As the final Star Wars flick bursts onto movie screens like 10,000 supernovas, I remind us all that you can't spell Sith without s, h, i, and t. And I ask "the question that catches in our collective throats more fully than one of Chewbacca's hairballs: Why the hell do we still care about Luke, Leia, Han Solo, Anakin, Obi Wan, and the guy played by Jimmy Smits?"
New at Reason
Comments to "New at Reason":
smacky | May 19, 2005, 4:36pm | #
it's a given that if Star Wars didn't start to go downhill sometime during the "Cantina Band" sequence in the very first flickObjection! That is one of the most gripping sequences ever recorded on celluloid.
Nick, your essay rather mirrors the whole sad epic: starts out with a bang and evolves into tedium. Sorry.
Ken Shultz | May 19, 2005, 4:54pm | #
"And I ask "the question that catches in our collective throats more fully than one of Chewbacca's hairballs: Why the hell do we still care about Luke, Leia, Han Solo, Anakin, Obi Wan, and the guy played by Jimmy Smits?"Dogfights in space, laser gun battles with Wookies, light sabers--when the first one came out, I was seven years old, and I had no idea that anything could be that cool.
...Like a bunch of heroin addicts, I suspect we're chasin' that first high.
Geez, Slate has already done three or four articles on this vitally important subject. I can't believe Reason is only just now getting around to their first.
Ken Shultz | May 19, 2005, 4:56pm | #
"Objection! That is one of the most gripping sequences ever recorded on celluloid."I second.
The dance of the Ewoks hurt the franchise. Watch the prequels all you want; in the back of your mind, you know it all ends with the Dance of the Ewoks.
s.a.m. | May 19, 2005, 4:56pm | #
...Like a bunch of heroin addicts, I suspect we're chasin' that first high.A-MEN Ken!
E-Rock | May 19, 2005, 4:57pm | #
I don't see an answer from Lee yet, but I was a midnight viewer (costume free, got to the theatre at 10:30) who also thought the move was awesome. The end of Jedi sucked (abandon your mission for the emperor to chase some teddy bears?). Phantom Menace was a menace, except for the pod race. Attack of the Clones was crippled by wooden performances, but the sequence with Obi Wan and cloners was good and the last sequences were very entertaining.This movie wasn't perfect, but the action was heated, the acting very good (Portman is a great actress and for the first time in this series you get to see some of it) and the conclusion to the story arc is very solid with lots of little clues that tie all six movies together.
I'd like to see it again before giving a final judgment, but it's probably going to be right up there with Empire.
TheDumbFish | May 19, 2005, 5:13pm | #
I agree with Ken - spaceships, cool monsters, and lightsabers.Also, I care about Leia because she is pretty much the only hot woman in the trilogy and became a part of my fantasies because of that.
Although, I suppose some people might go for that dancing tentacle-headed woman, Aunt Berue, or Sy Snootles*. The mighty sarlacc could be considered titillating to the S&M crowd.
* Sy Snootles is the singer for the musical trio at Jabba's pad. I know she was female because the card that came with the playset I got for my birthday said so. Man, that was a lame playset.
The comic books were way better, and the Dark Lords of the Sith, Tales of the Jedi comics were far more engrossing and I didn't feel cheated of my money by the end of the books.
I've been getting a kick out of the people who are seeing the film as an anti-Bush message. Which, of course, means that George Lucas hates America.
SPD | May 19, 2005, 5:31pm | #
I always viewed my experience with the original trilogy as being similar to that of Wedge Antilles -- damn lucky to have survived all three.But I have to admit, I do want to see this movie. I'm a special-effects whore.
crimethink | May 19, 2005, 5:39pm | #
by the time the Peter Jackson movies hit American screens, it was difficult not to read the story as an oblique commentary about post-9/11 and the need to stare down evil.As long as one didn't realize that it was filmed almost entirely before 9/11.
