Captain Marin
-
Posts
104 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Blog Comments posted by Captain Marin
-
-
Well, first for a movie which was dedicated to the character development of Anakin (presumably? it's hard to really see a clear theme in the movie), this was all done incredibly poorly.
The original trilogy was about the characters and their development. The audience feels connected to the characters and has a reason to care about them. The action supports this, it supports their development, and the reason I care about the movies is the story/characters.
How many people have you heard say that any of the prequels are wonderful because of the character depth (lol) or story? Your entire support is about individual components which were in effect the only value of the movies. There was minimal (at best) character development, the dialogue/story was boring as hell, and the only reason the movies can be considered worth watching is the action scenes and/or CGI.
You see a whiney kid go through... exactly the path you expect him to go, becoming evil. Go figure, this isn't suspenseful or dramatic at all. I don't care when Anakin becomes Vader because he is never shown to have redeeming qualities whatsoever. There's no internal battle, I'm never given a "why should I care" answer about Anakin.
None of the characters in any of the prequel have any depth whatsoever, which makes sense because they were pawns in the "oooh CGI is cool, I'm gonna use as much of it as possible!" production style.
Connection is one of the reasons why I felt sympathy for Anakin instead of agony and pleading against the antagonist; the poor guy is being forced to choose between love and accomplishment. Anakin was an outcast from the Jedi Council and was not liked upon them neither (besides Obi-Wan). Palpatine is basically the only person (besides Padme) that has recognized Anakin's skills and complimented along with them. Which side would you rather pick, the pure side where love and fatherhood is prohibited, or the evil side that allows you to peacefully cherish moments with your wife along with comfortably raising your own children without fear of banishment.
No one, basically, because about 80 percent of the Star Wars Community denies to view Episode III for what it is for. And I am only justifying the great depth of Revenge of the Sith, not the prequels as a whole (although they did connect the puzzles towards Episode III wonderfully). The Original Trilogy also had a lot of problems themselves such as the Emperor and Lord Vader's absence of sensing the presence of Vader's lost children and the remaining Jedi through the usage of the force, or what about an 18-year old (with the slightest of experience compared to the other pilots) being the only one diminishing the terrifying Death Star. Do I even need to go on about the wide variety of clumsy Storm Troopers being outsmarted by hairy Tarzans? Although the Originals provides a great story, they have issues just as much as the Prequels had. The only reason why the Prequels are bashed mostly about is because it is a recent addition to the Star Wars saga, I have 10 dollars that you will be one (among many) complaining how J.J. Abrams is a poor sci-fi director while regretting Disney ever produced Episode VII.
Lol, Luke was an exact, whiny teenager that complained all assignments his uncle gave to him and couldnt care less about his own relatives he supposedly cared for and loved (evident by his reaction to their deaths). The only part of the trilogy I felt true emotion is Darth Vader informing Luke that he is his father and the victory of the Battle of Endor.
Obviously, you need to remind yourself that the Prequels were created to introduce Star Wars to a new generation for the sake of their own survival, not for the discrepancy of the average, adult fan. George Lucas did try to lessen the CGI and use the same effects he has in the Originals, but it all resulted in a major backlash that proved outdated (i.e. Episode I). George had to use CGI to express the beauty of the Republic before the awful totalitarian state of the Empire. He had to express how beautiful and glorious the Republic was to root for the wonders and liberties democracy brought towards this universe. How was he supposed to create this beautiful, great republic with the same effects used in the Original Trilogy? CGI was the only logical way to go, not to mention how Star Wars would be improved upon the eyes of the new generation if expressed.
-
I'm not discussing this any further until you watch Plinkett's review of Revenge of the Sith. Take it or leave it.
I deny to view a biased opinion that centers in comedy and humiliation (Im assuming) instead of viewing the movie with depth and core criticism. If you are redirecting me to another person to convince me Episode III is a horrible movie, then it is clear that you, yourself, have admitted to fail in the wondrous powers of persuasion. My opinion is mine to believe, I am not forcing you to have my same opinions, nor am I expecting to be convinced by the use of inaccuracy and exaggeration.
-
I cannot tell if you are trolling or serious.
I am being serious. Yes, every movie does indeed contain its own flaws but I believe Episode III is the strongest of all of the Star Wars films. Maybe it is because Episode III was released during my childhood and Im a sucker for dark movies, emotion, politics, lightsaber battles, and special effects, but Episode III is a great movie with a fantastic story that honored the legacy of the Original Trilogy by the use of easter eggs and cameos (in my opinion). If you think otherwise, feel free to compose
-
TBH I side more with the original trilogy fans.
IV-VI had evident flaws, some of which (special effects) were acceptable for the time and others were acceptable for a movie that wanted to give adventure, action and romance and to satisfy a large public (and not only Sci-Fi nerds); other flaws were just unredeemable. But overall it had an epic undertone which united the trilogy and which gave sense to the story. They were memorable.
I'll here disagree with Crymson that the original trilogy had much of character growth/evolution - or that much more than the prequels - but that is not a flaw IMHO because an epic story shouldn't particularly develop characters, but rather represent them vividly. Which the original trilogy did pretty well.
The prequels were just... I can't even say what they were because they didn't left any lasting impression on me. I confusedly remember them being excessively complicated and full of movement and details - hey maybe it's just me being older lol... - but seriously: they had a lot of "stuff" that wasn't there to support the story and that often hadn't any comprehensible reason to be there at all. they were mostly just a lot of filler with some content here and there.
Jar Jar Binks had nothing to do with Star Wars, but I weirdly liked it because at least it provided a grip on an otherwise completely elusive and meaningless, supposedly "epic" story. Thanks to Jar Jar you could at least watch Episode I pretending that it was just a kids movie, and enjoy it in some way. Which is what I ended up doing to survive that situation.
Episode III was definitely better, especially because Ewan McGregor (Obi Wan) finally got around his character, and even more because of the larger and more important part played by McDiarmid (Palpatine), which performed admirably. But overall all that salvaged it in the sense of being an epic story is basically what linked it to the original trilogy.
