of no fixed subtitle
March 11, 2005
I know this is all over the interweb like a rash, but darn it, I'm just so excited. My namesake is also in this trailer. (Link goes direct to 37MB download page QT). Prepare to wet yourself.
18 years ago
yes its good. I don't care what anyone says, I like the prequels. see Nute get offed BZZZZZAACK take that you chitinous scleraed bastard. "Are you threatening me, master windu?" Bzaack vwoom vwoom chssss zap zap chsss fsssss!!!!
See the wookiees? I used to hang out on a star wars message board & peter mayhew posted there for a while, before he knew he was in III. Cool dude. They got the ships that are like, just a generation before the ones in the old Star Wars, a prototype imperial shuttle, heh. And the blockade runner! Man I loved that when I was a girl. I'm probly a bit geeky.
Blah, blah, blah. Isn't this over, yet?
Of course I'm going to pay to see the film. I need closure, dammit.
You will pay for your lack of vision.
I find your lack of faith disturbing, Master Skrik.
YOuuuu can't frighten us with your sorcerer's ways, lord fister! your sad devotion to that ancient franchise hasn't conjured up the leaked screener, or revealed the location of Lucas' hidden flannel shirt sta.... ack! ack! ack! ack! bonk
Ah. Right. Well, since I wasn't prepared for the dorkfest, I'll just start feeling for the exit now... (Every trailer has looked great, and every one of the 'prequel' movies has blown. Mostly because Lucas has never had an ear for dialogue, and his fanboys care more about cool graphics than deep characters... Still, I'll probably see it too, just once it's gone to the cheap theater.)
Bless you. This is the first QT link that I have found that still works when I get there. (BitTorrent is blocked on our campus). That being said, I doubt I will see this movie at the theater. The last one is one of the worst movies
I have ever seen
for MANY reasons. Lucas drove the franchise into the ditch (starting with Jar-Jar Binks) and I don't think he can get it back on the road.
Everybody knows what LOTR is. Soon everybody will also know the movie ROTS. <- Lucas is not the brightest bulb on the tree, but he's richer than Solomon, so I guess he gets the last laugh.
I heard that on the director's commentary for Star Wars that Lucas says that he could not make the whole movie he wanted for Star Wars, so he was forced to break it up a bit. He used the ending that he wanted for Star Wars in Return of the Jedi, and then called the rest of the movie filler. So it is possible that he had the good movie or two in him, but needed the happy finale of Jedi to complete things. Perhaps the current movies that we have been wading through are just a set-up to the one good idea for a movie that he has in this batch. Perhaps he had this new movie as a completed idea, but created the other two because he had committed to parts 1-3 28 years ago. So maybe this will really be good.
Okay. I know it will suck. There is no hope. The plot may be very enjoyable, but the acting and dialogue are so awful that it will be hard to notice.
I look forward to Quentin Taratino's remakes in 25 years. (I'd take Tim Burton, too, but reluctantly.)
Though Star Wars was incredibly influential in my youth (it was one of the first movies I ever remember seeing in the theater, and according to my parents, they couldn't get me to shut up about it for weeks), and I was quite disappointed by the first two "prequels," I still have every intention of seeing this one. But not on opening weekend. George will get his lucre. And my feeble protest will just mean that my $9 won't count toward the all-important opening weekend.
Are you kidding me? Kevin Smith will be actually killing people to get that gig.
[this might be good!]
does Solo fire first in this version?
will never see it.
The theological implications are...oh, never mind.
Weeelll . . . there are two banthas down there, but I don't see any . . . waitaminute . . . It's quidnunc alright, I can see one of them now . . Let's go have a look! C'mon!
I look forward to Quentin Taratino's remakes in 25 years. (I'd take Tim Burton, too, but reluctantly.)
Now that's something to look forward to. And yes, Burton's awful Planet of the Apes remake should have stayed in production limbo.
what everybody's getting excited about? But it's... it's empty. There's nothing there. No tension, no excitement, no good lines, no style, just a run-down of reference points from the original movies and a lot of over-done visuals. The best thing about that trailer is Ian McDiarmid's pronounciation of "unnatural". Which does, I'll admit, rule.
trailer (QT), now
a goddam trailer...