Dave | May 19, 2005, 6:03pm | #
People aren't just "seeing it as an anti-bush message", I'm pretty sure Lucas explicity said he intended to make those allusions (such as the emperor saying "You're either with us or against us"). So i guess if Bush is the Emperor, that makes Bin Laden Yoda and Saddam Luke Skywalker? And the World Trade Center....well that must be the Death Star.He can say whatever he wants, free speech and all that, but fuck him for making his allegory about how dangerous Bush is instead of terrorists who intentionally blow up school kids.
By the way , the movie was great. 100 times better than the previous two shit fests.
Actually, it was Anakin who said "You're either with me, or you're my enemy." Thus, if we're going to assign characters who were initially created 20+ years ago to modern politicians, that would presumably make Palpatine symbolic of Karl Rove.
rich | May 19, 2005, 6:35pm | #
yes, yes, we know - star wars ruined films because rather than emphasizing the auteurs who made intense, dark films about Things That Mattered, Star Wars simply entertained.yes, yes, we know - none of the movies that came after the first we ever as good.
call me when you stop recycling material with the frequency that Camino recycles Jango Fett.
Douglas Fletcher | May 19, 2005, 6:59pm | #
Recently at my local coffeehouse a reformed (12 step) crackhead told me that the Star Wars epic has all the elements of classical myth.Beats me. To me the whole thing comes off like The Muppet Show with better special effects.
Pro Libertate | May 19, 2005, 7:04pm | #
Dumbfish, I daresay that Natalie Portman is more of a babe than Carrie Fisher. Even after renormalizing their ages.I'm actually mildly excited about the new film. Episode I was poor and Episode II was so-so, but this one should be okay given that we're getting to the payoff for the two-film build up (e.g., Anakin goes bad) and that we're approaching the time and setting of the best Star Wars movie. Yes, that would be the one called merely Star Wars when I watched it as a kid in 1977.
In related news, will Bea Arthur be in the impending Star Wars TV series?
David | May 19, 2005, 7:10pm | #
Dave,The Emperor's machinations were hinted at in Ep 1 which began principal photography during the Clinton Administration. The were expanded on in ep2 (in as much as anything in the series can be said to have been explored in depth).
The theme of using an a permanent war to keep "emergency" powers dates back to at least Orwell, probably much further.
What makes me giggle is the the idea that both the Pro-Bush camp and the Bush haters are seing the same allegory and reacting in the expected ways. For some people, there has to be a secret political message in EVERYTHING.
Jared | May 19, 2005, 7:51pm | #
Didnt anakin chime off something like "your either with us, or against us"Isn't that one of the things people chide bush about?
TheDumbFish | May 19, 2005, 8:13pm | #
Pro Libertate,I was talking about the original trilogy, since that is the source of all the nostalgia. Keira Knightley was in Episode 1, and she's as easy on the eyes as Portman.
Do people here really believe that Star Wars is popular because of it's political undertones? Like Ken said, it's all about cool looking laser blasters, AT-ATs, and that asteroid worm.
Or maybe I'm wrong. Maybe The Matrix was popular because it spoke to a number of concerns about the plasticity of identity and reality that were in the air during the late days of the tech boom.
dumbfish - Knightley and Portman look like twins. I didn't know who Knightley was until I saw that movie King Arthur. I thought it was Portman until the credits.
Darth4DoorNova | May 19, 2005, 8:32pm | #
I'm afraid that time and Lucas's fiddling have dimmed my love for this saga, but I remember when I went to see the re-released "A New Hope" in 1997. There was a kid sitting in front of me who pumped his little fists in the air when Luke and Han took down the last TIE fighter while escaping the Death Star. It brought a smile to my jaded face.Let's face it, you've got to be 7 years old to really love these movies; the rest of us are just wallowing in nostalgia.
spur | May 19, 2005, 8:54pm | #
I used to think I was a cynical prick until I started to read Nick's columns. Is there nothing you love and have a passion for? Can anything leap over the wall of cynicism you have built around your written/online persona?Its interesting the two critics of the Star Wars series you quote are from New York publications. The east coast has started to slowly lull you into its elitist folds. Move back to Ohio and stop giving a fuck what the village voice or New York Observer has to say about anything. Critics who actually enjoy and obsess and take movies seriously have given the last film great reviews -- check out aint-it-cool.com as just one place to start to read a review from someone with an empathetic bone in their body.