I don't know if my comment makes sense... I suppose I am just trying to say that the original trilogy managed to be epic - as in telling the story of heroes that end up saving a world - despite the other factors that could have ruined it. The prequels had their epic buried under too much fluff that wasn't necessary and that just distracted the audience from the main point.
I am not particularly pro the originals (save for the youth I had when I first saw them, I suppose) or against the prequels, anyway. These last are overall even decent, IMHO, especially if you don't expect them to be anything like the original trilogy and you can appreciate the special effects, the landscapes, the palaces etc. even when the script is insufficient.
What I most blame Lucas for are stuff like replacing, back in the original movie, Shaw with Christensen and Guinnes with McGregor (seriously Lucas, WTF?). Or trying to force some white-knighting on Han Solo, ex-post, in a terribad and horrorific (and anyway failed) pathetic attempt at "political correctness".
Seriously, Han shot first.
I mean to say this earlier:
+1
This is how one is supposed to review a film(s). Produce criticism that is not filled with such ignorance and exaggeration. I agree with everything you have just said, but my belief on Episode III still remains the same since it is a movie that develops its own kind of feel instead of sticking to the same-old, same-old Original trilogy feel. Not that I am saying that the Originals were a complete trainwreck and that I despise that sort of tone in a piece of cinema, but it is that watching the same story being told with the same elements that gets boring to me. Episode III took its own path and I loved the dark, emotional path it took. I agree, it does not produce the same elements as the Originals but it instead creates its own and that is what I love in a movie when belonging to a franchise: originality.
-
Masterpieces? BAHAHAHAHAAHAHHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAYour post is so chock-full of arrogant stupidity that I won't even bother responding to it. Your explanation of Padme's death was the only part that I found entertaining. Apparently being choked for 15 seconds means death. That's funny. Anyway, the movie itself and literally every canonical Star Wars source out there disagrees with you, but since it's obvious that you're an egotist, it doesn't surprise me that you continue to argue the point anyway.
In other words, you're unwilling to watch these highly-touted masterpieces because they disagree with your views. Got it.
I love how you justify your absence of personal opinion by reading the opinions of others, calling them masterpieces, accuse me of a stupid, arrogant being when it is you who is taking my opinion so damn personal. And here's the kicker, you claim that it is my stupidity that chocks you up in posting a full length, rational post when in reality, you have suffered a dose of writer's block because you have failed to counter the BS you call a belief that is not even original. Here is a bright idea, develop your own opinion instead of having others develop them for ya and stop insulting whomever disagrees with you. I did not call you any names. I did not say your opinion was arrogant yet somehow, these kinds of conflicts always winds up with me taking 90 percent of the fault by simply defending myself. Do not insult the person, insult the idea.
-
Anakin was fooled into becoming evil. Palpatine manipulated him (in unbelievable manner) to believe that Padme would die in childbirth otherwise, with Palpatine himself being the only one who could keep it from happening. The cost of Palpatine supposedly saving Padme was that Anakin turn to the dark side. Palpatine's single bit of leverage was the visions that he introduced to Anakin's dreams. Anakin was an unbelievably stupid character who fell for a ruse concocted by a guy whose kind was legendary for its lies and deceit.
The story depended on Anakin being a moron.
Padme died of a broken heart. The medical droid outright said that there was nothing medically life-threatening, and that she was dying because she had lost the will to live. This is an indisputable point, so don't bother arguing about it.
This is the typical refrain from people who were born closer to the prequels than to the original series, and who grew up exposed to the flashy battles and special effects that the prequels provided. Kids tend to favor war and flashy things to actual storytelling. I'm not saying that this is you, but this is the general reasoning behind the words of those who simply cannot appreciate a good story---nor, for that matter, any story that is not filled with CGI.
The effects were revolutionary for their time. More, they were used properly: as a supplement to the story. In an interview from way back when, Lucas openly said that special effects could not make a movie. He apparently forgot this in the interim.
The power of the original trilogy is that unlike the horrid story in the prequels, it told a yarn more than sufficiently interesting to keep people emotionally involved. The characters were excellent, and audiences became invested in them. The special effects are more than good enough, even today.
Oh, so you've finally resorted to the typical method of those who believe the prequel trilogy to be superior: accusing me of being hidebound. Quit the ad hominems, please; I could just as easily accuse you of being a foolish youngster incapable of recognizing a good story and instead merely interested in special effects. The prequel trilogy had an atrocious story rife with awful, unbelievable characters, and was little more than a platform upon which Lucas could utilize his new CGI technology. That is why I disliked it, so spare me the crap. Episode I was an abomination, Episode II only slightly less so, and Episode III is considered the best of the trilogy purely by stint of it being the least flawed.
As for the idea that Revenge of the Sith is "darker," that was not the point of the trilogy from the beginning. Lucas felt compelled to take that direction after the overwhelmingly negative reaction to the first film and the lukewarm reception received by the second. And if you think that Empire isn't dark, then I don't know what to tell you.
I find it funny that you cite the final Senate scene as a powerful moment, given that it's a microcosm of how plainly imbecilic almost every single character in the series is (this was necessary in order for the plot to proceed). Plinkett, who created extremely intelligent and thoughtful (not to mention hilarious) for all three movies, sums up that scene very well:
Yes, the prequel trilogy created its own mold. That was George Lucas taking full control of every single aspect of the series' direction, with absolutely no oversight. He even wrote the entire script for each movie by himself, and was the single mind behind hideous characters such as Jar Jar Binks. Gary Kurtz once said that Lucas tends to get rid of people who disagree with him, and this absolutely shows in the prequel series. Suffice it to say that I'm very glad Lucas will not have creative control over the next trilogy.
