Maddox Trashes RotS

[Kurgan]

snip

Do I seriously need to explain why? Debating and nitpicking obvious satire of something you're a fan of tends to imply one of two things to the audience:

1) You didn't get it. This is where the backpeddaling comes in. It's a natural enough tendancy people have.

2) Hit pretty close to the mark to get her all riled up, eh kid?

Saying it's not funny is one thing, but this smacks of "fanboy in defensive mode"

I wasn't singling you out, it's just that here and on plenty of other places on the 'net (and not just with ROTS, taking anything that's widely popular), whenever something negative comes out, people go ballistic or start whining, and then look a bit silly. It's like attacking the Onion for making inaccurate statements.

[Thirdfain]

Whatever. It is meant to be campy. Not my problem if people don't realize it.

It sucked. I know camp. This was misplaced and poorly done.

For fuck's sake Thirdfain, read the goddamned thread. It wasn't just Palpy's promise and some ugly dreams. Anakin's road to the darkside began way back in TPM and AotC.

I saw the picture which GL was painting. It was a pretty crummy job. No one here isn't getting the imagery, or what path Anakin walks to the Dark Side. It doesn't make it any less clumsy and poorly-wrought.

Really? How about "Darth Vader"? Or Han "Solo"? Or Luke "Skywalker"? As for "arty farty" I was obviously being sarcastic for crying out loud. Again, I point out that Star Wars is meant to be campy. This is a movie series where people can parry gunshots with swords, where you have Evil Space Black Knights™ and Evil Space Sorcerers™, Space Princesses In Distress™and planets that are made to explode like firecrackers for crissakes. Nobody whines about the names in James Bond movies where you have chicks called "Plenty" and "Onatopp" and "Bambi", now do they? Or if they do, they are dissed quite rightly for not "getting" it.

Whatever, man. The first movies had camp for sure. These take it too far. there's no sense of urgency, no sense of menace, no sense of importance to the shit on screen. The battle-droids are jokes, the Clones seem like action figure ads, the Gungans have none of the paniced heroism of the troops on the Tantive IV.

Was it now. Perhaps you feel this way knowing that it didn't take itself too seriously, while assuming wrongly that Star Wars does take itself seriously?

Excuse me, Star Wars sure as balls takes itself seriously. It's a black-and-white, Good-Vs-Evil tale. Worlds are destroyed. Children are massacred. But, at the same time, battle-robots say "Roger Roger," and SBD's whine to each other. Gungans caper. It ruins the camp with the serious parts, and the serious parts with the camp.

Is this meant to be a rebuttal? Try being more articulate.

Errr, my browser has a weird thing, it alway puts smileys on the bottom of the text-box when I'm typing, I thought I had inputted that eye-roll elsewhere in the previous post...

[Noble Ire]

Whatever, man. The first movies had camp for sure. These take it too far. there's no sense of urgency, no sense of menace, no sense of importance to the shit on screen. The battle-droids are jokes, the Clones seem like action figure ads, the Gungans have none of the paniced heroism of the troops on the Tantive IV.

I'll admit that I really didnt like the Battle Droid voices, but whats wrong with the clones? Sounds like your just reaching. And as for your arguement about the Gungans (which is out of place anyways, by attacking TPM here, your lowering yourself to Maddox's level) how can you compare to them to the Tantive crew? Aside from the fact that they're not human, and thus the audience is far less likely to empathize with them, their situations are quite different. Your arguements are very weak.

[Thirdfain]

I'll admit that I really didnt like the Battle Droid voices, but whats wrong with the clones? Sounds like your just reaching. And as for your arguement about the Gungans (which is out of place anyways, by attacking TPM here, your lowering yourself to Maddox's level) how can you compare to them to the Tantive crew? Aside from the fact that they're not human, and thus the audience is far less likely to empathize with them, their situations are quite different. Your arguements are very weak.

It doesn't matter that their situations are different, you just couldn't care about the gungans. They had no character, no gravity, no reason to be in the movie besides to show a fairly stupid and boring scene. If you had removed the Gungans completely, the movie would not have been damaged.