The shit really gets thick when you start quoting Michael Valdez Moses --
"In divine fashion we would redesign the entire cosmos according to our individual whims and throw off the chains of all external authority. We wish at once to be free and to be a god to others. We would return to an idyllic past and progress forward to an unbounded future."
ivorytower hogwash.
I'm not a huge fan of Star Wars or LOTR and have never seen or read the Harry Potter series, though I'll probably see the film this weekend. I just found the article to be one of the most cynical self indulgent elitist pices of crap I've read since like a couple hours ago when I ventured to the Huffington blog for about 2 seconds...
spur | May 19, 2005, 9:17pm | #
also, most of the views of ROTS are positive:http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/star_wars_3/
136 postive to 28 negative or 83% good. So there are just factual errors in the piece:
"And even littler doubt that no film event has been more reviled. While some critics, such as the Ebert & Roper team, have given Sith a thumbs-up blessing, at least as many, especially among those with pretensions that go beyond writing the script for Beneath the Valley of the Ultra Vixens, have smacked the new movie with a Death Star rating."
TheDumbFish | May 19, 2005, 10:23pm | #
LowDog,I agree. In my post I was about to mention that Knightley=Portman. Knightley was cast(casted?) to be Portman's decoy, so that makes sense. I still prefer Leia in her gold bikini to either of them, which is due to the same nostalgia that makes these movies popular.
Darth4DoorNova,
You have to be 7 - or a kid anyway - to love the movies originally, but once you love them, they stick with you. It says something about how well they did with the special effects of that movie in 1977, that a kid today can would still get fired-up about a part of the movie that fired me up as a kid.
Spur,
The tone of the column bothered me too. Sometimes I get the feeling that the writers here, and often the posters, just reflexively trash music/movies/authors that are popular. Some kind of disdain for the masses.
Of course, I might just be defensively reacting as a Star Wars geek.
There's probably something to that, as it's easierto be different by knocking what others enjoy. I didn't get that impression from Nick's article though.
Jim Walsh | May 19, 2005, 10:45pm | #
There was a time when it would have been a big deal. No, I take that back: there was never a time when catching the latest George Lucas space opera was even on my top-ten list of priorities (In my view the best Lucas flick ever was American Graffiti). I did see the first three Star Wars installments and liked The Empire Strikes Back the best; it was certainly the darkest, the least pandering to the popcorn set, and the one that did the best job of tying in all the Joe Campbell mythological influences.I'll see the new one when it comes out on DVD - maybe. In the meantime, one quick anecdote:
Spring, 1978 - I was in line to see the first Star Wars (yeah, it took me a year to get around to seeing it; I've always been a world-class procrastinator). A rather frail-looking youth a few steps ahead of me in line turned to the guy next to him with a major compost-eating grin on his face.
"This," he said, "is the seventeenth time I've seen this movie."
"This," the other guy said, "is my girlfriend."
Touche...
Ken Shultz | May 20, 2005, 12:08am | #
"Sometimes I get the feeling that the writers here, and often the posters, just reflexively trash music/movies/authors that are popular. Some kind of disdain for the masses."Have you met the masses?
...I sometimes feel like that guy in Dazed and Confused:
"You know how for like the last year or so I've been talking about going to law school so I can become a ACLU lawyer to be in a position to help people getting fucked over and all that? Well I'm standing in line at the post office yesterday you know, and I'm looking around and everybody's looking really pathetic you know what I mean. Like people have just got drool sticking there, and like this guy's bending over and you can see the crack of his... It was all just like wife beaters, it was.. Anyway. I realise that I just don't want to do it. You know what I mean it sounds good and all but I just have to confront the fact that I really don't like the people I've been talking about helping out. You know what I'm saying. I don't like people period. I mean you guys are okay. I don't know. I'm just trying to be honest about being a misanthrope."