I'll leave you with the suggestion that you watch Plinkett's reviews of the prequels. They have rightly become quite famous and will be very eye-opening for you. http://redlettermedia.com/plinkett/star-wars/
It rather depends on how you perceive the storyline since I do not view the movie as if I am a consumer in a movie theater, I view it by putting myself in the exact position the main character is in and as much as you despise the prequels, I believe that Episode III surpasses the Originals because of the emotion, drastic improvement, great storyline, and passion exuded into this piece of cinema. It tells the rise of Darth Vader fantastically, and takes towards its own direction rather than duplicating those same elements towards a new age (such as Episode I). You need to remember it is a new day, a new generation. In order to keep Star Wars alive, George has needed to introduce Star Wars to a style the new generation that sees fit along with blending in some influences by the loyal community. Anakin was not a stupid character at all, you thought of him as a stupid character since you knew the Emperor's scheme and was well aware Palpatine was the Dark Lord. How is Anakin going to choose his dreams as a Jedi Warrior over the mother of his child(ren)? How is Anakin going to stay loyal to the Order when all the Order has done is diminish his confidence ,left him out, and prohibit him from having any type of emotion? How was Anakin going to be aware of Palpatine's schemes when the Force has been darkly clouded towards the Jedi by a Sith Lord as noticed by Master Yoda during Episode II?
Padme did not die a broken heart (she has metaphorically). Vader force-choked a pregnant woman who was minutes before delivery, how was she going to survive child birth? Hell, she's lucky to even see her children alive! The doctors did not possess any knowledge of Vader force-choking Padme half to death, thus they did not know how they were losing her.
I have sufficiently explained how Episode III produces a great story while reciting the lack of emotion of the Originals. Overall, the Original trilogy was indeed greater than the Prequels, but individually, Episode III reigns over them all. It is not due to ignorance, it is because I do not comfort myself into a "Old School always does it better", it is because I establish my own opinions rather than depending on the masses and the ignorant internet philosophies created upon by ignorant rejects that fail to view the opinion a different point of view from theirs to at least understand why their opponent believes so. You are telling me that the Prequels were an absolute trainwreck and I say to you that it does not because I , independently, have established this opinion of mine and observe movies with more depth and logic rather than judging what is on the big screen. I like dark movies. I like movies with special effects. I also love a great story to accompany those elements and Episode III has filled up those gaps. Is there needless to say more? I believe so but why should I prove my opinion and myself towards you and every one of these !@#$* that take my opinion (and myself) as a joke. Society is to not say what I like. Fanboys ,like you, will never be satisfied and will be complaining how Star Wars Episode VII was a horrid film and how J.J. Abrams is a terrible director no matter how good it is because old school is always better than new school, right?
-
Mr. Plinkett's review is much more enjoyable to watch than the movie itself.
Absolutely.
Reviews are for idiots that cannot make up their minds about a certain objective. Earn your own beliefs and stop depending on ignorant, no-life, journalist-rejected assfaults for ya.
-
Episode III is terrible, just like the other two films in the prequel trilogy; and if it did inspire emotion in me, then that emotion was frustration---frustration at how awful the movie was, and how plainly inept George Lucas is when left entirely to his own devices. The plot of Episode III was one giant hole, a black hole that sucked everything else into it. Palpatine's plan was ridiculously convoluted, made little sense, was predicated upon the proper conclusion of a legion of uncertain outcomes, and depended entirely upon the unconscionable, unbelievable stupidity of almost every single notable character in the series.
And how did it end? Akakin was tricked into becoming evil; he did not turn to the dark side because he was seduced by its power, but rather because he was fooled by Palpatine into believing that Padme would die otherwise. Yep, Anakin willingly left behind all of his lifetime of training and every one of his friends---many of whom he went on to murder---entirely on the power a series of obscure dreams and the claim of a Sith Lord whose kind was known for its evilness and duplicity. He then went on to do everything the guy told him, again for no apparent reason. Did I mention, too, that his character was spoiled, pretentious, and intolerably whiny, and thus completely unlikable, and played by a terrible actor to boot? I found Anakin distasteful and annoying, and thus his fall, which Lucas meant to be tragic, held no emotion whatsoever for me; for one to be a tragic character, one needs to be liked by the audience first, and Lucas failed utterly at making this happen.
Then Padme, who was surely one of the most bland, featureless characters ever to inhabit an entire trilogy of movies, died of a broken heart, a trilogy-ending premise so immensely ludicrous that it could only Lucas could have actually put it into a movie; no director worth his or her salts would ever dare to do such a thing. The guy couldn't whip up an ending that even made a bit of sense, so he settled with this, an ending outright insulting to the fans: Padme died because she just couldn't handle breaking up with her secret husband. Gee, wow, what a strong character! Again, no emotion: her character lacked any emotional appeal, and thus I didn't particularly care when she died.
The single part of the movie that was even remotely emotionally jarring was when Anakin slaughtered a bunch of kids. This was of interest solely because I was surprised to see such a thing in Star Wars. The rest of the movie constituted the typical deluge of excessive special effects, boring story, and stupid characters.
Did I feel emotion in any of the original movies? Absolutely. I was invested in all of the characters from the start. I felt Luke's loss when Obi-Wan died in A New Hope, and cheered when the heroes defeated the Death Star. The love story between Han and Leia in Empire had depth, and Han being frozen in carbonite was a moving scene. Vader's revelation of his relation to Luke was a genuine surprise, and that movie's end left me wanting to know what would happen next. Return of the Jedi got a bit silly, with the Ewoks and all, but I was nevertheless still emotionally invested in the plight and the ultimate victory of the Rebel forces, and the redemption and death of Vader was a poignant story arc. The ending, though infested with Ewoks, was still heartwarming, and provided a satisfactory end to the series.
Speaking of fleet battles, remember that huge battle at the start of Episode III? You know, the one with all the special effects? Its participants: clones and robots, neither of which the audience had any reason to care about, all the more because everyone knew that Palpatine was in charge of both combatants. Nay, this was merely an avalanche of CGI, and was a microcosm of the prequel trilogy as a whole: Lucas forgot that he had to get the audience emotionally involved, instead opting to base the trilogy primarily on a bonanza of bright lights and shiny images.
