Okay, so I'm rewatching all the Star Wars movies before I go see the new one. . .

[Guestx]

You can see it in ROTJ also, which is where it started.

Luke comes in force chokes some dudes, it’s all dark and serious tone like the first two then bam we get Ewoks, this is when she’s gone.

Ewoks were supposed to be Wookies originally and was much darker.

The tonal shift was changed starting in rotj, and Lucas went back and added in dumb shit in new version releases that wasn’t there with her.

You know, it's interesting you bring that up.

As I've been working my way through the prequels, one thing I've noticed is how cartoony and juvenile they tend to be.

I kept thinking to myself, "Wasn't the original trilogy a bit harder-edged than this?" But then I remembered the Ewoks.

 

[Guestx]

What specifically did you find likable about Mace Windu or Padme?

As stereotypical as it is, Samuel L brought that certain something to Windu where you thought to yourself, "This dude's a bad motherfucker. Don't fuck with him."

His role in Phantom Menace was small, but he had a lot of screen presence.

As for Padme, she's an attractive queen with just a little bite to her . . . a little attitude. She's both firm and soft, a woman who knows how to be a ruler but who can also be feminine. And she's a compassionate soul.

 

[BisexualMMA]

As stereotypical as it is, Samuel L brought that certain something to Windu where you thought to yourself, "This dude's a bad motherfucker. Don't fuck with him."

His role in Phantom Menace was small, but he had a lot of screen presence.

As for Padme, she's an attractive queen with just a little bite to her . . . a little attitude. She's both firm and soft, a woman who knows how to be a ruler but who can also be feminine. And she's a compassionate soul.

That has to be, no bullshit, hands down, the goddamnedest most depth ascribed to the Padme character that I ever saw.

 

[Guestx]

That has to be, no bullshit, hands down, the goddamnedest most depth ascribed to the Padme character that I ever saw.

LOL. She's a little underwritten but you can see these traits here and there.

In fact, it's most specifically in Phantom where she seems the most well-rounded as a character. In AOTC and ROTS she's just the love interest and a plot device to get Anakin over to the Dark Side.

 

[Peteyandjia]

As stereotypical as it is, Samuel L brought that certain something to Windu where you thought to yourself, "This dude's a bad motherfucker. Don't fuck with him."

His role in Phantom Menace was small, but he had a lot of screen presence.

As for Padme, she's an attractive queen with just a little bite to her . . . a little attitude. She's both firm and soft, a woman who knows how to be a ruler but who can also be feminine. And she's a compassionate soul.

That has to be, no bullshit, hands down, the goddamnedest most depth ascribed to the Padme character that I ever saw.

Reminds me this, of one of the many classic moments from Plinkett's legendary review of TPM (timestamped)

 

[Peteyandjia]

Sounds interesting but doesn't appear to want to load.

The link to the other thread or the videos in the other thread? Either way, they both seem to be working for me... unless it's all in my mind... hm.

 

[Guestx]

The link to the other thread or the videos in the other thread? Either way, they both seem to be working for me... unless it's all in my mind... hm.

It was the video, but it seems to be working now.

Lemme check it out.

 

[INTERL0PER]

Not that I'm saying Phantom is even half the film that Blade Runner is, but I do think that the basic story is comprehensible. It's just that some information is left out that could give us a fuller picture of exactly what is going on.

But more than anything, ultimately I feel like a film's job is to entertain rather than be technically perfect. So for me, the dominant scoring criteria is how much the film entertained me.

Let's say that a 5 is a baseline, a pure neutral, where I am neither especially entertained, not bored. It's just "a movie." Just some shit that's on TV. Nothing special at all about it. I am basically flatlined while watching it.

Well any film that entertains me a little, and that I enjoy a little, is going to get a score above a 5. And the more I enjoy a film, the more interesting I feel it is, the higher that score should climb. On the other hand, the more I actively dislike a film, the lower that score will dip.

This is why I generally don't like number based scores in the first place. It inevitably creates this bizarre debate, where people discuss "scores" which are all entirely subjective and determined by the authors own system. I basically agreed with your first review of Phantom, but strongly disagree with your score.