I'm yet to stand in line for the new Star Wars film, but I've felt like that standing in line for other movies. ...Haven't you?
kevrob | May 20, 2005, 1:41am | #
I've always grokked what Lucas was up to. When I was a 7-year-old, I was sitting in front of our black-&-white TV every afternoon, patiently waiting through Chuck McCann's kiddie show, enjoying the cartoons and the Paul Ashley puppets, for the daily installment of one of the old Universal or Republic chapterplays. Flash Gordon (all 3 of them!), Buck Rogers, The Phantom Empire, The Purple Monster Strikes, and others. I know I caught The Masked Marvel and Spy Smasher on the Saturday Million Dollar Movie on New York's Channel 9, WOR, and the Rocketman serials were played often, too. By the time Batman aired on ABC in 1966, I was fully familiar with the cliffhanger schtick the show employed, which was straight out of the serials.After seeing a Buck or Flash serial through the slightly older eyes of a jaded 12-year-old who had viewed 2001, the obvious brainstorm presented itself: What if you could make feature versions of the old comic strip or comic book heroes using modern cinema technology and with a full budget? That cool idea was behind the first SW flick, from the opening crawl, and as someone who had been infected with the serial-meme as a second-generation fan, I watched with almost as much nostalgia as Forry Ackerman. Ironic detachment only set in later.
Lucas' original pipedream, to make nine full-length chapters, was always unrealistic. He probably should have abandoned it short of the dancing forest midgets, though.
Kevin
Dave | May 20, 2005, 2:25am | #
David-Believe me, I would have loved to keep any sort of "this character is supposed to be talking like (real life politician)" discussions out of this. You seem to be saying that people are reading this into the movie though, when I'm talking about what the creator/writer/director/producer of the movie just said about it the other day. The guy who made the whole thing up says he was trying to make that connection, which i think is really a shame. Aside from the fact that I don't agree with the political point he was making, the power of a movie like Star Wars is that it's themes are general enough that we each give it our own meaning (the same goes for great songs). Get more specific, and it becomes a much smaller thing.
crimethink | May 20, 2005, 8:33am | #
Dave,Everything I've read says that Lucas denies any political references in that quote.
And Bush is not the first, or even the most famous person to make that statement. Jesus himself said it in Matthew 12:30, which is probably where both he and Lucas got it from.
TheDumbFish | May 20, 2005, 9:12am | #
Ken,Yeah, the masses is asses and all that. Maybe "disdain for the masses" wasn't what I meant, since I have some of that myself. The attitude I dislike is more along the lines of what David says, someone knocking down things that are popular so that they feel unique.
I don't remember that quote from Dazed and Confused. Which character says that? The entire thing is amazingly similar to what a friend of mine told me. While nearing completion for a master's degree in Social Work, he was working at a Chevron Station. After dealing with customers - a nice chunk of which were repeatedly buying cheap 40's of Shlitz with handfuls of change - he realized that he really didn't like, and mostly detested dealing with people.
Bunch of Jedi grimacing in front of urinals? I think it would be just as uncomfortable as seeing someone vomit in a movie.
Warren | May 20, 2005, 10:49am | #
Nick,That is THE biggest piece of balderdash I have ever seen from the pages of Reason. That you of all people should engage in dissing pop culture with such elitist vapidness is incomprehensible.
Spur,
You nailed it dead on.
To suggest that there is wide-spread agreement that Star Wars, is now or has ever been, less than acclaimed, is to confess to a level of isolation from the American people more disconnected than "I don't know anyone who voted for Nixon". Check it out, Every Last One of the SW films gets a 'fresh' rating on the tomato meter . Even the supposedly universally panned Return Of The Jedi gets 80% positive reviews.
Couple this article with the "Live Free and Die of Boredom" tripe from the Feb. issue and it would seem that Nick is becoming the exact sort of elitist snob that he supposedly loathes.
