June 02, 2005

Revenge of the Sith is crap #3

Ok, so this is going to be the last one. I am challenge all fans of the film – Please tell me why it was good. I can tell you why it was bad, and have done so a bit already in the comments to the previous thread on this theme, but so far no one can give me adequate reasons for why they liked it.

Here are the responses so far:

Rachel: I watched revenge of the sith today. omfg it is ace. edge-of-seat hide-behind-hands-squealing awesome. It's beautiful. The acting is nonsense, but the ideas behind it are fantastic. Submission to the dark side in the name of love. I didn't see that coming at all.
Me: What? How? Were you the only person on earth not to know that ahead of time?
Rachel: The intertwining of fear and love, conceptually, is really masterful. Too bad it was Hayden Christensen. Oh I knew it was like that but it's really exposed very well.
I didn't see it coming. As in, how well it was done. It's very emotive. Surprisingly so, for a Star Wars film.

Now normally I respect her opinion, but this time she's just plain wrong. "The intertwining of fear and love" is completely unbelievable because the writing, directing and acting are so bad (this will be a repeating theme in my responses). Also, the way that Anakin goes over to the dark side in the space of about 10 seconds in order to save Padme without considering that he would become something she wanted nothing to do with seems to rather go against the point being made here – is it possible to be in love with someone and then do something so radical, with out considering their feelings at all? Seems unlikely to me.
Oh, and for a film to be emotive does one not have to be able to engage with the characters on some level? Because I didn't.

David: point 1) we get to see Anakin and Obi wan fight along side each other, we also get to see Anakin be a the best pilot in the galaxy.
We get to see Mace take on a sith lord and lose, (and Anakin's betrayal).
We've got the heartbreaking montage of Order 66
Anakin killing children?
Me: HEARTBREAKING? What we ACTUALLY get, is to totally not care about the characters at all because the writing, directing and acting is SO HORRIBLE.
David: And if nothing else we get OBI WAN VS ANAKIN, which is worth the price of admission alone

He went offline shortly after that, with the promise to deliver more after a good night's sleep.
I would argue that firstly, the children almost DESERVED to be killed, if out of about 20 of them, the one who got a speaking part was the best. I've heard boiled cabbage deliver better lines than that.
Also, Obi Wan vs Anakin. Well, after the 10232498 light sabre battles we sat through before that…/yawn…oh sorry, I forgot what I was going to say. (Note for Americans – that was irony)

Gil: Cos it was!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! The Force is weak in you.
Me: No. That is not an argument
Gil: Not saying any more
Me: I want proper reasons
Gil: I can't hear you

Thank you Gil – you've totally made my point for me.

Any other takers?

- 28 comments by 1 or more people Not publicly viewable

[Skip to the latest comment]
  1. It was good because it was enjoyable and I have no regrets for having seen it.

    Some of us have the ability to enjoy what isn't an artistic masterpiece.

    I think you'll find the role of offensive anti–ep3 ranting has been filled by Maddox in a far more amusing way.

    02 Jun 2005, 03:44

  2. I enjoyed it. If you didn't like it, don't watch it again. I don't think you're somehow going to convince everyone who liked the film that in fact they didn't and the film is shit.

    02 Jun 2005, 04:41

  3. The film had Darth Vader in it
    I have always had a bit of a thing for Vader
    Ergo the film is great!

    02 Jun 2005, 07:58

  4. Right. Thanks for not being able to explain.
    @ Andy: Yes – Maddox has done a much better job than me. I'm not trying to compete with him. I'm not even trying to be funny. I'm seriously trying to find out the reason why everyone thinks it is so good, because I missed it. If you can give me proper reasons I will respect them as your opinion – I am not trying to convince anyone it was crap, I know you are all too blinded by the big flashy explosions and light sabres to see that :–P

    No, "I liked it because it was enjoyable" is not a valid argument. WHY was it enjoyable?
    Helen, you scare me.

    02 Jun 2005, 11:11

  5. Actually "I liked it because it was enjoyable" is a valid argument, maybe it doesn't convince anyone else why the I liked the film, but it sure as hell convinces me.

    02 Jun 2005, 13:20

  6. Not when the question asked is why was it good? You have basically said "it's good because it's good", which isn't of any use to anyone.

    02 Jun 2005, 13:26

  7. I said it good because it was enjoyable, whilst the words are usually used to describe similar things, it's important to note that "good" and "enjoyable" are actually two completely different words with different definitions.