The prologue of the Cosmic Wars movie: The Gathering Shadow It is a time of uncertainty. The empire's ambiguous tariff statutes mandate close reexamination of galactic import quotas. Interim Princess Agoomba has co-chaired a subcommittee to draft amendments to existing trade policies Meanwhile, regulatory agencies are being heavily lobbied by a consortium of mercantile interest groups and their suppliers to streamline loading restrictions for class C cargo vessels. hours and hours later. . . . Bart: That sucked. Lisa: I can't believe 'The Gathering Shadow' was senate redistricting. Comic Book Guy: Worst Cosmic Wars Ever !! I will only see it three more times ... today. Lucas needs to start reading Joseph Campbell again. His story telling has gone way down hill imo. But I'll pay the 7 or 8 bucks and see it anyway. I'm a commercialist pig whore that grew up loving episodes 4, 5, and 6.
Christ, flashboy. Sin City looks AMAZING!
/re-loses interest in EPIII
MonkeyFilter: Bzaack vwoom vwoom chssss zap zap chsss fsssss!!!! MonkeyFilter: Blah, blah, blah. Isn't this over, yet? MonkeyFilter: You will pay for your lack of vision. MonkeyFilter: The theological implications are...oh, never mind.
I have to go with the first one as my comment for this post.
Clues to the potential greatness of the film like in the coiffures. Everyone, even Jimmy Smits, seems to have better hair in Episode III. Perhaps a good omen this is. Seriously, though, this film has to be better because it revolves more around Palpatine. As long as the fight scenes are solid, Hayden Christensen can't even fuck this up when McDiarmid's on screen with him. More McDiarmid screen time = better movie.
Such a lovely name, McDiarmid. Wonder if he's related to that chap with the mark on his forehead?
I'm probably going to watch it, but only for a sense of closure. The only thing I think Lucas got right so far was about half the supporting cast.
does look interesting. I don't know anything about the comic book, but I'm really intrigued by the effect of filming in black and white with spots of colour. Is that just the trailer, or will the whole film be that way?
I don't know why, after all these years, I never bothered to go pick up Sin City, but seeing that trailer makes me want to do it sooooo badly now.
My friends, I have sad news for you. Star Wars was never as good as you think it was. Through the dim patina of childhood memory you have been led astray. Lucas laid a trap for you, a trap he will now spring with this latest rotting cgi heap. Escape with your dollars while you still can.
I can't let that be the last word!! I was watching Empire last night and it's still good. When I was a nipper it wasn't my fave, so it has grown on me as I have.
I don't think the prequels are as bad as anyone makes out. Maybe I'm easy to please, but the second time I saw Phantom Menace I sat next to five young kids all around 7-9 yrs old. Couple of girls and rest boys. They all loved it, excited & engaged at every beat, just as intended. I was reminded that when I saw Star Wars (the first one) I was only 7, & realised that Lucas really only made these movies for kids, or those with the ability to switch off their adult expectations. The dialogue & acting never was oscar material. Empire had a muppet in it (I hated Empire as a kid). I think the 30 yr-old crowd expect Lucas to make the movies for them, & are just pissed that he's sticking to his own concept. The prequels are far closer to his original concepts than even the first chronologically made movies. I'm tired of hearing the whiners, quite frankly.
No, no, no my friend. You are trying to defend what amounts to a crime against humanity. There is nothing you can say, no theory you can postulate, that can remove even one micron of the horror that this monster Lucas has inflicted upon us. To put the matter into a simple maxim: THERE IS NO FUCKING EXCUSE FOR JAR JAR BINKS.
There's a perfectly good excuse for Jar Jar. Lucas wanted him in the flicks. Suck it up, fanboys. That said, I'll see this flick, both for closure and because I wanna see Mace (Jules) Windu, in his own words, "Not go out like a punk".
"Say 'Meesa' again! I dare you, motherfucker!"
Sin City, I will also see, but that's because Frank Miller rox. Though putting Devin Aoki in
movie, no matter how small the role, makes teh baby jebus cry.
