slap us upside the head, we feel betrayed even though that universe wasn't of our creation in the first place.  We're just tenants there.

For example, I don't read the Star Wars books past a certain point in the timeline.  I just can't deal with Chewbacca getting killed when a planet falls on him, or the disgustingly apostate (see?  See how furious I still am over this?) and completely irrational "Luke Marries Mara Jade" development.

I also highly resent the overuse of CGI/bluescreen--and, largely, the fact that I am a grownup.  I went from seven years old and "Wow!  How'd they do that?  Yoda must be real!" to "This whole damn thing is just one big computer cartoon."

The Star Wars EU books (other than the Zahn trilogy and Shadows of the Empire) are complete garbage and have done more to "ruin the franchise" than all the JarJars and midicholorians and phantom menace's in the world combined.

[Bob]

I think the problem most people had with the LOTR movies was if they were a Tolken fan.   I think it is true for almost any book that people really get into, the movie cannot possibly be as good as what the reader is imaginging in their head.    For example, I really liked the book Gorky Park, but when the movie came out...... the actors did not look like how I imagined them in my head, certain really cool plot and story eliments were cut for length purposes, etc..   There just is no way that a movie can be as good as a book (well, almost no way).    I never read Token and I loved the LOTR movies and I know people who never read Gorky Park and love the movie. 

As far as TPM goes, I was squirming in my seat in the first ten minutes of the movie when I realized just how BAD it was going to be from the original trilogy.   The problem for me was, there was just no character development or acting at all.   I dont want to see ten minutes of pod racing with NO element of suspence as we all know the little kid wont die or he wont grow up to be vader.   The horrible Jar Jar Binks, the conveyer belt scene, the princess's shirt getting ripped and now she has a tube top were SO mind numbingly bad, people were laughing in the theater.   It just really could have used a much better writer colaberating with him.

[Justin]

The Star Wars EU books (other than the Zahn trilogy and Shadows of the Empire) are complete garbage and have done more to "ruin the franchise" than all the JarJars and midicholorians and phantom menace's in the world combined.

Shadows of the Empire?

Shadows...of the Empire?

[darthvedder81]

I think the problem most people had with the LOTR movies was if they were a Tolken fan.   I think it is true for almost any book that people really get into, the movie cannot possibly be as good as what the reader is imaginging in their head.    For example, I really liked the book Gorky Park, but when the movie came out...... the actors did not look like how I imagined them in my head, certain really cool plot and story eliments were cut for length purposes, etc..   There just is no way that a movie can be as good as a book (well, almost no way).    I never read Token and I loved the LOTR movies and I know people who never read Gorky Park and love the movie. 

As far as TPM goes, I was squirming in my seat in the first ten minutes of the movie when I realized just how BAD it was going to be from the original trilogy.   The problem for me was, there was just no character development or acting at all.   I dont want to see ten minutes of pod racing with NO element of suspence as we all know the little kid wont die or he wont grow up to be vader.   The horrible Jar Jar Binks, the conveyer belt scene, the princess's shirt getting ripped and now she has a tube top were SO mind numbingly bad, people were laughing in the theater.   It just really could have used a much better writer colaberating with him.

The conveyor belt scene and Padme's shirt getting ripped happened in CLONES not MENACE. So that means you still went and saw Episode II no matter how "mind numbingly bad" PHANTOM MENACE was.

I still don't understand this, people: if you hated the previous movie so virulently why are you bothering with it's sequel. Nobody has yet to satisfactorily explain this contradiction to me.

For the record, watching ATTACK OF THE CLONES in a packed theater of SW fans was the most awesome movie going experience I have ever had. People were bouncing off the walls like they were kids again when Yoda laid the smack down?and that's exactly how you should respond to movies like Star Wars.

P.S. I thought the conveyor belt scene was a great sequence and a seamless use of CGI. Padme getting her shirt ripped off by the Nexu was right out of FLASH GORDON. I loved it.