If you need more explanation as to why the prequels were horrible, watch Plinkett's reviews.
A) Darth Vader has accordingly followed his master's orders throughout the Original Trilogy. He was basically the Emperor's Pawn because it was the Emperor who accepted him when the Jedi Council denied so. The Emperor was the one who embraced the actual talent and potential Anakin Skywalker has as a warrior and as a person. Sidious was basically the only person who has expressed concern towards Anakin whereas Obi-Wan acted as a no-BS strict parent that has grown ignorant towards any input by his own apprentice and cared for the Jedi Code and the Jedi Council rather than Anakin himself (in Ankin's point of view). The Jedi Code did not allow any type of emotion into a Jedi, being a human, while Anakin and Padme were both in love with each other. Who would you rather pick, the love of your life and the mother of your child(ren) or living your dreams as a Jedi Master of the Council. Anakin did not feel comfortable. Anakin was an outcast of the Jedi and wanted something more than what he has received, so he has turned to the one side that accepted him for being himself - the Dark Side.
B) Padme did not die because of Darth Vader being conceived, she died at child birth (just right after Darth Vader force-choked her to a faint), which was the one vision and nightmare that clouded Anakin's mind with paranoia since his own mother's demise signaled the same type of nightmares and visions Anakin has had towards Padme. He was desperate and he wanted his wife to live longer and not die because Anakin "cannot live without her". That has accomplished to convince the public how much Anakin cares for Padme and loves for her.
C) I awe in irony when you say that you have sunk in emotion while watching the Original Trilogy. Emotion was the single characteristic the Original Trilogy failed to deliver. "My oh my, my uncle and aunt, that has raised me ever since I was a baby, has died. Let me mourn for a couple of minutes and join an old man who I think is a crazy elder. " "Oh, my father has died in my arms while saving my ass from an evil emperor, let me ditch this old fart, save myself and celebrate victory with my friends instead of attempting to save my old man from being burnt and honor his death." Do I even need to talk about Jabba's oh-so merciless "gang", the *sobs* tragic death of Bobba Fett, and the final battle victory of the rebellion? Hell, the clone troopers' strength were equivalent towards of that of Harry Lime and Marv Merchants from Home Alone! Darth Sidious's hunger for power was indeed ludicrous, but rational enough to understand the greed of the Sith and politicians whereas Sidious's plan to create a Death Star (a machine that only destroys one planet and takes up way too many resources to support) was moronic instead of genuine. Sidious's strategy to create an empire was brilliant and do not see how it can be outdone.
D) For one, I have not enjoyed the effects of the Original Trilogy. The plot was epic and the acting was amazing but the issue I had with Episodes IV-VI were the effects and I understand that those effects back then were hailed and highly praised, but in an age where you can bring the world of Coruscant to life and modernize the battles between Clones and Droids, between Jedi Masters and Sith Lords, it would only be deemed logical for Lucas to seize the moment and use the CG as an advantage. I concur that there was an over-excess during Attack of the Clones but it was better moderated in Episode III. Many believe that one of the flaws of Revenge was that it had too many action sequences and I reply with, why wouldn't it be. In a world with lightsabers, lasers, blasters, spaceships, robots, and a recent discovery of a Clone Army, it would be rational that the Republic would take advantage of such sources to use them for their own good. Not to mention that Palpatine's excess of executive, military powers shows how war-hungry and corrupt Palpatine was as the Chancellor. Not to mention the epic lightsaber duels the Prequels perfected.
Put down the damn lightsaber toys from 1977 and for once, break out of that ignorant "Old School will always be better than New School" phase. Episode III might've not remain the same elements of the Original Trilogy, but it created its own. While Phantom contained some cheesy lines and effects as Attack provided boring scenes, Revenge grips the objective and core plot of the movie and ignites it with a flame. George Lucas has demonstrated the tragedy of Anakin Skywalker's fall and Darth Vader's rise. The legendary "So this is how democracy dies, with a thunderous applauds" line and Sidious's rise of power and the birth of Darth Vader demonstrates that such event should not be sugarcoated influenced by the Original Trilogy that it had to take a different, darker direction to make the rise of an empire and the birth of Lord Vader a tragedy. Episode III has not failed to connect the Prequels towards the Originals and the Originals towards the Prequels. You are entitled to your opinion, but for me , Revenge is the epitome of a Star Wars movie.
-
All irrelevant and off-topic comments will be deleted.
-
Star Wars came out in 1977, not 1969.
Episode III is pretty much the only watchable movie from the prequels, which isn't saying much. CGI, when impeccably used, and used to enhance the natural images you see on the screen, can add a depth to a movie that you simply can't replicate without either exorbitant cost, or can't do, period. Look at the LOTR movies for an example of CGI being used as a tool to supplement what is going on, the battle of Helm's Deep being a perfect example, where CGI has taken hundreds of orc warriors and replicated them enough to look like tens of thousands, but doing it so seamlessly you get lost in the battle, and feel like you are actually watching all of those tens of thousands of extras storming the walls.
Consider a movie like the original Star Wars, or Jaws, or Jurassic Park. Why do those movies still hold up today as watchable? The storylines in the case of Jaws or Star Wars aren't that involved, and Jurassic Park was an analog movie coming out in an emerging digitally imaged age. But look at the effects. When you see the X-Wings flying over the death star, they look real, because they are real scale models flying over a real set. There are no blurred lines, no images that stick out as being sharper than their background, or vice versa. Jaws still terrifies because there is a real model there, not a digital image. You know the shark is fake, but it doesn't look fake, and you lose yourself in the terror that the three hunters feel. Same as with Jurassic Park, which in my opinion has the best effects of any movie I've still ever seen. Why? Because when that !@#$@#$ Tyrannosaur peers into the window, it isn't a digital image of it, that I know is fake, no, its a life-size animatronic model that has been finely tuned to act like a real dinosaur, as far as we can imagine them acting. The dinosaurs are more than mere props, they come off as actors, no more or less life-like than the humans playing the hunted roles.