I personally think a "5" movie, should be much more entertaining that leaving me "flatlined" while watching it. You say yourself that a film's job is to entertain, so if it's not doing that, it's not even doing the main job of a film, so IMO, it cannot garner an "average" score. I just don't think you're leaving enough room in the top half of your scoring system. A terrible film is a terrible film and it's easy to put all the shit films in the 1-3 range (if I was being generous, I'd give Phantom a 4), leaving you with much more room and nuance in your system for the films that actually matter. Y'know... the good ones. For example, you say Phantom isn't half the movie Blade Runner is... so would you give Blade Runner a 12? And where would you put The Godfather? IMO, the range of films better than Phantom requires a much wider range of possible scores.

But again, debating these arbitrary scores is pretty absurd and useless, so I'll leave it there.

LOL. She's a little underwritten but you can see these traits here and there.

In fact, it's most specifically in Phantom where she seems the most well-rounded as a character. In AOTC and ROTS she's just the love interest and a plot device to get Anakin over to the Dark Side.

I highly, highly recommend watching the video review series that has been linked in this thread. It's about an hour long (plus extra essays on the other two prequels), but will detail exactly why so many people hate on these films, in an entertaining way. In fact, I would much, much rather watch the video essays than the films themselves.

Linked again for ease:

 

[Guestx]

This is why I generally don't like number based scores in the first place. It inevitably creates this bizarre debate, where people discuss "scores" which are all entirely subjective and determined by the authors own system. I basically agreed with your first review of Phantom, but strongly disagree with your score.

I personally think a "5" movie, should be much more entertaining that leaving me "flatlined" while watching it. You say yourself that a film's job is to entertain, so if it's not doing that, it's not even doing the main job of a film, so IMO, it cannot garner an "average" score. I just don't think you're leaving enough room in the top half of your scoring system. A terrible film is a terrible film and it's easy to put all the shit films in the 1-3 range (if I was being generous, I'd give Phantom a 4), leaving you with much more room and nuance in your system for the films that actually matter. Y'know... the good ones. For example, you say Phantom isn't half the movie Blade Runner is... so would you give Blade Runner a 12? And where would you put The Godfather? IMO, the range of films better than Phantom requires a much wider range of possible scores.

But again, debating these arbitrary scores is pretty absurd and useless, so I'll leave it there.

Let me explain it this way. Some films, while problematic, I am overall positive on. Other films, while I may be able to identify certain positive qualities, I am overall negative on.

If I am overall more positive than negative on a film, then it will achieve a rating above a 5. If I am overall more negative than positive, it gets a rating below a 5. Under 5 equals red, over 5 equals green. 5 itself is neutral.

Occasionally I will watch a film and realize that it's not a film FOR ME, and in those cases I'll sometimes refrain from giving a score. For instance, one film I fucking HATE is Pi. If I'm judging it just purely based upon my enjoyment, then it's a 2 or a 3. But I can recognize that there's some interesting stuff there as well as technical competence and so I'll just refrain from scoring it. Same thing with The English Patient. I think that's one of the most boring fucking movies of all time, and I can't imagine how it won Best Picture, but instead of saying it's like a 3 or something, I'll just back away from it and leave that film to other people who apparently connect with it.

I highly, highly recommend watching the video review series that has been linked in this thread. It's about an hour long (plus extra essays on the other two prequels), but will detail exactly why so many people hate on these films, in an entertaining way. In fact, I would much, much rather watch the video essays than the films themselves.

Linked again for ease:

I may check it out, but one thing I can tell you is that I don't need someone else to tell me how I'm supposed to feel about the movie. I mean, I just watched the motherfucker. I know what my thoughts are.

 

[BisexualMMA]

Let me explain it this way. Some films, while problematic, I am overall positive on. Other films, while I may be able to identify certain positive qualities, I am overall negative on.

If I am overall more positive than negative on a film, then it will achieve a rating above a 5. If I am overall more negative than positive, it gets a rating below a 5. Under 5 equals red, over 5 equals green. 5 itself is neutral.

Occasionally I will watch a film and realize that it's not a film FOR ME, and in those cases I'll sometimes refrain from giving a score. For instance, one film I fucking HATE is Pi. If I'm judging it just purely based upon my enjoyment, then it's a 2 or a 3. But I can recognize that there's some interesting stuff there as well as technical competence and so I'll just refrain from scoring it. Same thing with The English Patient. I think that's one of the most boring fucking movies of all time, and I can't imagine how it won Best Picture, but instead of saying it's like a 3 or something, I'll just back away from it and leave that film to other people who apparently connect with it.



I may check it out, but one thing I can tell you is that I don't need someone else to tell me how I'm supposed to feel about the movie. I mean, I just watched the motherfucker. I know what my thoughts are.