Suck it up, fanboys
Your argument is small and annoying, like an Ewok. Yet my intellect is large, strong and furry, like a Wookie. You shoot your blaster at me, and it makes little
noises. I skilfully deflect your inconsequential laser beams with my light sabre. Teach you, I will: JAR JAR EATS SHIT.
You can't argue with the fact that Jar Jar is a fish-faced cunt, but I can't wash my hands of the whole thing just because of him. It would be like letting him win, and I am not about the fucked over by freakin Gungan.
kitfisto, the force is strong with you. You are not like surlyboi: he is like a tie-fighter - small and inconsequential - but you are like the millenium falcon, able to easily make the jump to light speed and with many secret compartments for smuggling contraband.
Doris, you are like a fierce jawa, who scurries about the desert looking for abandoned droids and spelling errors - whereas I am like R2D2, who makes beeps and whistling noises that don't make any sense. I am far shinier than you and have a semispherical head. Beep, beep, toot.
R2 is just an ambulatory buttplug.
OH GREAT NOW YOU'VE MADE ME CRY YOU HEARTLESS BITCH
R2 is just an ambulatory buttplug.
*gasp* You take that back! *cuddles her 15-year old R2D2 action figure with fully-rotating head*
Did you know that the inside of R2 was pasted with pr0n for Kednny Baker's amusement during the filming of 'A New Hope'
This Artoo unit, it vibrates?
ASTB has some point. I first saw any Star Wars at age 18, and never had the loyalty that most of my friends did - and I am definitely a sci-fi fan. It may be something that takes nostalgia to truely love. I recently read a novel continuing my
of kids' books, the ones I reread every year still at age 27, and it was okay, but also really disappointing. It's not like I don't like children's novels - I read many children's SF & F for fun. But this series isn't as good without the nostalgia. (Also, the new character is
. You can't be good at everything and be likable/believable.) That said, it has absolutely
to do with the fact that there is a muppet in the series. Exhibit a)
, Jim Henson's critcally aclaimed fantasy series. Exhibit b)
, with an average viewership which is female and aged 25 to 45 (i.e. it ain't childhood nostalgia). Exhibit c)
, which are just damn brilliant. Actually, muppets are generally assets to a film; Yoda certainly was to Empire.
gotta go with the quid here - Jar Jar ruined my fantasy that Lucas knew what he was doing. That and rolling Annakin back to an 11 year old instead of a teen was it. Let's check the board! *bzzzzzzzzt* Oooh. Well, at least we're not issuing a fatwah I guess.
Good idea - I'll write to the Ayatollah.
The one thing Lucas doesn't seem to get with stuff like Jar-Jar or the Ewoks is that you can entertain kids without playing down to them. You don't need stupid catch phrases like "How rude!" or "zany" characters. Hell, you can even fire a few jokes over their heads, and they'll still have a ball (see: every classic WB cartoon ever made). None of the movies are genius, most are badly written and only
is well-directed, IMO, but the series began to deteriorate with
, once the Ewok shit began. It tested well with little kids, so Lucas ran with it. A little study would show him that you can entertain kids and adults at the same time.
I remember having a discussion that Star Wars was racist and sexist and having a very tough (and unsuccessful) time defending it. I remember the same topics coming up with Phantom Menace. *sigh* I remember Lucas on the cover of WIRED right before PM's release with the caption "Believe the Hype!" I hate WIRED.
One of my professors made a compelling (and fairly obvious) case for the blatant orientalism in PM. Generally all I care about is whether a movie entertains me, so I seldom notice things like that unless they're either pointed out to me or really, really obvious.
"The one thing Lucas doesn't seem to get with stuff like Jar-Jar or the Ewoks is that you can entertain kids without playing down to them."
And yet adults can assume what kids like without being patronising or anything. Just like a poster above, I've seen the first movie surrounded by kids and they laughed out loud at Jar-Jar. IIRC, Lucas designed & named Jar-Jar under advice from his youngest son, who I think was about 7 at the time. So really, I kind of question whether this is true. I found him superflous, but not something that 'ruined' the movie. That's taking it a bit too far.