Contrast that to the Star Wars prequels. There is so much CGI going on, and its used to prop up the plot in so many places, used exclusively in many others, and overdone in nearly every sequence of the movie. Half of the characters in the film were drawn digitally, and when they stand next to human characters, they look out of place. There is no thrill in watching fake-looking robots attack fake-looking Gungans, on a fake landscape.
The movies also had pretty silly objectives in a lot of them, silly comparing to how vast and grand the objectives of the original trilogy were. Episode IV was about Luke discovering the force, forming a ragtag team to save Leia with Han and Chewie, and joining up with the outnumbered rebels to destroy the epitome of evil, minutes before they, and their entire rebellion, would be destroyed. That's a plot that, while merely space versions of a lot of old plot devices and cliches, works. Compare it to Episode I, which was about Two Jedis rescuing a princess from a !@#$@#$ trade federation, then accidentally running into the highest potential Jedi in the universe, while people that live underwater fight robots sent to destroy their planet, and in the end there's a big space battle and a pretty epic lightsaber duel. Oh, and I forgot, there was a drag race in the middle for some reason. Things could have been a little tighter, no? Of all the ways to introduce the Star Wars universe, you went with podraces, Gungans, and trade federations?
In its most simple terms, Episode V is about that ragtag team having to split up to find themselves, Luke finding his way to becoming a Jedi, and Han finding his way to escape his past and falling in love. The split-up leads to trouble, and in the end of the movie both are in bleak spots, but they find themselves on the brink of the completion of their quests, and with hope for reuniting in the future. The movie achieves those themes really well, with action coming in smaller spurts interspersed around the movie, and ending with the be-all, end-all lightsaber battle of the Star Wars universe. Episode II could have been just a carbon copy of that with the Han and Luke characters both rolled into Anakin, but spiced up with the dark side stuff. There's Anakin questing to become a Jedi, escape his past, and fall in love, all as he drifts closer to Palpatine. I just think they do it very weakly. These things don't develop, you aren't seeing Anakin exhibiting growth from the beginning of the movie to the end, which is the point of the whole movie, and what made Empire so great. Anakin starts off madly in love with Padme, he starts off as being in the middle of his training, and he starts off at really the same place with regard to who he is as he was at the beginning of the movie, save the important scene where he butchers the Tuskan Raiders. Lucas at this point knows that the audience is aware that Anakin will turn into Darth Vader, that Obi Wan will persevere, that Padme will birth Luke and Leia, so he criminally neglects developing the characters, expecting the audience to just picture in their head how they'll be going from point A to point B, and not caring to present the journey.
Episode VI is the ultimate resolution, although not without flaws of its own. It carries forward the hope from the previous movie, with an exciting rescue with many interesting layers, and reunites the gang. Once together again, the audience braces for what happens when they work together, which is take down the bad guys, and that's exactly what they do. There's definitely a level of corniness in the movie, and you can see Lucas' penchant for odd sidetracks and weird characters that don't really develop the plot much, but it isn't to the Episode I level yet. And, at this point, Lucas had built up so much good will with the first two movies, that you could forgive a lot of that so you could see the story tie up its loose ends and conclude. Episode III has a lot of the same qualities, which is saying that it is the best of the prequels, and Return is the worst of the originals. I agree that the emotion is there. There is no more character developing to do, so Lucas fully abandons it, leaving just working toward resolutions. Seeing Anakin fall to pieces and sever ties with Padme/Jedis, and violently, is the money shot the audience had been waiting for, so we were ready to appreciate the battle scenes, and the finished transformation to Vader. III works in relation to II because whereas Revenge didn't need the character development, and had a more rational, Star Wars universe related storyline, Attack desperately needed character development, and had another one of those trade federation/gungan style "why are they here, couldn't this whole scene have been cut" storylines, that naturally didn't work.
The combat scenes were epic, but the entire trilogy is based around the birth of Darth Vader, don't ignore that in why Revenge works better than the others. The lightsaber battle was the best of the prequels, but the emotional backbone of the third film is Vader's birth, with those who love him (Obi Wan and Padme), powerless to stop it. Padme tries to save his mind using love and affection, and can't. Obi Wan tries to save his mind using force, and can't. To find the true hole in the prequels though, you have to ask yourself, why did Anakin not allow himself to be saved? Why did this boy who felt loyal enough to those who saved him to assist them in destroying people he had no quarrel with, and then later commit to their training, and repay the loyalty from that training to help them win another climactic battle against robot armies, decide to turn against them to the point that love and reason wouldn't be enough to have him even consider not becoming the epitome of evil? He didn't get a seat on the council? He felt that people were working against Palpatine? Are those reasons enough to throw everything and everyone away to kill everything in sight? I just don't get it, and that's why the third movie, and the prequels as a whole, fail miserably.
Fortunately, I do not let a use of CG to ruin the movie (or a trilogy) for me. George Lucas has attempted to use the same element of production he has in the Original Trilogy regarding special effects, and it looked horrid. The same use of special effects Star Wars IV-VI has used was extremely outdated and George Lucas was aware that he needed to add a tad bit of improvement and modernization into his work. To this day, when I see Episode I, it looks like as if it were fan-film instead. Hell, even Star Wars Fan Films were better than that Episode; that is to say how mediocre that movie was. The little boy was uncalled for, Natalie Portman's acting was too wooden, the podrace was unnecessary and too extensive, and Qui-Gonn was definitely underused and was portrayed as a wise, but weak master (His own apprentice was able to kill the adversary that killed him!). I concur that Episode I is the worst of the trilogy but Darth Maul and the Lightsaber Battles saved that movie from being a trainwreck.
