Phantom Menace and bad writing

[Galvatron]

Lucas did precisely that in the ANH screenplay when Han Solo used his stupid "Kessel run in 12 parsecs" line, but the EU authors ignored that and tried to rationalize it as if it must be precisely accurate. There is precedent for Lucas taking the blame for EU authors who promoted literal interpretations of what were actually meant to be incorrect statements.

There was nothing on-screen to walk viewers through the process of deducing that Solo was full of shit in ANH either, but it's in the screenplay. This has happened before. Why is it necessary to spell everything out? As long as we're talking about whether writers or characters are stupid, why is the audience supposed to be stupid?

Only "parsec" needed rationalizing. The movie showed Ben's scripted reaction to Han's claim and even followed it up with a line by Ben calling it a boast.

[Channel72]

Only "parsec" needed rationalizing. The movie showed Ben's scripted reaction to Han's claim and even followed it up with a line by Ben calling it a boast.

Even though Lucas apparently intended Han to be boasting in that case, I'd say it's still a case of bad writing. Not that it matters much, since unlike Episode I, Episode IV is such a fantastic movie overall. Regardless, in an advanced Galaxy-spanning civilization where space travel is common, Han comes off silly if he actually expected anyone to be impressed with his claim. It would be analagous to a car salesman in the real world telling a customer that a car he sells "won the Indy 500 in 800 kilometers". Even the most ignorant, gullible fool wouldn't fall for that; rather they'd probably ask the salesman to clarify just what the hell he's talking about.

[Elfdart]

So Grif's argument devolves to the fact that they use the word "core" in the literature, and he therefore assumes that the Naboo geologic "core" is defined exactly the same way Earth's geologic core is, even though he simultaneously reminds us that Naboo is said to have utterly unique geology.

By his logic, Apollo 13 is stupid because the Johnson Space Center is not really the center of the universe.

They must be dead by now. Kill what's left of them.

The actual quote is "Destroy what's left.", meaning get rid of the bodies.

So fuck you.

So Qui-Gon Jinn can't be described without referring to his profession, right? Jinn is a kindly father figure/lone gunman -the kind that used to be played by Gary Cooper (or Joel McCrea if Cooper wasn't available) before father figures in movies were all turned into brutes, perverts and buffoons. In fact, you could pretty much sum up the personality of Qui-Gon as "Gary Cooper". Believe it or not, there was a time when most movies were not custom-designed to appeal to masturbatory hang-ups of young males who have yet to kiss a girl.

Jinn is also, as Darth Wong pointed out, The Buddhist and/or a kind of hippie who goes his own way. This is in contrast not only to the other senior Jedi, but his own understudy, Obi-Wan Kenobi who like so many adult kids of hippie/New Age/California Buddhist-types, is a stick in the mud and a conservative. That's why he whines about his mentor bucking the system. What's funny is George Lucas practically beats the audience over the head with this and so many dumbasses still didn't get it.

I'd love to see these losers watch older movies that didn't ram the point down the audience's throat. For example, this scene from The Searchers:



They'd be left fumbling around in the dark, wouldn't they? I could easily see Heathcliff and his witless cockgoblins saying "What they fuck? Just some dude eating a donut and a woman folding a coat. John Ford rubbed his ass all over my childhood!"


I'm starting to wonder if Heathcliff's stupidity is contagious.

[Elfdart]

The problem is that most people approach fiction--written or filmed--with the idea that unless they're given an explicit reason to believe otherwise, spoken dialog is reliable; that is, the character speaking it is being honest and accurate, especially when dialog is being used to advance the plot (as opposed to establishing character traits). Writers know this, so when they intend for a character to be wrong, dishonest, or stupid, they generally indicate it.

How true. Here's Gore Vidal, responding to someone who slammed his novel about Abraham Lincoln:

Although a novel can be told as if the author is God, often a novel is told from the point of view of one or more characters. For those of us inclined to the Jamesian stricture, a given scene ought to be observed by a single character, who can only know what he knows, which is often less than the reader.

Fictional characters (at least interesting ones) often don't know what they're talking about, or they have biases, or they simply fuck up -just like people in real life. Nass is just a small-minded leader in a city -hence the title of "Boss", like Boss Tweed or Boss Daley.

[Formless]

I think you're missing the point here. Ignorance of basic geology is so widespread that the author might seriously not know the difference, so why should we treat it as unrealistic that fictional creatures might not know the difference? If the author is dumb enough not to know the difference, that actually proves the point that it's not something we should treat as common knowledge.

The problem is that most people approach fiction--written or filmed--with the idea that unless they're given an explicit reason to believe otherwise, spoken dialog is reliable; that is, the character speaking it is being honest and accurate, especially when dialog is being used to advance the plot (as opposed to establishing character traits). Writers know this, so when they intend for a character to be wrong, dishonest, or stupid, they generally indicate it.