"A little study would show him that you can entertain kids and adults at the same time."
Well, damn. It seems Lucasfilm is positively bereft without your sage advice. It's a wonder Lucas managed to make himself into one of the world's richest filmmakers & totally change the face of moviemaking within a decade from '76 since he's such a bumbler, not doing his homework etcetera. It's obvious the creator of the Star Wars saga & co-creator of Indiana Jones, the founder of Industrial Light & Magic, doesn't know how to entertain adults. Yeah, it stands out how much he doesn't understand entertainment. Have you considered that
he's not interested in entertaining adults
with the Phantom Menace? If memory serves, he has never said anything but that he was making these films for the young and 'young at heart'. Fox tried to stop him from saying that in interviews back in '77. There is a tremendous arrogance at work in the criticisms of his new movies, as if he owes something to a certain demographic. One of the most overlooked reasons Star Wars (the first one) was so popular was that the 70s were a time of depression, films were gritty & revisionist, the US was recovering from Vietnam & Nixon. The tone of Star Wars was a breath of fresh air after a decade of movies with dark themes & anti-heroes. Now, we've been overfed with big budget fantasy movies, and lightheartedness is once again out of fashion. I suspect that, like 'swashbuckling' movies of the studio era, the prequels will be viewed differently in a few years. Lucas seems unswayed by fashion, and I for one am glad of it. Fuck Jar-Jar, you don't think there are annoying sentient frogs in the galaxy? I suspect if it was a guy in a rubber suit no one would complain. Racist stereotypes.. the non-human Nematoids or whatever with Thai accents are racist, yet when Rambo opens up on Ruskies or a bunch of ragheads, nobody says anything. Tall poppy syndrome, I think the Australians call it.
And yet adults can assume what kids like without being patronising or anything.
Yup. Do it all the time with my nieces and nephews. I also know that the stuff I loved most as a kid, the stuff I still like now, didn't play down to me. Yeah, I enjoyed some things that played down to me when I was a kid, but they never stuck with me the length of my life. WB cartoons did. Daniel Pinkwater's fiction did. Timeless, ageless, and kids love it.
Well, damn. It seems Lucasfilm is positively bereft without your sage advice. It's a wonder Lucas managed to make himself into one of the world's richest filmmakers & totally change the face of moviemaking within a decade from '76 since he's such a bumbler, not doing his homework etcetera.
That's nice. Polite, too. I also notice that you completely ignored the fact that I was talking about the quality of his movies, not how well they sell. McDonald's made a few million today. Their "hamburgers" still taste like crap. And I love lightheartedness. I'm all in favor of it. Don't think there's enough in the world. I loved it about the original two films, in fact. That's not my problem with the prequels.
I'm not trying to be personal, I apologise if I gave taht impression. I'm just really tired of hearing people defining what works in entertainment when they don't have the credentials of a Lucas or a Spielberg. Again, no offense. Everyone makes bum movies, 1941 & Howard the Duck spring to mind. Also, what makes a good movie is subjective. It's not about the money made, I would argue that everything out of ILM is high quality, they set the bar for all other effects work. I don't believe Lord of the Rings would have been so visually impressive had not WETA been pushing to out-ILM ILM, for inst. However, I don't agree that there is a lack of quality in the prequels. Lucas isn't interested in dialogue or naturalist acting (which is obvious) in Star Wars, he's painting. The cinematography in Phantom Menace was as good as anything he's ever done. You remember Luke with the twin setting suns? That's a classic image. Well there are shots in Phantom which are as beautifully done as that, as well composed, I think perhaps the problem may be that there are too many of them, or perhaps it is a movie that has, by necessity, main characters that are too cold to empathise with. You can't empathise with the Jedi, and adults have a hard time empathising with Anakin. But I say that is a necessary extension of the plot. The Jedi
cold and aloof, literally set apart in their ivory towers, which is why they are destined to fall. I think Lucas is one of the most beautiful of compositional artists in filmmaking, I mean that without irony. I watched Attack of the Clones with the sound off, and it has that too. The battle sequences with the clones in the last reel were tremendous. I didn't enjoy the editing in Phantom so much, but I really think that might have something with Ben Burtt doing a lot of it. The editing in the first Star Wars is very good.