For me, a use of CGI does not disturb me. As long as it is better moderated and the effects at least reach decency (not perfection). The story, depth, and the core principles of the story is what grasps my interest more than the CG and that is exactly what Episode III achieved to do. The acting of Hayden Christensen has convinced the public of his internal and external conflict. With having a choice between the love and life of his wife and the Jedi Council's trust and respect, it is no doubt why Anakin became into Lord Vader. Episodes I and II solely cannot stand on its feet (maybe Episode II will stand and cringe a bit), but blend the stories of Phantom Menace and Attack of the Clones with Revenge of the Sith, the core plot of the trilogy does not outweigh the Originals but the strategic rise of a totalitarian Sith is what I consider genuine. Natalie Portman's acting improved, but not as drastically as Hayden's.
Yes, there might be a bit of excess of the CG used in Episode III, but at least be appreciative that the special effects were deemed viewable. George Lucas has attempted to bring back the indie/generic feel of a Star Wars production but Episode I proved that it does not work in a sci-fi movie no longer.
Weakly? The strategy of Darth Sidious's rise to power is one of the most genuine plots I have seen in an antagonist in my lifetime. Darth Sidious used Anakin's love of Padme, his hunger for power, and scarred soul of nonacceptance as a tool, exploited it, and had Anakin evolve into Lord Vader. Sparking a Seperatist/Clone War within his own republic to accomplish insecurity and segregation into the Senate, having the Clone Wars be the reason to gain more executive powers militarily, and framing the Jedi as being a band of evil rebels under secrecy while using Anakin's fears and emotions as a catalyst for the dark side makes this plot epic.
Anakin allowed himself not to be saved because his mind was polluted by love, grief, and fear. George Lucas has excellently displayed the usage of the Jedi's Principles and what occurs when those principles are ignored by a Jedi. When you are to decide between love or respect, you are debating in your head which one to choose and as always, love is what reigns victorious. Anakin had those exact dreams about his mother and look what happened to her in Episode II; he had those same visions and nightmares towards Padme and assumed those nightmares and visions to be true hence his mother's death; which is what deems Yoda's grandiose philosophy correct.
"Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering."
It is not Anakin's loyalty to Palpatine that lead Darth Vader to be conceived, it was because of Anakin's love for Padme, that lead him to the dark side. Sidious has promised Anakin the safety of his wife, and the Jedi did not permit love and marriage into the souls of the Padawan, Warrior, and Grand Master. Anakin was having the same visions and nightmares of Padme as he had witnessed that lead to the tragedy of his mother. With marriage and love being legal in the Sith, and the safety and everlasting life of his beloved wife being guaranteed by the one person who has exploited Anakin's emotions into use, it is no wonder why Anakin transformed to the dark side. Hell, if I were in his position, I would've gave the finger to the Jedi and abide my allegiance to the Sith. If you fail to understand that, then a more depth coherence you need to gain towards Episode III and re-watching might be necessary.
-
LOLNOU
Eminem is not the best, you just think he is because his songs relate to your life more than other rappers it seems. Just as BEazy said, Eminem is a great lightning rod to channel teenage angst.
I agree, it is too early to determine who might be the greatest of all time since it seems that Hip-Hop might be reviving some time in the future and escape from the trap it fell into. I know I have said he is, but so far, he is my favorite out of every rapper who has picked up the mic.
-
I've never claimed to be a "lyrical" rap fan, Lupe Fiasco has fallen off hard. I do like good music and artistic growth, however, which artists like Kid Cudi, Kendrick Lamar, Big Sean (HoF early AOTY), and Kanye West have all displayed.
Also how are you gonna talk about "kid" when you're like 13
I never said you were, hence the "Serving as a sidenote" statement. What do you have to say now that I have exposed you of your illiteracy once again
. You like music from Kid Cudi, Big Sean, and Kanye West. That alone should show how you do not know what the term "good music" is.Oh, and by the way, I am 16 years old. Get your facts straight before you let your mouth illogically run.
I thought how Eminem's only good political commentary was when he can make two graphic songs about killing a woman he knows and get loved for it. I'm not sure if you've listened to Kim or 96 Bonnie and Clyde, but that's not really something to be celebrating as a breath of fresh air. If you really think Mosh was really the best anti-establishment song you've ever heard then you might want to listen to Black Flag, or any punk rock group. And if you want rap you might want to listen to The Coup, Dead Prez, Killer Mike, even Immortal Technique and his crew. Even Kanye West has offered more social commentary at the main stage of hip hop than any other rapper.
But if you're a teenager, I understand your love for Eminem, he's a great lightening rod to channel your teenage angst.
Dead Prez and Immortal Technique are both phenomenal artists. They deserve more credibility than they currently receive. And to be honest, I do not let a couple of songs (or a few) ruin my opinion for an artist. And I like "Kim" mainly because of the emotion and instrumental of the song, I am not a supporter of domestic violence and Eminem had every right to produce such a song like this since Kim did cheat on him while he busted his ass to supply a roof for his wife and children and putting food on the table for them; just be glad he did not beat her to death for doing such action.
If Eminem was Latino or black, he wouldn't of blew up like he did. Plus of the the attention he got from his legal battles and the negative publicity he got from his lyrics helped as well.
I really love it when people say Eminem is good because of his "clever wordplay" or his "lyricism". Anyone can use metaphors, similes, alliteration, and all of the other types of literary devices. Practically every rapper uses those devices, hell, any person that has written a song uses those types of things. I'll give him credit in his free-styling skills, not anyone can do that, but anyone with a middle school education can use metaphors, similes, etc.
Like Believland mentioned, he has been doing the same !@#$ for the past 15 years. His biggest change had to be with Relapse and other album after that (the name escapes me a the moment).
Simply existing doesn't make him a legend.
You can't say he rose to fame simply because of his lyrics. Like I said before, all of his legal battles really put his out there as well.
Plus, having well respected members of the rap community saying you're good (Dre and Snoop come to mind), people are going to listen.
Honestly, I would consider Insane Clown Posse more of a legend than Eminem, mostly because they rose to the top on their own. They weren't "Discovered" like Eminem was. They fought to were they are now, Eminem was placed pretty damn near the top. That's why I place Eminem in the same boat as Justin Beiber.