Interestingly, there is research that suggests that this is actually what people do in reality too and that only when given a moment to step back and think about it do people consider the possibility that what others are saying may actually be false. Its instinctive, but not an excuse, especially when reading written fiction where they always have the time to step back and think about it. And while Star Wars isn't written fiction, if you are smart enough to step back and realize traveling through the planet's core is a stupid idea, you are smart enough to realize that character's aren't omniscient deities, especially when they are being depicted as primitive natives.

There are plenty of ways to rationalize it, but to my way of thinking, if the readers/viewers have to rationalize something so it makes sense (I think the band-aid I slapped on was that they were actually traveling through an undersea region called Planetcore), the writers failed.

You write hard sci-fi. In that genre the audience is expecting you to have done your homework, and anything less is failing to live up to their expectations. But Star Wars isn't hard sci-fi, and the audience isn't expecting much. What do you do when the author does not lay everything out in explicit terms? Character interactions, motivations, and decisions are almost universally inferred rather than stated outright in some monologue or soliloquy, yet its considered a mark of a good writer because it engages the audience and forces them to think about the story. Why is that any different than making the audience think about the plot? For example, if we have a character, a villain, behave in a stupid way that causes the hero's to win; a dumb reader might just say "the villain's actions were contrived to make sure the hero's won because that's what hero's do," whereas a smart reader might look more closely and realize that it was the villain's hubris, selfishness, greed, lust for revenge, general ignorance of some human virtue, or whatever that caused him to behave this way. That would still be a rationalization, because you would have to read between the lines to come to that conclusion, but is that bad writing? Why is that any different from concluding that Boss Nass might not be speaking literally or knowledgeably when he says the fastest way to Naboo's capitol is through the planet's "core"?

[Channel72]

Lucas did precisely that in the ANH screenplay when Han Solo used his stupid "Kessel run in 12 parsecs" line, but the EU authors ignored that and tried to rationalize it as if it must be precisely accurate. There is precedent for Lucas taking the blame for EU authors who promoted literal interpretations of what were actually meant to be incorrect statements.

I'll admit that the Han Solo dialogue is a little more debatable, even without the evidence from the screenplay. Still, it sounds to me like the EU authors were doing what any normal person does when processing movie dialogue: that is, to assume that characters provide accurate information unless it's clear that the writer purposely wrote misleading dialogue for the purpose of character development or dramatic irony. There's also the possibility that the writer is intentionally obscuring information for the purpose of some later big plot twist or dramatic reveal.

So tell me, if Lucas (or whoever wrote that line) really intended Boss Nass to be simply mistaken, what exactly was the purpose? It doesn't develop Boss Nass's character in any way; it has nothing to do with some upcoming plot twist or anything, and Boss Nass being mistaken doesn't move the plot forward or do anything dramatically. At face value, the dramatic purpose of that line was simply to have Boss Nass say something ominous in preparation for the following scene where the Jedi are attacked by sea-monsters, and nothing more. There's no indication the writer was also going for some kind of irony in order to demonstrate that the Gungans are primitive.

At least with Han's dialogue, the purpose may have been to portray Han as a con-artist or braggart.

[Galvatron]

Does it matter to anyone that even Qui-Gon said (to Obi-Wan) "we'll need a navigator to get us through the planet's core" with absolutely no hint of sarcasm?

[Formless]

Does it matter to anyone that even Qui-Gon said (to Obi-Wan) "we'll need a navigator to get us through the planet's core" with absolutely no hint of sarcasm?

Its been a while since I watched the movie, but see Wong's point about how a planet with a unique geology and no molten mantle might use a different definition of the word "core."

[Channel72]

Does it matter to anyone that even Qui-Gon said (to Obi-Wan) "we'll need a navigator to get us through the planet's core" with absolutely no hint of sarcasm?

Not only that, the TPM screenplay itself describes the scene as follows:

As the little sub glides into the planet core, a large dark shape begins to follow.

Really, there's nothing in any of this that indicates the writer meant for Boss Nass to be mistaken. Everything indicates the writer just didn't understand what a planet core is.

[stormthebeaches]

For example, if we have a character, a villain, behave in a stupid way that causes the hero's to win; a dumb reader might just say "the villain's actions were contrived to make sure the hero's won because that's what hero's do," whereas a smart reader might look more closely and realize that it was the villain's hubris, selfishness, greed, lust for revenge, general ignorance of some human virtue, or whatever that caused him to behave this way. That would still be a rationalization, because you would have to read between the lines to come to that conclusion, but is that bad writing? Why is that any different from concluding that Boss Nass might not be speaking literally or knowledgeably when he says the fastest way to Naboo's capitol is through the planet's "core"?