Yeah, I'm getting off topic. Sorry. ROTS wasn't nearly as bad. The Clones were not bad, but they just seemed like an attempt to sell as many micromachines as possible, eventually. Stylistically, it was poorly done. I dunno, I don't have nearly as much to complain about with them as I do the Seperatists, who were simply awful in every way.

I feel the Prequels gave us lots of badass battles, but few reasons to care about them. Hoth was a desperate, doomed, heroic effort. Yavin weighed heavily, after seeing the fate of Alderaan. Endor was a great triumph. There was nothing like any of those in the PT, nothing which had a single shred of emotion behind it with the exception of the ending sections of ROTS.

[Stark]

Thirdfain echoes my own feelings on ROTS. I was falling asleep for half the movie: nothing that happened stirred any emotion. All the pieces of a good story were there, but they were handled badly. I'm not going to do Lucas' work for him - if he wants me to care about the characters, he better MAKE me care.

The only scene I remember off the top of my head that had any impact at all was the Obi wan-Anakin confrontation. Not the drawn out fight that bored me, the actual CONFLICT between the CHARACTERS immediately before and after the fight. That was good, and effective, and made me feel something.

[Noble Ire]

I feel the Prequels gave us lots of badass battles, but few reasons to care about them. Hoth was a desperate, doomed, heroic effort. Yavin weighed heavily, after seeing the fate of Alderaan. Endor was a great triumph. There was nothing like any of those in the PT, nothing which had a single shred of emotion behind it with the exception of the ending sections of ROTS.

I'll admit that the OT one-ups the PT in most every way, this one included (this does not make the PT bad however.) Actually, the most emotional PT battle for me (outside Anakin/Obi-wan) was actually the finale of TPM, the Qui-Gon/Maul part especially.

The only scene I remember off the top of my head that had any impact at all was the Obi wan-Anakin confrontation. Not the drawn out fight that bored me, the actual CONFLICT between the CHARACTERS immediately before and after the fight. That was good, and effective, and made me feel something.

What, pray tell, does not bore you?

[Darth Wong]

You can't really argue with someone about whether he likes something, or finds it boring, etc.

For my part (although I've already said this elsewhere), I would just point out that children tend to lack our preconditioned programming to associate certain filmmaking styles with emotional impact (the Pavlovian catharsis reaction to slow-mo is particularly common, and GL is unique among modern directors in shunning slow-mo), and my kids both found it much more emotionally powerful than the whole LOTR trilogy that everyone gushes over.

[Stark]

Thats interesting, since I think it was the *nature* of GLs filmmaking style that doesn't work for me. All the devices normally used to create power were absent or poorly used - I was pretty disappointed with the music, for example, and by the end (where it had improved) my butt was sore and I was over the whole thing.

I'm not a huge fan of the LOTR movies, but they had power. It's an interesting idea that this is solely because it uses the devices we've been conditioned to respond to.

@Pure Sabacc - so nice of you to correct the opinions of others. I didn't like it: so shoot me. Do you see me trying to change your mind? Christ.

[Galvatron]

Thats interesting, since I think it was the *nature* of GLs filmmaking style that doesn't work for me. All the devices normally used to create power were absent or poorly used - I was pretty disappointed with the music, for example, and by the end (where it had improved) my butt was sore and I was over the whole thing.

Agreed. I don't know what happened to John Williams, but his scores used to be so much more theme-driven and powerful. The prequel scores just strike me as a meandering ramble.

[Noble Ire]

@Pure Sabacc - so nice of you to correct the opinions of others. I didn't like it: so shoot me. Do you see me trying to change your mind? Christ.

How is what I'm doing any different than what your doing? You comment on how you disliked something, I comment on why I liked it (or perhaps a different reason for disliking it, ROTS was by no means perfect.) When I comment on something I liked, you comment on why you thought it was boring or out of place. I know full well that I wont change anyone's mind if they dislike the film, your's especially, I'm simply trying to analyze certain parts others disliked. I apologize if I came off the wrong way, but attacking me on this, especially considering the nature of the conversation, seems misplaced.

[Bob the Gunslinger]

I thought he would find the slaughtering of the kids funny, and I sure did.