Nick Gillespie | May 20, 2005, 11:22am | #
Well, since I've been called out by at least a couple of you, let me respond briefly. Pace Spur (and Warren, I guess), I don't think my piece is "cynical" or "elitist" (it may well be "self-indulgent" and "crap," but those are more judgement calls than the others).The starting point of the piece--and the ending point, too--is that "we" (that is, most of America, including myself, apart from certain critics who tend to deride mass successes no matter what) still do care about the Star Wars characters because we use them both to enjoy ourselves and to talk about any number of issues relevant to our culture. That's a defense of the series, fellas, not an attack (the same goes for Moses' essay, from which I quote).
At the same time, I don't see anything wrong with acknowledging--indeed, having fun with--what virtually everyone I know who follows the series concedes about Star Wars: that the movies have generally gotten worse and worse, pretty much from the get-go.
crimethink | May 20, 2005, 11:26am | #
No one I know voted for Rutherford B. Hayes. So how did he become president?!?!Dave | May 20, 2005, 12:28pm | #
Saw the movie yesterday. I enjoyed it for what it was a pretty good Sci-Fi movie. Of course its not as cool now as the old ones were when I was a kid but I enjoyed it and thats all that matters. I don't see what all the fuss is about its just a movie if people want to get dressed up and enjoy themselves while seeing a movie let it be guys.After all being free to do what you want is what this site is supposed to be about anyway...
Warren | May 20, 2005, 12:49pm | #
Nick,Yeah, nice try but No Sale. You were not "having fun with--what virtually everyone I know who [voted for McGovern?] follows the series concedes about Star Wars: that the movies have generally gotten worse and worse, pretty much from the get-go." Your central thesis rested upon the bogus claim that the Star Wars films are bad films. To wit:
"…generally acknowledged mediocrity…"
" Indeed, it's a given that … the series actively started to suck wind… "
" …Return of the Jedi, a film so bad that it may well be the space opera equivalent of The Day The Clown Cried."
You then proceed to follow these baseless accusations with the demonstrably and egregiously false claim that:
" While some critics, such as the Ebert & Roper team, have given Sith a thumbs-up blessing, at least as many, especially among those with pretensions that go beyond writing the script for Beneath the Valley of the Ultra Vixens, have smacked the new movie with a Death Star rating."
Shame on you for you blatant ELITISM. And double shame on failing to cop to it and attempting to backpedal.
Ken Shultz | May 20, 2005, 12:57pm | #
I don't think you can call Gillespie and "elitist"; he often comes down from the mountain to answer our questions directly....I probably wouldn't do that.
lincoln | May 20, 2005, 1:52pm | #
Ummm Warren, not to belabor the issue but Phantom Menace and Clones are generally reviewed as mediocre films. Not that Nick has proof for his assertions either. I just think the truth of Star Wars critical reception lies somewhere in the "Empire rocked, the prequels have good SFX but aweful dialog" middle. I mean, for fucks sake, lines like "I don't like sand. It's coarse and rough and irritating and it gets everywhere. Not like here. Here everything is soft and smooth." are impossible to defend.Nick Gillespie | May 20, 2005, 2:00pm | #
Warren,I'm not backtracking from anything. I've yet to meet a Star Wars fan (at least one who is over 10) who likes Return of the Jedi or, same thing, considers it the best of the bunch. Similarly, I don't know that I know any fans--fans, mind you--who would argue that the series has gotten better over time.
And my main point was: None of that--or this back and forth--matters when it comes evaluating the social significance of the franchise.
Dave | May 20, 2005, 2:12pm | #
David-From the NY Times:
All of which calls into question Mr. Lucas's decision to have the premiere of the "Star Wars" finale at the Cannes Film Festival. France is sometimes called the biggest blue state of all, after all. And just what was Mr. Lucas - who could not be reached for comment Wednesday - thinking when he told a Cannes audience that he had not realized in plotting the film years ago that fact might so closely track his fiction?
Alluding to Michael Moore's remarks about "Fahrenheit 9/11" at Cannes a year earlier, Mr. Lucas joked, "Maybe the film will waken people to the situation."