That only works if the villains flaws are foreshadowed enough in advance. If your villain is portrayed as a genius and suddenly makes a huge mistake that allows are hero's to win then it is bad writing. On the other hand, if your villain is show to have a nasty temper, and our hero baits the villain into doing something stupid (taking advantage of his temper) then it is good writing.

In the case of Boss Nass, we have nothing to indicate that the Gungans are primitive. Their technology is far above ours and they are aware of space fairing species.

[Formless]

How many people even complain about that scene who aren't already massive geeks or otherwise in the know? I would put it too you that most of the audience (especially the younger audience members who the film was largely intended for) were either as ignorant as the writer or just didn't care. After all, the film keeps moving afterwards, and the scenes are as visceral as they were expecting. After all, if we are going to judge it by author's intent, Lucas clearly was more interested in making a visceral and exciting experience for people, and he clearly succeeded. See why authors intent is a useless criteria for good vs bad writing?

[Formless]

In the case of Boss Nass, we have nothing to indicate that the Gungans are primitive. Their technology is far above ours and they are aware of space fairing species.

Did we even watch the same movie? I'm pretty sure Qui Gon and Obi Wan even commented on this to say that they are primitives, at least relative to themselves.

[Galvatron]

After all, if we are going to judge it by author's intent, Lucas clearly was more interested in making a visceral and exciting experience for people, and he clearly succeeded.

He did? "Clearly?" I agree that the planet core nitpicking is getting out of hand, but do you seriously think that the vast majority of TPM critics think that the movie otherwise succeeded as a "visceral and exciting experience?"

[Formless]

After all, if we are going to judge it by author's intent, Lucas clearly was more interested in making a visceral and exciting experience for people, and he clearly succeeded.

He did? "Clearly?" I agree that the planet core nitpicking is getting out of hand, but do you seriously think that the vast majority of TPM critics think that the movie otherwise succeeded as a "visceral and exciting experience?"

I don't pay much attention to professional critics because most of them just seem to bandwagon (much like fans), but I figure the movie managed to break records in sales for a reason. And yeah, I agree that that reason probably wasn't the quality of the writing. Which leaves the quality of the experience to explain why people still talk about it: if it were a truly god awful movie, people would have forgotten about it at the first opportunity.

[Galvatron]

I'm not talking about the professional critics. I'm talking about the people who saw it, didn't like it and share their opinion of it.

Yes, I paid to see it in the theater. Twice. Some of the money it made was from me. I wanted to like it. I thought I might like it better if I gave it a second chance.

I was only kidding myself. It sucked. It was not a "visceral and exciting experience" for me. And I still talk about it because of the huge disappointment it was.

[Formless]

Well, yeah, "visceral and exciting" is a matter of taste. I personally found that when it drags it drags, but when there was an action scene it was pretty cool. Actually, moreso than ANH in places.

What can I say, it worked for me.

And notice that most of the people who drag out bullshit like the Midichloriens and nitpick about going through the "core" of the planet also tend to be bandwagoning fans looking for every excuse to hate it. Just like bandwagoning professional critics. IF you are dead set to hate something, you probably will.

[Channel72]

How many people even complain about that scene who aren't already massive geeks or otherwise in the know?

As I said, the whole planet core thing is a minor point - it's not what makes it a bad movie. I'm just quite surprised that people here are claiming that the dialogue was intentionally inaccurate, rather than merely a scientific blunder on the part of the writers.

Which leaves the quality of the experience to explain why people still talk about it: if it were a truly god awful movie, people would have forgotten about it at the first opportunity.

Yes, that's why people still remember Plan 9 from Outerspace. But seriously, people still talk about it because it's a Star Wars film. Sure, if it wasn't Star Wars nobody would care, but who would have expected that the same man who wrote Star Wars would be capable of making such a mediocre movie? People still talk about it because it was one of the biggest unexpected dissapointments in recent cinematic history.

[starfury]

Yes, that's why people still remember Plan 9 from Outerspace. But seriously, people still talk about it because it's a Star Wars film. Sure, if it wasn't Star Wars nobody would care, but who would have expected that the same man who wrote Star Wars would be capable of making such a mediocre movie? People still talk about it because it was one of the biggest unexpected dissapointments in recent cinematic history.

You haven't answered my original point on the sheer Hatred the original Critics derided Star Wars for in 1977 for Destroying "Arthouse Films" the American new wave as defined by Easy Rider or Apocalypse Now and saw Stars Wars 1977 in destroying that and creating the Blockbuster Mentality

[Rye]

if it were a truly god awful movie, people would have forgotten about it at the first opportunity.

