![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
kjpepperRight. So I actually liked it, or at least was reasonably satisfied with how it ended. It's not going to win any awards, except probably for effects, in which case it's probably deserved, but I did have fun watching it.
Stuff I enjoyed:
Stuff I made fun of, at least in my own head:
Stuff that annoyed me:
One more thing. Unless you are one of those people who go to the movies and expect to experience it as if no one else is in the theater, go now. I do think the prequels benefit from a sold out crowd of screaming fans yelling comments and applauding when Yoda shakes his can of whupass. That way, even if you don't end up liking it, you will have at least had fun.
So. That is my $0.02. Now the rant.
I'm coming to believe more and more lately that movies and miniseries shouldn't be made out of books and/or comics. Now this will not stop me from seeing The Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe (that trailer kicks even more ass on a 70mm screen), Harry Potter 4, The Fantastic 4, or anything else that's coming out in the near future that looks vaguely blockbustery....
But anyway my theory: I can see two reasons: a) I've been noticing that a goof half of the big movies out there are based on something else or a remake of a previous movie, and so I think the ability of the American movie industry to come up with something fantastic and original is getting seriously stunted. With the exception of Pixar, that is. Hell, they may be the last bastion of creative original storytelling out there.
b) movies based on other media have serious baggage known as fans. Usually rabid in nature and guaranteed to be less than 100% pleased with what you've done to their precioussssssssssssss... memory of the story? is that what I'm going at here? The Star Wars prequels sort of count with these in that they're expanding on a preexisting mythos and story with a tremendous following, so it's up there with Lord of the Rings, etc.
It's mostly b) that's been getting to me lately. On one hand, it's impossible to turn books into movies and not lose something in translation, they are two very different ways of telling a story. One relies on your imagination to complete the experience; imagining characters voices, what they look like (except in the case of comics), what the world around them looks like... the other actually presents it to you fully formed. This is the part where movies fail to do most books justice, since every person experiences a book differently and with a movie everyone's given the same data and all you really can do at the end is form an opinion about it. Take HG2G - that had so much fan baggage attached to it (hi, serious cult following) that I think it was doomed to disappoint everyone on some level, whether it's something as simple as leaving a detail out (movies are slavishly limited by their runtimes) to disagreeing with everything about the movie cause it doesn't mesh with the version in your head at all.
The issue eventually becomes less of whether it was a good movie or not and more of can it be forgiven for its flaws. In the case of LOTR, I think the case was mostly yes, but even though it's quite obvious that everyone involved with LOTR had the greatest respect for Tolkien's material and did their utmost to stay true to the books, there were still liberties taken, scenes cut or rewritten, blah blah blah schmoo. "It's a good movie," a friend of mine once said about the Two Towers. "I just wish it wasn't called "Lord of the Rings: the Two Towers. 'Cause it isn't." Another friend didn't like the latest movie incarnation of the book Tuck Everlasting on film because she felt that the movie completely ignored the fact that the book's language had a certain flow to it. So what ends up happening when movies are made based on beloved books is that the movie gets judged on how good of an interpretation of the preexisting story it is rather than as a movie on its own merit. Actually what's probably closer to the truth is how closely does a movie mesh up with the vision of the story in each individual fan's head?
What's kind of unfortunate is that, again, mostly excepting LOTR, moviemakers have started to depend on just the audience they always ends up disappointing, filling the movie in question with in-jokes and self-reference (aka, fanservice) until the movie doesn't stand on its own at all, and the more popular the source material, the more likely it is that the very source material is needed to even begin to "get" the movie. I think that's the essential problem with the three Star Wars prequels. As individual movies, they don't stand on their own like the first three did, and movies should always be nice cohesive wholes in their own rights, even if they are sequels. Don't get me started about the Matrix sequels, but interestingly enough its a campy adventure story that I think is the best example of how sequels should be - that would be the three Mummy movies with Brendan Frasier. Not that he's in the third one, which, I'm rather ashamed to admit is my favorite of the three, but that could just be 'cause The Rock does it for me, especially in hair extensions.
But I'm digressing a bit. My essential point, I guess, is that movies based on preexisting material do not and cannot be judged on their own merits as movies - they have to live in the shadow of their sources, and the connection individual people have to said sources.
In retrospect, and considering the well hyped polarization of fans into those that like the prequels and those that hate them... I think my stance is that they shouldn't have been made, especially not a decade and a half after Return of the Jedi, time enough to develop the ever present cult following. Again, the original trilogy stands on it's own, and it would have been better for us to imagine what exactly happened to turn an idealistic Jedi named Anakin Skywalker (NOT ANNIE! DUMBEST NICKNAME EVAR. JESUS.) into the twisted evil bit of asthmatic metal with the distinctive orchestral theme song and the voice of Verizon we all know and love... rather than have been told.