What's funny is that my friends and I all said that that was our favorite part of the movie, even laughing about how awesome it was, when my shocked wife asked "What is so funny about little kids dying?"

We couldn't come up with an answer.

"We are evil"?

Please. I wouldn't have laughed at that if it had happened in real life, or even in a fairly dramatic movie. In SW, with Hayden Christiensen, it's funny.

I guess, it could be because it's really the most disturbing part of the whole movie, which sets it aside in my mind from the movie, so I deal with it differently. It's a cool scene because it is actually able to affect me emotionally, and I like talking about "cool scenes" in movies.

Besides, most of our conversation of that scene ran as an analogy for a story my friend told me about a girl who wanted to keep her cat off the curtains. So she sprayed the cat with water and vinegar whenever it went near the curtains, and the cat would always run to her for protection. This made the girl feel really bad about correcting the cat. Maybe you'd have to have the story then, but it was pretty funny.

[Noble Ire]

Thats interesting, since I think it was the *nature* of GLs filmmaking style that doesn't work for me. All the devices normally used to create power were absent or poorly used - I was pretty disappointed with the music, for example, and by the end (where it had improved) my butt was sore and I was over the whole thing.

Agreed. I don't know what happened to John Williams, but his scores used to be so much more theme-driven and powerful. The prequel scores just strike me as a meandering ramble.

The scores for the original trilogy were certainly more powerful overall, but the PT has had its moments. Duel of the Fates, the TF theme, Across the Stars, The Flag Parade, and Battle of the Heros all were very good, along with many of the pieces that JW re-orchestrated from the Original trilogy.

[Bob the Gunslinger]

You can't really argue with someone about whether he likes something, or finds it boring, etc.

For my part (although I've already said this elsewhere), I would just point out that children tend to lack our preconditioned programming to associate certain filmmaking styles with emotional impact (the Pavlovian catharsis reaction to slow-mo is particularly common, and GL is unique among modern directors in shunning slow-mo), and my kids both found it much more emotionally powerful than the whole LOTR trilogy that everyone gushes over.

Too be fair, your LOTR arguments don't apply to all of the ROTS Naysayers. For example, I have made it quite clear that I'm not a huge fan of LOTR. The Frodo slo-mo with the One Tear TM effect only cracked me up. I thought the most enjoyable scene of FOTR was the extended camera pan following the fell beast as it dropped some gondorman 400 feet only to bounce off the roof of a stone building. Why? Because I didn't particularly care what any of the "heroes" did, but I do care about damn spiffy dragons.

Now, ROTS is the one SW prequel that I actually plan to buy when it comes out on DVD. I liked it. Does that mean I don't have criticisms? No. For me, the film had a whole bunch of flaws, not the least of which is the acting (by certain actors). I know it all works in SOD, but it doesn't work for me as entertainment. But then, that's what the fast forward button is for. So, I do consider the film flawed, even if I do enjoy it.

[Lord Zentei]

snip

Do I seriously need to explain why? Debating and nitpicking obvious satire of something you're a fan of tends to imply one of two things to the audience:

1) You didn't get it. This is where the backpeddaling comes in. It's a natural enough tendancy people have.

To quote Maddox himself: "Oh, I got it all right. It's just that when I got it it wasn't 'it' anymore".

2) Hit pretty close to the mark to get her all riled up, eh kid?

Bullshit.

Saying it's not funny is one thing, but this smacks of "fanboy in defensive mode"

Oh, please.

I wasn't singling you out, it's just that here and on plenty of other places on the 'net (and not just with ROTS, taking anything that's widely popular), whenever something negative comes out, people go ballistic or start whining, and then look a bit silly. It's like attacking the Onion for making inaccurate statements.

Whatever. Cuts both ways if you're a Maddox fan: why the hell should he be above counter-criticism? And I certainly hope you don't confuse me with those ultra-fanboys.

[Lord Zentei]

Whatever. It is meant to be campy. Not my problem if people don't realize it.

It sucked. I know camp. This was misplaced and poorly done.

For fuck's sake Thirdfain, read the goddamned thread. It wasn't just Palpy's promise and some ugly dreams. Anakin's road to the darkside began way back in TPM and AotC.