They're among the very few reviews that I would consider artworks in their own right.

 

[TheRuthlessOne]

I may check it out, but one thing I can tell you is that I don't need someone else to tell me how I'm supposed to feel about the movie. I mean, I just watched the motherfucker. I know what my thoughts are.

You're goddam right

 

[TheSlothMan]

This is what I thought was a huge glaring flaw in the prequels and I just could never wrap my head around it.

So, in AOTC Obi finds a massive clone army and is told someone from the republic organized it. He tells Yoda, and Yoda seems to just brush it off like it's no big deal.

Yoda then shows up at the end of the movie with this same clone army to essentially start a war lol. Um, what!??! No one thought for a second to do some fucking investigation or something into this army? Who built it? What are they programmed to do? How long have they been in production? And why the fuck would you think it's a good idea to use this army you know nothing about to fight a war for you?!?!

And apparently they still didn't bother to investigate further into it between the events of AOTC and ROTS. So of course the clone army turns on and kills the Jedi. Man, that probably could have been avoided if they hadn't foolishly used this mysterious clone army they knew nothing about.

The worst thing about the prequels is that they make the Jedi council seem incompetent and sometimes downright stupid.

 

[BisexualMMA]

This is what I thought was a huge glaring flaw in the prequels and I just could never wrap my head around it.

So, in AOTC Obi finds a massive clone army and is told someone from the republic organized it. He tells Yoda, and Yoda seems to just brush it off like it's no big deal.

Yoda then shows up at the end of the movie with this same clone army to essentially start a war lol. Um, what!??! No one thought for a second to do some fucking investigation or something into this army? Who built it? What are they programmed to do? How long have they been in production? And why the fuck would you think it's a good idea to use this army you know nothing about to fight a war for you?!?!

And apparently they still didn't bother to investigate further into it between the events of AOTC and ROTS. So of course the clone army turns on and kills the Jedi. Man, that probably could have been avoided if they hadn't foolishly used this mysterious clone army they knew nothing about.

The worst thing about the prequels is that they make the Jedi council seem incompetent and sometimes downright stupid.

I figured Yoda just talked to this fucker and smoothed everything out...

 

[TheRuthlessOne]

The worst thing about the prequels is that they make the Jedi council seem incompetent and sometimes downright stupid.

Well I think it was hard

Cause you need Palpatine to win and you need Anakin to become Vader

The goal of part 3 was to leave the Jedi in complete shambles

Yoda leaving into exile after not really even losing to Palpatine is very hard for me to swallow

 

[TheRuthlessOne]

Yoda has this speech with Obi before about how they must stop the Sith

Yoda has a 5 minute fight with Palp....then decides exile is the best course


Worst part of the movie for me

 

[BisexualMMA]

Well I think it was hard

Cause you need Palpatine to win and you need Anakin to become Vader

The goal of part 3 was to leave the Jedi in complete shambles

I think it was very possible for the Jedi to "lose" the prequel trilogy without their leaders coming across as imbeciles. Look at something like... The Last Samurai.

 

[TheRuthlessOne]

I think it was very possible for the Jedi to "lose" the prequel trilogy without their leaders coming across as imbeciles. Look at something like... The Last Samurai.

Lucas tried to float this subplot of how the darkside was clouding the Jedi minds which is why they made all those bad decisions

Like I said its the worst part of the movie

 

[TheSlothMan]

Well I think it was hard

Cause you need Palpatine to win and you need Anakin to become Vader

The goal of part 3 was to leave the Jedi in complete shambles

Yoda leaving into exile after not really even losing to Palpatine is very hard for me to swallow

Yeah, a better writer could have done something better here though. With the way they are currently, it's like Palpatine barely had to do anything to win lol. He basically just let the Jedi council be morons and they played right into his hands. I mean, was he actually expecting the Jedi council to use that clone army he made? Or was it like they started using them and was just thinking to himself 'holy shit these guys are morons. Makes my job way easier though!'

 

[Guestx]

Having now completed the prequels, the tentative plan tonight is to knock out Rogue One and A New Hope (Despecialized Edition).

At the very least I should get through Rogue One.

 

[TheRuthlessOne]

Having now completed the prequels, the tentative plan tonight is to knock out Rogue One and A New Hope (Despecialized Edition).

At the very least I should get through Rogue One.

What did you give Revenge

7.5?

Nevermind I see it