All rants and reviews aside, I'm PMSing and homicidal and tonight was weird and off kilter since I arrived at Cinemark. Though bitching at great length above helped, I'm still kinda pissed off around the edges and feeling like the whole long spewage behind the LJ cut is simply me overcompensating because at the beginning of credit rolls I was like "ok, mostly that was kinda cool" - and then three credits later feeling intensely stupid for having that opinion. It's so messed up, all it takes is one negative comment sometimes for me to not enjoy something I like/love as much as I did before someone had to poop on my world... And yes I know I should just suck it up, grow a spine, and deal with the fact that other people are entitled to their opinion as well...
Anyway. Please treat the Andee as you would an impact trigger bomb until further notice.
Stuff I enjoyed:
- Yoda kicks ass. That is all I have to say.
- Anakin is way more interesting when he's a youngling killing badass as opposed to mopey whiney petulent bitch. Albeit crying youngling killing badass.
- I'm glad they found a way for Samuel L to go out without looking like a punk. Motherfucker.
- Y'know, I've always liked the character of the Emperor. He's evil, but he's wonderfully good at being evil. You really have to admire masters of their craft, and the fact that he relies on influence, intimidation and manipulation to gain his ends rather than resorting to the famous Mind Tricks wins him super Dark Side Brownie points with me.
- Command 66. Very well and chillingly executed. Pun recognized, but not intended.
- DUDE. That was the Whale Rider girl in the last Naboo shot in the queen makeup! Awesome.
- R2D2 can take care of himself, thank you very much. Someone needs to gently remind C3PO of that.
- Ah, James Earl Jones. You've been missed.
Stuff I made fun of, at least in my own head:
- Was anyone else besides sundart and I reminded of Donkey's line from Shrek about the "boiling lake o' lava" during that last lightsaber duel?
- Similarly, did General Greivous remind anyone else of a Skeksis? I kept expecting him to either mumble about Gelfling or yell "HAAAAKSKEEKAH!!!"
- That scene where Palpatine is working his evil mojo on Anakin and both them and the camera are slowly circling a small space? I so wanted to yell "just buttfuck him already!" I mean, jeez, could you get more homosocial than that? Turn to the power of the Dark Side, Annie - turn gay!
- Suuuuuuuuuuuuure, Lucas wasn't intentionally commenting on the current political sitch, especially not with the "thunderous applause" comment by Padme.
- Count Dookie. Sorry, Dooku, has got to be the silliest name for a bad guy.
- What Jar Jar was thinking during his cameo: "Meesa no get to speak in this movie? Awww." *pout*
Stuff that annoyed me:
- Lucas can neither direct, nor write convincing dialog. Some of the scenes between Anakin and Padme were just painful on the level of "When you look into Mary Jane's eyes..." Ai ya.
- ... of course that could just be that I've hated Natalie Portman since she sprouted boobs and decided to become an uptight preachy little bitch.
- Big whooping continuity error. Leia remembers her real mother in Return of the Jedi. It's an even bigger oversight if you read the book. Of course maybe the midichorians gave her those memories in vitro or something. */snark*
- CG still doesn't look quite as good as the miniatures used in the first three. Everything just looks... too clean and pretty.
- It needed more Wookies. And just how did Yoda know Chewbacca? other than his crotch getting all cozy with the back of Chewie's neck for a bit there.
side note: Y'know, with all the insane Star Wars merchandise tie-ins in the past month, I'm REALLY surprised they don't have Wookies pushing Pantene. They're always so... shiny. - One of the things that bothered me about all three of the prequels is that the scale of the story is too big to have much of a focus, and there are too many characters and political subtexts junking up the story... they sort of play like the History Channel. On top of that, Lucas got too focussed on the technology to the point where it ruled the story rather than aided it, and clearly they're put in because they look cool - armies of battle droids of various types, racing pods, more ship classes and gadgets than you can shake a stick at, the sleek transports and architecture of Coruscant... I don't know. I like the sort of beat up, homegrown low budget look of the first two Star Wars movies, where nothing was CGed, armies consisted of a thousand extras tricked out in white plastic stormtrooper gear, and since there weren't obscenely grandiose battles going on, the story only focused on a handful of characters that got a chance to develop, mature some, and form or maintain convincing relationships with the rest of the characters. I think the first cast of Star Wars actually benefited from the fact that there wasn't all this techie wizardry around to tell the story for them.
One more thing. Unless you are one of those people who go to the movies and expect to experience it as if no one else is in the theater, go now. I do think the prequels benefit from a sold out crowd of screaming fans yelling comments and applauding when Yoda shakes his can of whupass. That way, even if you don't end up liking it, you will have at least had fun.
So. That is my $0.02. Now the rant.