I saw the picture which GL was painting. It was a pretty crummy job. No one here isn't getting the imagery, or what path Anakin walks to the Dark Side. It doesn't make it any less clumsy and poorly-wrought.

Ah, well. To each his own, then.

Really? How about "Darth Vader"? Or Han "Solo"? Or Luke "Skywalker"? As for "arty farty" I was obviously being sarcastic for crying out loud. Again, I point out that Star Wars is meant to be campy. This is a movie series where people can parry gunshots with swords, where you have Evil Space Black Knights™ and Evil Space Sorcerers™, Space Princesses In Distress™and planets that are made to explode like firecrackers for crissakes. Nobody whines about the names in James Bond movies where you have chicks called "Plenty" and "Onatopp" and "Bambi", now do they? Or if they do, they are dissed quite rightly for not "getting" it.

Whatever, man. The first movies had camp for sure. These take it too far. there's no sense of urgency, no sense of menace, no sense of importance to the shit on screen. The battle-droids are jokes, the Clones seem like action figure ads, the Gungans have none of the paniced heroism of the troops on the Tantive IV.

Well, part of it may be knowing in advance which way things will go. I'll agreee that the classic trilogy beat the prequels anyday.

Was it now. Perhaps you feel this way knowing that it didn't take itself too seriously, while assuming wrongly that Star Wars does take itself seriously?

Excuse me, Star Wars sure as balls takes itself seriously. It's a black-and-white, Good-Vs-Evil tale. Worlds are destroyed. Children are massacred. But, at the same time, battle-robots say "Roger Roger," and SBD's whine to each other. Gungans caper. It ruins the camp with the serious parts, and the serious parts with the camp.

I honestly can't see that SW takes itself entirely seriously. Not in the sense most epics do.

Is this meant to be a rebuttal? Try being more articulate.

Errr, my browser has a weird thing, it alway puts smileys on the bottom of the text-box when I'm typing, I thought I had inputted that eye-roll elsewhere in the previous post...

Ah, no sweat then. Sorry for jumping on you like that.

[Lord Zentei]

This thread is proof positive that Maddox got the reaction he wanted.

Bingo, Galvatron gets it. It doesn't matter to Maddox whether his "review" is actually spot on, in fact, it not being spot on makes it more effective. After all, it's made the intended target even more cheesed off.

No, his intent was to piss off people for attacking their holy cow. That's not the reason I wasn't impressed by his article. If it were I would have reacted in the same way to the VGCats comic.

The reason I was unimpressed was really that his RotS article sucked, unlike his older ones.

[Kurgan]

To quote Maddox himself: "Oh, I got it all right. It's just that when I got it it wasn't 'it' anymore".

Because one of the most overused criticisms of a movie critic a fanboy disagrees with is "you just didn't get it!" ie: you're too stupid to understand this masterpiece, or you would like it. This was what people said to defend the "Matrix" movies from criticism for example.

By "it" I mean the concept of satire/farce itself. VGcats is more parody/spoof. So at least there people can feel they are laughing at the caricature rather than the thing itself and it's therefore safer.

Whatever. Cuts both ways if you're a Maddox fan: why the hell should he be above counter-criticism? And I certainly hope you don't confuse me with those ultra-fanboys.

I'm NOT a Maddox fan, it's simply obvious to me that his page is satire, that he thrives on the hatred of fanboys (which provides for him more free material, a common feature of such websites), and that posts in threads like this one are virtually indistinguishable from the reactions he expects.

Sure, you can bash Maddox and other satirists all you want, but doing so suspiciously looks like sour grapes from fanboys, especially when done in nitpickery fashion.

So if you (or anyone else) don't want to be the kind of person he makes fun of... don't act like one I guess?

[Lord Zentei]

To quote Maddox himself: "Oh, I got it all right. It's just that when I got it it wasn't 'it' anymore".

Because one of the most overused criticisms of a movie critic a fanboy disagrees with is "you just didn't get it!" ie: you're too stupid to understand this masterpiece, or you would like it. This was what people said to defend the "Matrix" movies from criticism for example.