I will explain my reasons why I believe Eminem might be the Greatest of All Time in the rap world in my next entry using a variety of sources that proves my opinion evident. And that statement was blatantly ignorant, not everyone can author clever wordplay and lyricism as Eminem has. I'll just lazily throw this one out:
You could date a stick of dynamite and wouldn't go out with a bangI showered the slang, simple as A,B,C's
Skip over the D's and rock the microphone with E's (ease)
-
No they weren't. They dealt with his relation with the women in his life like all of his albums have, with no real internal examination on why his relationships with women are violent and hostile, but just furthers his misogynistic views. And that's the only thing he has. Sophomoric jokes and misogynistic ideas. And while is rhyme density is off the richter scale, he's literally rapping about 3 different things, there's no self-growth or artistic growth. He's just found a way to repackage his ideals for however many albums he has.
Oof, really? He only mentions his connection with women in a couple of his songs in each album (most of them to be about Hailie, mainly), but not all of his tracks relate to his views in marriage and women. Gosh, how many times do I have to copy and paste this list of Eminem tracks for people to understand that Eminem is not a rapping stand-up comedian with a dirty sense of humor!
Eminem has done plenty of anti-government propaganda, such as White America, Square Dance, and Mosh (Mosh being the greatest Anti-Gov track I have ever heard in hip-hop). Eminem is recognized for his social commentary as well. Just check out Dont Approach Me, No Apologies, Say Goodbye Hollywood, Soldier, Like Toy Soldiers, When the Music Stops, Till I Collapse, Amityville, Marshall Mathers, Way I Am, Not Afraid, Going Through Changes, Cinderella Man, 25 to Life (hell, throw in all of the Recoery album into this category), Beautiful, Careful What You Wish For, My Darling, Rock Bottom, Hip-Hop, 8 Mile Road, Lose Yourself, Rabbit Run, Renegade, Syllables, just to name a few.Last time I am posting this list! (Maybe once more on the "Why Eminem Is the GOAT" entry to my blog that is coming soon
) -
And I quote:
What do you have to say now that I have exposed you of your illiteracy once again.
Stop biting your own tongue, kid. All you have to do is admit your wrongdoings/hypocrisy and your fall will be cushioned. I am entitled to my opinion, you are entitled to yours. I am not attacking you for your musical preferences, I expect you not to do so as well.
Serving as a sidenote, I absolutely awe in irony whenever any Eminem and/or "Lyrical" Fanboy calls Marshall's Recovery Album whack. It might not have the best instrumentals or hooks but it consists of great wordplay, flow, and lyricism which is all I have to ask when considering a song great or not. Maybe Eminem has put out Recovery for the sake of his public image and cleansing out the true traitors and fake "lyrical-rap" fans, maybe it was just to gain a more larger audience to re-convert as Slim Shady and be heard more than he ever was 10 years ago. All I know is that I was left satisfied with Recovery, not by the beats, but by the prowess Eminem introduced into that album.
-
no they haven't
I find it ironic you say The Eminem Show displays no great content when you have admitted yourself in one of your earliest blogs that if he produces and album like the Eminem Show, you will gain greater respect for him, and I quote:
Fair enough. If he drops another Eminem Show I'll give him his due credit.What do you have to say now that I have exposed you of your hypocrisy once again.
-
All those guys are overrated and have only dropped one to two good albums ever. Eminem can't make good music. He makes clever rap in the same way Call Of Duty makes a good video game, and Dane Cook does good standup. It's good if you still think dick jokes are funny.
Check out The Eminem Show and Recovery. Both albums have displayed great content of lyricism that did not mostly have explicit jokes and commentary.
-
Pretty sure Eminem is only famous because he's white.
Maybe, maybe not. The only important objective that seems relevant is that he is good at rap, and he is beyond good; he is one of the best. It is not only me that believes so, big names have called Eminem to be a legend and if you are keen to spot the clever wordplay he presents to the table, then you can see why he is an icon at rap. Maybe not to the music world, but he definitely is on the same league Big, Nas and Pac are in.
-
The only album of Em's I don't like is Encore. I like Relapse and Recovery, not as much as I do MMLP or The Eminem Show. Only reason I didn't like Berzerk the 1st time I listened to it was the style caught me off guard, I was expecting it to more Recovery like after Survival came out, and not Beastie Boys like. I'm sure a lot of people have been like "Woah, what was that" the first time they've heard this song, then they've listened to it again and liked it.
Strongly agreed. I expected this upcoming album to have the same production as Recovery but like always, Mr. Mathers always catches the world by surprise every time.
He sure revolutionized the rap game by doing the same !@#$ Mac Miller did two years ago!
Do not compare Eminem to Mac Miller. He is not a swag fack rapper that literally runs away from those people that assisted him to get to the top and raps about smoking weed. He has revolutionized the rap game by cheating the industry and using free speech, good music, and the truth as his primary source for fame, not the !@#$%^&* most rappers put out nowadays. Listen to Eminem Show, Marshall Mathers LP, Recovery (expect bad instrumentals but great lyricism and flow), and Infinite.
Calling Eminem a "Legend" is like calling Justin Bieber a legend. They blow up, have their fun in the spot light, and decline. Legends last forever. Bands and singers like Michael Jackson, Nirvana, Aerosmith, Ozzy, even Elvis are legends. I wouldn't even consider Tupac, Dre, or System of a Down legends (yet). If people in the next twenty years remember Eminem for more than being white in a "black man's game", then he'll be a legend. Until then, he's alright.
Zacharias, I know you have not noticed, but it has been nearly 15 years since he rose to fame. Hell, throw in an extra 5 if you include his years in the underground. Eminem might not be hailed as much as Aerosmith and the Beatles, but he is sure viewed as one in the rap game.