I'm coming to believe more and more lately that movies and miniseries shouldn't be made out of books and/or comics. Now this will not stop me from seeing The Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe (that trailer kicks even more ass on a 70mm screen), Harry Potter 4, The Fantastic 4, or anything else that's coming out in the near future that looks vaguely blockbustery....
But anyway my theory: I can see two reasons: a) I've been noticing that a goof half of the big movies out there are based on something else or a remake of a previous movie, and so I think the ability of the American movie industry to come up with something fantastic and original is getting seriously stunted. With the exception of Pixar, that is. Hell, they may be the last bastion of creative original storytelling out there.
b) movies based on other media have serious baggage known as fans. Usually rabid in nature and guaranteed to be less than 100% pleased with what you've done to their precioussssssssssssss... memory of the story? is that what I'm going at here? The Star Wars prequels sort of count with these in that they're expanding on a preexisting mythos and story with a tremendous following, so it's up there with Lord of the Rings, etc.
It's mostly b) that's been getting to me lately. On one hand, it's impossible to turn books into movies and not lose something in translation, they are two very different ways of telling a story. One relies on your imagination to complete the experience; imagining characters voices, what they look like (except in the case of comics), what the world around them looks like... the other actually presents it to you fully formed. This is the part where movies fail to do most books justice, since every person experiences a book differently and with a movie everyone's given the same data and all you really can do at the end is form an opinion about it. Take HG2G - that had so much fan baggage attached to it (hi, serious cult following) that I think it was doomed to disappoint everyone on some level, whether it's something as simple as leaving a detail out (movies are slavishly limited by their runtimes) to disagreeing with everything about the movie cause it doesn't mesh with the version in your head at all.
The issue eventually becomes less of whether it was a good movie or not and more of can it be forgiven for its flaws. In the case of LOTR, I think the case was mostly yes, but even though it's quite obvious that everyone involved with LOTR had the greatest respect for Tolkien's material and did their utmost to stay true to the books, there were still liberties taken, scenes cut or rewritten, blah blah blah schmoo. "It's a good movie," a friend of mine once said about the Two Towers. "I just wish it wasn't called "Lord of the Rings: the Two Towers. 'Cause it isn't." Another friend didn't like the latest movie incarnation of the book Tuck Everlasting on film because she felt that the movie completely ignored the fact that the book's language had a certain flow to it. So what ends up happening when movies are made based on beloved books is that the movie gets judged on how good of an interpretation of the preexisting story it is rather than as a movie on its own merit. Actually what's probably closer to the truth is how closely does a movie mesh up with the vision of the story in each individual fan's head?
What's kind of unfortunate is that, again, mostly excepting LOTR, moviemakers have started to depend on just the audience they always ends up disappointing, filling the movie in question with in-jokes and self-reference (aka, fanservice) until the movie doesn't stand on its own at all, and the more popular the source material, the more likely it is that the very source material is needed to even begin to "get" the movie. I think that's the essential problem with the three Star Wars prequels. As individual movies, they don't stand on their own like the first three did, and movies should always be nice cohesive wholes in their own rights, even if they are sequels. Don't get me started about the Matrix sequels, but interestingly enough its a campy adventure story that I think is the best example of how sequels should be - that would be the three Mummy movies with Brendan Frasier. Not that he's in the third one, which, I'm rather ashamed to admit is my favorite of the three, but that could just be 'cause The Rock does it for me, especially in hair extensions.
But I'm digressing a bit. My essential point, I guess, is that movies based on preexisting material do not and cannot be judged on their own merits as movies - they have to live in the shadow of their sources, and the connection individual people have to said sources.
In retrospect, and considering the well hyped polarization of fans into those that like the prequels and those that hate them... I think my stance is that they shouldn't have been made, especially not a decade and a half after Return of the Jedi, time enough to develop the ever present cult following. Again, the original trilogy stands on it's own, and it would have been better for us to imagine what exactly happened to turn an idealistic Jedi named Anakin Skywalker (NOT ANNIE! DUMBEST NICKNAME EVAR. JESUS.) into the twisted evil bit of asthmatic metal with the distinctive orchestral theme song and the voice of Verizon we all know and love... rather than have been told.
All rants and reviews aside, I'm PMSing and homicidal and tonight was weird and off kilter since I arrived at Cinemark. Though bitching at great length above helped, I'm still kinda pissed off around the edges and feeling like the whole long spewage behind the LJ cut is simply me overcompensating because at the beginning of credit rolls I was like "ok, mostly that was kinda cool" - and then three credits later feeling intensely stupid for having that opinion. It's so messed up, all it takes is one negative comment sometimes for me to not enjoy something I like/love as much as I did before someone had to poop on my world... And yes I know I should just suck it up, grow a spine, and deal with the fact that other people are entitled to their opinion as well...
Anyway. Please treat the Andee as you would an impact trigger bomb until further notice.