Yes, only their arguments often appeal to vague philosophical bullshit that is unfalsifiable. Anyway, if a movie critic really doesn't get the movie, what other response is appropriate? I've made it pretty clear what my motives were.

By "it" I mean the concept of satire/farce itself. VGcats is more parody/spoof. So at least there people can feel they are laughing at the caricature rather than the thing itself and it's therefore safer.

Whatever. If they had sucked I would have trashed them too.

Whatever. Cuts both ways if you're a Maddox fan: why the hell should he be above counter-criticism? And I certainly hope you don't confuse me with those ultra-fanboys.

I'm NOT a Maddox fan, it's simply obvious to me that his page is satire, that he thrives on the hatred of fanboys (which provides for him more free material, a common feature of such websites), and that posts in threads like this one are virtually indistinguishable from the reactions he expects.

Sure, you can bash Maddox and other satirists all you want, but doing so suspiciously looks like sour grapes from fanboys, especially when done in nitpickery fashion.

So if you (or anyone else) don't want to be the kind of person he makes fun of... don't act like one I guess?

So satirists are immune to criticism unless one wants to be the object of satire, because my rant superficially resembles that of pissed off fanboys? Guilt by Association nonsense. I happen to be a Maddox fan, FYI, and when I said his recent articles haven't cut it I really did mean what I said, and with some disapointment. Is it too much to ask that a satirist you used to like actually make a decent effort at satire?

[Kurgan]

So satirists are immune to criticism unless one wants to be the object of satire, because my rant superficially resembles that of pissed off fanboys? Guilt by Association nonsense. I happen to be a Maddox fan, FYI, and when I said his recent articles haven't cut it I really did mean what I said, and with some disapointment. Is it too much to ask that a satirist you used to like actually make a decent effort at satire?

I'm sorry.

[Invictus ChiKen]

Just thought I'd add the reason I found the killing kids part funny.

In lots of fiction you see the Villian or Villian to be slaughter

Cute animas like puppies or kittens, trusted friends and family, there lutenants, small children ect. ect. Just to show how evil they are.

There comes a point where the scene loses it's emotional impact and it becomes a been there done that thing.

Some of the Focus on the Family types try to say this makes us less able to care. I disagree, deaths in fictional works rarely bother me anymore. Then last episode of Angel and Padme's death being the only times recently to affect me.

However there was a hit and run at my place of work tonight, I say the assilant escape his viechle and flee from the cops (they caught him) I was glad to see the jerk get what he deserved and right now I'm STILL worring about weather or not his victim will live.

[Lord Zentei]

So satirists are immune to criticism unless one wants to be the object of satire, because my rant superficially resembles that of pissed off fanboys? Guilt by Association nonsense. I happen to be a Maddox fan, FYI, and when I said his recent articles haven't cut it I really did mean what I said, and with some disapointment. Is it too much to ask that a satirist you used to like actually make a decent effort at satire?

I'm sorry.

Eh, no problem. I'm not pissed at you. I'm just pissed.

[Galvatron]

For my part (although I've already said this elsewhere), I would just point out that children tend to lack our preconditioned programming to associate certain filmmaking styles with emotional impact (the Pavlovian catharsis reaction to slow-mo is particularly common, and GL is unique among modern directors in shunning slow-mo), and my kids both found it much more emotionally powerful than the whole LOTR trilogy that everyone gushes over.

Does the slo-mo duel in the cave on Dagobah in TESB count even if Lucas didn't direct it?

[Darth Garden Gnome]

Does the slo-mo duel in the cave on Dagobah in TESB count even if Lucas didn't direct it?

Wasn't that done to give the scene a dream-like feel, rather than: "this scene is cool because it happens in slo-mo," sort of thing?

[YT300000]

Almost certainly, considering that the scene was normal before and after the duel, and was only in slow motion during it.

[Galvatron]

Wasn't that done to give the scene a dream-like feel, rather than: "this scene is cool because it happens in slo-mo," sort of thing?

Does it matter? Was the slo-mo in The Matrix not "true" slo-mo because it was only used to give a sense that it was all happening in a simulated reality?