Ach, no, my apologies, Doris. Bit on edge today. Not feeling quite well, and I read a bit more snark in your comment than I see now. Sorry to snap. I agree that Lucas and his effects team have painted some visually stunning films. He's also come up with some great stories. It's in the actual
of those stories that he falls apart. In his last Vanity Fair interview, he as much as admitted himself that he's a crap writer. Which is why his films are always a letdown after the trailers.
Well he always admitted he's a crap writer, but I agree he was rusty. Even so, wasn't there a really good screenwriter he sent the script to who said 'don't change it'? Can't remember now. Phantom could have been better, but I still think these are meant to be Flash Gordon saturday morning serials. Plus you are never gonna get the casting of the first trilogy again, that was a unique group with chemistry that can't be recreated. Harrison Ford said on the set "you can write this shit, George, but you sure can't say it!" & he could get away with that. Some of Leia's lines to Tarkin are pure cheese but for some reason it works from Fisher, Portman doesn't seem to have that spunk. I think what we are missing in the Prequels is hunger. Hungry young actors, hungry young filmmakers and lots of stress. Overconfidence certainly was a monkey on Lucas' back. I thought Clones was a much better movie, though. The headchopping of the Tuskens really surprised me, I never thought I'd see that in a Lucas movie. That was gritty. Revenge will be grittier still. Dooku's demise alone is rather nasty. (giddy geek schoolgirl)
there was a really good screenwriter (Lawrence Kasdan) who wrote Lucas' best film, Empire Strikes Back. ps I had the titular line in "Star Wars."
I garee the stories are a joke and the performances awful, but I have to disagree about the new filsm being good visually. The CGI is so cheesy and fake. We just arent there yet to have CGI figures interact with humans on real backgrounds and have it look real. Actually, Im not sure we ever will be. Technology will get better, but audiences will get more sophisticated. (remember those people at the first films who ducked when the train came staight at them?) "resturn of the Jedi" looked tons better than these new films, using models.
For what it's worth, while I admire the vague mythic quality that lurks somewhere behind the whole Star Wars shenanigans, I'm firmly in the "only one good movie, and that's
" camp. Ignoring everything else, the dialogue in the rest is just too awful to give them anything like a pass. And I just don't see the excuse that Lucas is at least painting grand and wonderful vistas - he's doing nothing that a thousand graphic artists haven't done on ten thousand cheap sci-fi novel covers. And that's no disrespect to the cover artists for cheap sci-fi novels, who do magnificent work a lot of the time. It's just... the obvious comparison is what Jackson and his crew did on LoTR. They also painted vast and wonderful visuals, but the very reason that those images have such resonance - whether we notice it or not - is because they tie in to such emotive and powerful and just-not-crappy characterisation and plotting. While Lucas may have made many of his millions on the basis of those iconic lightsabre fights, they'd be nothing if they weren't backed up with some solid story. And the best of that storytelling happens in
, with the rest being fairly humdrum so-so stuff. Ewoks... bleargh.
I'd agree both that Lucas is all visual and that CGI isn't ready for prime time and probably wont (or shouldn't) be. What I started expecting from the first movie was a great story. That was a great story. Empire was good, but I want more Han not less. Jedi got even further away. When Lucas returned with PM, I thought "great, he's back, here we go" and it had the least impact of all. *sigh* And you're all loser geeks for discussing Star Wars on teh Internets. M'whay.
petebest, you are like an infant with a low midichlorian count - young, reckless and full of anger. I am like a Jedi Master - I have a big purple shiny thing that goes "zzhuup" and I wave it around in your face.
I would pay money to see that.
"but I want more Han not less."