"musicheads"
delete this blog 2013
-
Kanye said Cudi was his favorite artist and that Lil Wayne was the best rapper alive. Do you think Cudi is as good as everyone else or that Wayne is BRA? Obviously not, since you're too busy on Eminem's dick.
No, Im just saying that you claim that Slaughterhouse is better than Eminem when Slaughterhouse themselves have admitted Eminem to be the best rapper alive (according to their statements), which no irrelevant, third party is brought in as your examples are doing so.
this blog is bad, delete it now
They said that Illmatic was a horrible album. They accused of Infinite being a joke to music. Record labels wouldnt sign the Beatles. As long as I am comfortable with it, I will not delete it. It is not because I am sitting here whining and !@#$%*ing that you do not like my blog, it is that I appreciate feedback rather than the plain comment I have received from you. Was it too explicit? Biased? Less evident? Why dont you like my blogs?
-
I have a feeling the Marshall Mathers LP II will have a Beastie Boys kind of feel. At first, I was shocked at irony since if he is going to trace back the same footsteps he went through ten years ago, then he is basically whipping his ass with a copy of the Recovery album and saying that Recovery was nothing but a load of BS. And you guys want to know what is even more ironic? The same fans of Beastie Boys and strong believers of horrorcore Shady who have spit against Recovery are now dissing the same Shady they have loved 10 years ago and saying that he is too old to be rapping about this stuff. First they accuse him of being pop, and now they are accusing him of being too old to rap about murder. MAKE UP YOUR $%&@IN MIND STANS!
-
Yes, and people have also praised Lil Wayne as a great artist. Your point?
I don't think you get it. The Slaughterhouse crew themselves have said that Eminem is one of, if not, the best, who has ever done it in the rap world, which contradicts the your opinion that Slaughterhouse is better than Shady . Just like how Royce said he's the second best rapper alive while Eminem claims first place
. -
Your "evidence" is a bunch of lines that aren't related. You probably think Biggie shot Tupac because he made "Who Shot Ya" too.
The difference is that my evidence are based on lines from the verse that sound way too coincidental to not be considered a subliminal shot against Kendrick, I am not basing it off of some title like Biggie's "Who Shot Ya". Read the lines again, you will eventually get it.
Eminem wasafraid that Lil Wayne and Kanye West would tear him to pieces a few years ago, so I doubt he would be doing any tearing at all.
He was afraid he would ruin his daughter's life, lose some fans, and cause a swarm of riots to invade his privacy with his experience on his beef against Murder Ink, so he settled for a subliminal.
Also Slaughterhouse is far superior to Eminem so don't even think of claiming Eminem would make a good diss just because Slaughterhouse can rap.
BAAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAAHAHAHA
Hell, even Slaughterhouse and 90 percent of the Hip-Hop world admitted of Em to be one of the best, if not, the best to ever pioneer throughout the rap world and set a bar as high as 2Pac and Biggie has set. Hell, even Big Sean, a G.O.O.D Music signee, has admitted!
-
You're an idiot
*sniffs*
That fried chicken smells sooo good.
-
Paging Rey. DR. Rey you're needed to this blog.
Ok just answering a few off topic points
1. You do not have to do poorly in school to be a good MC. I understand that hurts his "OG" image, but there are hip hop greats who done well in school. Completely unconnected ideas.
2. If he changed his verse after the fact, that is a !@#$%* move. You go hard or don't go at all.
3. Why are you so concerned about the way someone looks all the time. I mean come on mayne.
With all that being said..... I don't think Big Sean has any major talent. Not bad, but I agree with the actual critique you posted. He's a cookie cutter IMO.
1. I understand that part, but I did not say you have to not be successful in school in order to be a great emcee, but it does imply when it comes to being an OG since OGs are too busy drinking alcohol, partying, smoking with da boyz n da hood, and "!@#$@#$ hoes"; school is the least of their priorities and the last objective in their mind.
2. Strongly agree.
3. I just did that for the hell of it
Also I hate so much that we can't solve these disputes the way they used to be solved. I'd love to get Kdot on national TV, give him a mic and just let him freestyle murder anyone who stepped up to the plate. The thing is I keep hearing from Em fans like yourself about how angry they are at Kendrick, but being signed to the same label kind of squashes a beef then and there I think. I'd love to hear the two go at each other with guest appearances from Black Hippy and what's left of D12 and Royce, but unless Aftermath can find some way to make a killing off it then it won't happen. That's one of the saddest parts about the Control discussion.
I would so love Eminem dissing Kendrick since I know for a fact that Shady will tear him to pieces, but I seriously doubt that will ever happen since they already have close ties (hence their group photo) and also, as you said, because they are signed to Dre's label, but that didn't stop Joell Ortiz and Joe Budden from flaming K-Dot.
You should really feel bad about these blogs.
These are my blogs and I say it loudly and proudly!
Big Sean didn't change his verse. You're just hating that he's getting more spins than Eminem. Also, since when does being dumb as $%&@ make you a good lyricist/rapper?
Sean gave Drake the idea for the "Supa Dupa" Flow (which isn't actually invented by Sean but Drake thinks so!) which is what helped make Drake successful. Eat one.
I really want to know your input in this, Rey. After all the evidence presented that does signal that Big Sean did indeed change his verse, do you have any proof that repels mine, boéih?
. You like music from Kid Cudi, Big Sean, and Kanye West. That alone should show how you do not know what the term "good music" is.
)
Of Trolling
in Your Argument Sucks
A blog by ktarthan in General
Posted
In a variety of situations, I have reigned superior in dragging morons like Brehon, Tenages, and practically half of the NPO Alliance and 90 percent of the PN and PT players towards a characteristic consisting of such childish acts and sayings of idiocy. The art of trolling needs to be praised more and trolls should not be viewed as the essence of corruption, but an essence of manipulation and power. Those who deny to view the truth of their tyranny and brilliance of the troll are those who accuse trolls of being annoying and being an idiot. Thank you for proving my point in how I convinced a dumb-ass like you to read the post of this "idiot" and $%&@ you very much.