I wouldn't go that far, lots of people still hate Alien 3, or Transformers 2 or The Matrix Revolutions. TPM and those films had dedicated professionals working on them, but as the old saying goes, you can't polish a turd (not really fair in Alien 3's case, but true of the other two). In TPM's case, the turd polish happens to be vast amounts of CGI, the pre-existent fanbase that guarantees returns and a giant budget. A huge letdown of a once-great cultural phenomenon leaves a scar on the cultural psyche, and that's why people talk about it, the futile, deluded nonsense from elfdart in my sig notwithstanding. It was boring, poorly directed, the kid was annoying, and it gravely failed to achieve (or live up to in the case of fans) the sense of adventure, dramatic structure and texture of the originals for various reasons.

I also say this as someone who hasn't watched the Star Wars films all that often, or think they're that great. I still think Lucas is relying on the low standards of kids when he says that crap about there being three types of SW fan. I'm betting the kids like the robots, Jar-Jar's bullshit, Maul's look and double lightsabre more than the unrelenting tedium of the actual film and its characters.

[Channel72]

You haven't answered my original point on the sheer Hatred the original Critics derided Star Wars for in 1977 for Destroying "Arthouse Films" the American new wave as defined by Easy Rider or Apocalypse Now and saw Stars Wars 1977 in destroying that and creating the Blockbuster Mentality

I've heard people say this, but I've never seen it demonstrated that this sentiment was really widespread. Most mainstream critics in 1977 loved it. Roger Ebert's original 1977 review was overwhelmingly positive, as were Vincent Canby's and Leonard Maltin's reviews. I don't doubt there were a significant number of critics who disliked the film because it was basically a silly space opera, but I suspect the situation is somewhat exaggerated by modern-day prequel fans.

[starfury]

I wouldn't go that far, lots of people still hate Alien 3, or Transformers 2 or The Matrix Revolutions. TPM and those films had dedicated professionals working on them, but as the old saying goes, you can't polish a turd (not really fair in Alien 3's case, but true of the other two). In TPM's case, the turd polish happens to be vast amounts of CGI, the pre-existent fanbase that guarantees returns and a giant budget. A huge letdown of a once-great cultural phenomenon leaves a scar on the cultural psyche, and that's why people talk about it, the futile, deluded nonsense from elfdart in my sig notwithstanding. It was boring, poorly directed, the kid was annoying, and it gravely failed to achieve (or live up to in the case of fans) the sense of adventure, dramatic structure and texture of the originals for various reasons

For TPM I generally Agree since it was truly remembered not even for lack of quality etc, but for the Sheer hype Train it generated, I actually hated AOTC more then the TPM which to me was mostly average but not overwhelming bad and I still would take ROTS over ROTJ, but only the TPM I remembered had that giant hype since before launch and it's dissppointment for me meant that I skipped AOTC for theaters and came back for ROTS. which I did like as I stated before I actually liked more then any of OT save TESB.

[starfury]

http://www.salon.com/ent/movies/feature ... index.html

This was before the TPM even came out, I remember it quite vividly for the anger it called for the OT.

[Vympel]

A huge letdown of a once-great cultural phenomenon leaves a scar on the cultural psyche

Indeed. From now until the end of time, the common refrain whenever anyone talks Star Wars will be "the OT was great - but the prequels sucked."

Even if only TPM really SUCKED, compared to AotC merely being mediocre and RotS actually being good, it set the tone. TPM is never, ever, ever going to just ... go away, no matter how much someone might wish it would.

[adam_grif]

if it were a truly god awful movie, people would have forgotten about it at the first opportunity.

Since I leap at any opportunity to plug this amazing cinematic experience:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AJWpmPGCR1c

There are plenty of movies that get remembered for being completely awful. TPM isn't horrible enough to to join their ranks, it's just generally bad. The reason it's remembered is because of the enormous hype surrounding it and it's spectacular failure to deliver.

The actual quote is "Destroy what's left.", meaning get rid of the bodies.

So fuck you.

The line isn't stupid because I thought it was a tautology involving them saying they're dead then telling them to kill what's left, the line was stupid because the gas has barely had time to fill the room, it's highly visible and obvious (so its not like they could rely on the fact that they wouldn't know it was filling the room and thus would have breathed it in), and they're terrified of Jedi generally (and thus would be in no hurry to let them out if there's even a small chance they're still alive).

[Elfdart]

Does it matter to anyone that even Qui-Gon said (to Obi-Wan) "we'll need a navigator to get us through the planet's core" with absolutely no hint of sarcasm?

Its been a while since I watched the movie, but see Wong's point about how a planet with a unique geology and no molten mantle might use a different definition of the word "core."

Qui-Gon was looking for an excuse to take Jar Jar Binks with them. That's why he brought up the "life debt". He obviously felt sorry for this outcast and didn't want to leave him behind.