That's like saying you watch Hamlet for Horatio, or read Tolkien for Legolas. Han is not the focus of the stories, he's a supporting character. Empire is the aberration of Star Wars. People mainly dig it because of the Imperial walkers & the Bespin sabre duel, they don't see it in context with the other movies. The perfect Star Wars movie is the first one. Maybe Kurtz & Ford were right in wanting to kill Solo in Empire, since he has proved a distraction from the hero-journey motif. Han Solo is not even an act, it's a failed MGM actor turned carpenter who no longer believed he could make it with an acting career, playing himself. Harrison Ford walks through his performance in the first two movies. When he actually *tries* to play something deeper, in RotJ, the best he can do is (as always) point & grimace. Harry Ford is a highly overrated actor. He cannot emote. When forced to play emotion, his lips grow taught across his teeth and he gestures with his finger. That's it! Ironically, Hamill, who has never been able to get a decent job since, out-acts all of Ford's work in just one scene: doing a 3-tone emote to a
in RotJ. He does sadness, realisation, and compassion in 3 beats when the muppet yoda dies. Try keeping a straight face doing that to Miss Piggy, I dare you. Ironically, 25 yr-old Hamill playing whiney "power converters" 16 yr-old Luke in ANH was so convincing, everyone thinks that Hamill *is* Luke, hence he never worked again. Watch Ford try to be sexy with Sean Young in Blade Runner - he throws her against a wall and mauls her. Ford is a one note ham. Strange how careers work out. The focus of the original trilogy is Luke. Hamill's interpretation of Luke's 3-stage hero journey is so well done that you can't see him in any other role, poor bastard.
Actually, Hans Solo brings a great deal of interest to the story. He is the slightly scuffed up hero to Luke's too bright and shiny. Also, with him in there to mix up the sexual chemistry, you get away from the boring "hero gets girl" motif. The sidekick gets the girl, bit like
Lord of the Rings
. Not that Hans is really a sidekick - it's an ensemble story. There is no one hero; neither does Leia sit aside just because she's the girl to be rescued. Which is one of the better things about it. But, Doris, why do you have an irrational muppet prejudice? Actors who work with high quality puppetry and animatronics all agree it's like acting with a real person - because you ARE - the puppetteer. They are consumate performers, with more concious knowledge of how faces and bodies express themselves than most actors. It certainly does take a good actor to bring a rich emotional reality to a scene, and film is very challenging because it is filmed out of order. Even when working just with live actors, you may not have the person you are acting against there when you are filming certain things. Nothing to do with acting with puppets and puppeteers. Also, I'd like to point out that there is someone who has performed nuanced and multi-toned scenes against Miss Piggy - love, worry, exasperation - Kermit.
Doris, you are like staedtler - always criticising from afar, booing those who you do not understand. I am like Dr Teeth. My funky rhythms compel you to boogie - my golden smile blinds you with its brilliance. You leave the theatre unhappy, with your friend waldorf: I am still having a coke-fuelled threesome in the dressing room with Janice and Floyd.
Muppet prejudice is not irrational. They are filthy, disgusting little creatures. They are immoral and vile. There is not one muppet who has ever done anything uplifting for society. Not one. They all live depraved sinful lives. When the cameras are off, all they do is snort detergent and plook each other.
If quidnunc is Dr. Teeth, then I want to be Zoot.
Can I be Super Grover?
*applauds Doris on excellent FZ reference* This girl must be praketing richcraft. Please note that Dr. Quidnunc is using the word "like" in his comparisons. Who knows what that -MCT please put down the saxophone- what that's called? Anyone? Anyone?
Oooh! Oooh! I know! It's called a smiley!
I was thinking "Valley Girl" myself.
Guy Smiley--a Muppet never truly appreciated in his own time.
the trailer looked fantastic, imho. i absolutely love ian mcdiarmid. he's a good example of what's "right" with star wars... but unfortunately, his performance is often overlooked.
doris- i don't remember there being any... females at boards.theforce.net. ;/
the obvious comparison is what Jackson and his crew did on LoTR. They also painted vast and wonderful visuals, but the very reason that those images have such resonance - whether we notice it or not - is because they tie in to such emotive and powerful and just-not-crappy characterisation and plotting. While Lucas may have made many of his millions on the basis of those iconic lightsabre fights, they'd be nothing if they weren't backed up with some solid story.
Therein lies the rub. Jackson had a shitload more to base LotR on than Lucas did. For that reason alone, the comparison is kinda invalid.