Apparently in all seriousness, though, he went on to say that he had first devised the "Star Wars" story during the Vietnam War. "The parallels between what we did in Vietnam and what we're doing in Iraq now are unbelievable," he told an appreciative audience.
By the way, it seems that we now have at least 2 Daves and 1 David on this thread.
TheDumbFish | May 20, 2005, 2:37pm | #
Nick,I am a fan and I like ROTJ. But you're right, it was my least favorite of the original trilogy. Also, I think that Episode 1-2 are worse than any of the original movies.
I agree with Warren. Your column reeks of condescension. Don't condescend me, man. I'll fuck'in kill ya. I didn't realize that it had anything to do with evaluating the social significance of the franchise.
e-celt | May 20, 2005, 2:40pm | #
Look, I don't think for a moment that(Lucas' intentions aside) Bush = Palaptine. But the lines about the lust for acquiring and retaining power are almost undeniably true. Those exercising power bear watching with a healthy dose of mistrust, even when they are acting in accordance with our political preferences.Cinematically, I'll give the movie a B-.
Warren | May 20, 2005, 2:45pm | #
OK here's the overly wordy version of my point. I'm not suggesting that SW has not been on a steady downward trajectory. (However, while I haven't seen Sith, the reviews are overwhelmingly more favorable than for eps 1 & 2). I was like 13 when the first SW hit the screens. I was so wowed by it that I insisted my parents come see it with me the following week (sheesh, what a nerd). I hated Empire because it ended with "to be continued…" and with three years between episodes, I was pissed. By the time Phantom hit the screens I had grown to middle age, but the script seemed to be dumbed down from the Original Trilogy.Anyway Nick's main point is, that we Americans revel in the Star Wars hegemony, despite the fact that the films are crap. Not "so-so", not "declining over time", CRAP. Nick needs the films to be unwatchable for his greater thesis to work, i.e. "They're crap, but Star Wars is more than the film, more even than all the hype and merchandise and fanatics. It's a cultural phenomenon with a life of it's own that colors and shapes our world. So even though the films are crap we can still enjoy them." The general shittyness of the films is so essential to Nick that he asserts it over and over again. Often insisting that it's, generally accepted, or universally agreed upon. But this meme is simply not so. Even Phantom and Clones, while the most disliked of the SW saga, were overall favorably reviewed.
Nick,
You are definitely attempting "plausible deniability". You are asserting that you didn't mean anything more than the franchise has diminished over time. I think I have established that this position is untenable.
Warren | May 20, 2005, 2:57pm | #
Oh and,You don't know any fans that like Jedi!? Well there are millions and millions of them. In fact, damn near all Star Wars fans like the film, which in no way even resembles saying that they like it best.
David | May 20, 2005, 3:22pm | #
Dave,I don't see anything in that article that can be construed as Lucas deliberately creating a piece of anti-Bush propaganda. The character (I guess) that Bush tracks most closely with is Palpatine (as Anakin is a puppet in all this), but it's clear in the film released 6 years ago that he was using manufacted wars to become chancellor and gain "emergency powers".
Lucas must've hit it pretty close to the mark to get conservatives all riled up like that,
huh kid? (please pardon the lame quote).
I think it's comical that the people(liberal and conservatives alike)in this so-called culture war need to make everthing, even something as innocuous as a popcorn movie, a political issue. All I care about is whether I'm entertained for my 8.75. Why does anything else matter?
Ken Shultz | May 20, 2005, 3:46pm | #
In terms of meaningful discussion, these Star Wars geeks are worse than torture apologists.The Dance of the Ewoks subtracted significantly from the franchise, and if you liked the Dance of the Ewoks, then your taste sucks. Anyone who likes the Dance of the Ewoks or the Return of the Jedi is a double dumb ass who in a healthy society will and should be condescended to.
...Once you get older and you've had a chance to work your way through a couple of books, or maybe seen a few movies that don't involve lasers, magic or dancing teddy bears, you may find that your taste has matured. Until then, don't be surprised if people laugh at you when you spout your hamster dance lovin' opinion in public.
Warren | May 20, 2005, 4:10pm | #
Ken,Your comments regarding the Dance of the Ewoks, are disturbingly reminiscent of John Derbyshirer's thoughts on sodomy.
Tim Cavanaugh | May 20, 2005, 4:18pm | #
I think I have established that this position is untenable.Warren, the only thing you've established is that you're an out-of-the-closet Ewok lover.
Pro Libertate | May 20, 2005, 4:56pm | #
You know, I don't hate Return of the Jedi. It's unquestionably the weakest of the first three movies, but it has its good points. Heck, one of my favorite moments in the whole franchise is when Luke tosses aside his lightsaber and says, "Never. I'll never turn to the Dark Side. I'm a Jedi, like my father before me." Which, incidentally, hits on the reasons people like these movies as much as they do--pure good, pure evil, adventure, even redemption. Nice stuff, especially when we seem to be approaching infinite cynicism (and that's just here at Hit and Run).Pro Libertate | May 20, 2005, 5:01pm | #
I freakin' hate the Ewoks, incidentally. Fortunately, I can find solace in their almost certain demise as a species. Lucas must've been smoking Jedi peyote when he had little furry runts defeating armored, heavily armed soldiers. He should've either stuck with the original idea of Wookies kicking butt, or he should've had some overt use of the Force by the stupid furballs. Egad, just thinking of the hang-gliding Ewok makes me want to turn to the Dark Side.Ken Shultz | May 20, 2005, 5:07pm | #
"Your comments regarding the Dance of the Ewoks, are disturbingly reminiscent of John Derbyshirer's thoughts on sodomy."John Derbyshirer's taste sucks too. ...and I make fun of it in public at every opportunity.
Jason Sonenshein | May 20, 2005, 7:12pm | #
So i guess if Bush is the Emperor, that makes Bin Laden Yoda and Saddam Luke Skywalker? And the World Trade Center....well that must be the Death Star.Dave, are you saying that anyone who expresses concern about the dangers of trading freedom for security is on the side of the terrorists? That sounds like something an enemy of freedom would say.
Stevo Darkly | May 20, 2005, 7:40pm | #
I heard somwhere that Lucas invented the Ewoks because he originally wanted to go back to the Wookiee planet, but didn't have the budget to create mobs of full-sized Wookiees.Mark Borok | May 20, 2005, 9:35pm | #
I liked all five of the movies I've seen so far and expect to like the sixth. I don't see them as six separate movies anyway, but one really long one.Things I like: the fate of the universe hinges on Luke's decision to put his entire faith in his father's redeemability. Sort of like Gandalf putting the faith of Middle Earth on a hobbit. Luke does this against the advice of his wise mentors and ends up being right.
The fact that, in keeping with the Buddhist philosophy at the films' core, holding on to the people you love is not a Good Thing. In this the Star Wars films give all our society's platitudes the finger and upset our dearest preconceptions. Luke shouldn't have gone to Bespin to rescue his friends. Anakin shouldn't have gone back to rescue his mother. The scene where he massacres an entire camp of unarmed Tusken raiders is one of the most powerful I've ever seen in this kind of movie (i.e. the escapist kind). No other filmmaker would put his hero in a position where he does something so horrible (killing unarmed, helpless opponents) for reasons with which we can completely sympathize (they killed his mother). There's nothing monstrous about the things that push Anakin to become Vader, just the kinds of emotions we all experience.
I also liked the subtlety of the Republic's transformation into the Empire. Not a coup by a gaggle of fascists, but a carefully engineered poltiical game manipulating the well-intentioned senate. I found it kind of mind-blowing to see the storm troopers appear as the rescuers of the Jedi in the second film. It's much more complex than what I would have expected from this kind of film.
Fortunately I was able to mentally edit out Jar Jar, Hayden, the stupid Battle Droids and the midichlorians.
And few directors can still do an action scene as clearly and excitingly as Lucas. In most films I lose track of what's going on very quickly.
Ken Shultz | May 20, 2005, 11:29pm | #
I've seen several religious traditions attributed to Star Wars--it seems a Manichean universe to me.