    It was a highly enjoyable 2.5 hours of a handful of characters bouncing happily through a wonderful fantasy universe with it being very clear that they were positively reveling in the cheesy lines they were to deliver.

    02 Jun 2005, 13:37

  8. Good
    see meaning 16.

    02 Jun 2005, 14:53

  9. I see you've brushed over the rest of my argument with your usual selective negligence. If you're going to quote me, quote me in the appropriate context I set, and also include your response, which I believe was a capitulation to my claim on the emotive context of Star Wars, as such:

    lastly: ive been thinking about this a bit more – when i said you gave george lucas too much credit, i wasnt entirely correct. i think he TRIES to achieve what it is that you saw. i also think that he failed due to his dismal script writing and directing. That you can see past that is admirable, but i cant

    This reaffirms my argument, which, as I have frequently reiterated to you, one of conceptual and thematic appreciation, barring Hayden 'Got Wood' Christenssen, terrible scriptwriting etc.

    I also agree with Andrew that it was entirely enjoyable, and thus, good. What perhaps Andrew should have made clear is that "good" does not necessarily entail cinematically/technically/etc good. Your objections to Star Wars, which mainly revolve around the following tenets – "bad acting", "overused CGI", "wooden script" – while entirely valid, certainly do not negate the validity of my argument, nor do they preclude the enjoyment of others who feel no need to adopt or defend your technical polemics, e.g. Gil.

    03 Jun 2005, 01:33

  10. I will share with you the following:

    Anakin: You're so beautiful.
    Padme: It's only because I'm so in love.
    Anakin: No, it's because I'm so in love with you.
    Me: jesus christ.

    As you can see, I am entirely aware of the frequently horrendous script. But if you cannot see that my appreciation for Star Wars goes beyond that, I've spent hours explaining my convictions to you for nothing.

    03 Jun 2005, 01:42

  11. Three points:

    1. I am merely asking for reasoned arguments as to why Star Wars is good. I can tell you why it is bad, and I have, but too few people appear to be able to answer the question. I am not looking to be convinced that it was good, nor trying to convice anyone that it was bad.
    2. That conversation took place well after this post. I was not being selectively negligent, I merely felt I was removing the bits of the original conversation(s) which were either of no relevance or were you slating the acting etc – this was not what I required in a response as to why the film was good. I am also offended by your claim that I am usually selectively negligent.
    3. Gil, to be fair to him, was drunk. He attempted to provide a better explanation, but was having too much difficulty hitting the right keys for me to properly understand what he was trying to say.

    Oh, and it's Hayden Christensen, not Christenssen :–P

    03 Jun 2005, 01:50

  12. Alan has also provided me with an answer, but I refuse to post it here for the simple reasons that
    a) He insulted my intelligence by claiming that I couldn't understand what he was saying, and
    b) He moaned that I hadn't included what he said (he said it after I wrote this post)

    So Alan, if you want to respond, do it here yourself :–P

    03 Jun 2005, 01:52

  13. #1 – if you're not looking to be convinced, don't disparage the opinions of others.

    I was removing the bits of the original conversation(s) which were either of no relevance or were you slating the acting etc – this was not what I required in a response as to why the film was good.

    #2 – this is what I meant by saying you removed the context of what I said. Otherwise, it would be clear that we are in agreement on the bad acting, but that was not my main point at all. Your subsequent claim is then that I am "just plain wrong", which rests entirely on "because the writing, directing and acting are so bad" and "it's unlikely", when I have already agreed with you on those points, and am going beyond them.

    #3 – Andrew, Nick and Heather have all expressed a similar sentiment in these comments. They like it because they just do. Far be it from you to attack them on that. Which, by the way, if #1 is true, you shouldn't be doing anyway.

    03 Jun 2005, 02:15

  14. Hayden Christenssen deserves an extra S for being one (an Ass, that is).

    03 Jun 2005, 02:17

  15. Also, come on, don't use the whole "I'm looking for reasoned explanations", if you are the one setting the standards for what is "reasoned" and what is not. Remember the conversation I sent you on how Maddox's refutation was not reasonable, and consider your bias in this matter.

    03 Jun 2005, 02:30

  16. I'm not attacking them for liking it. They you can't pass off "because I do" as a good argument. That is the problem.

    I don't feel I did anything wrong by editing our conversation. The question I posed here was "why is it good?", not "what did you think of it?" I was providing your answer to the question.

    If you see the time I posted this – well, it was 3am. I'm not at my most coherent at this time of night – even forming this response is a struggle for me. I'll retract the "just plain wrong" statement and replace it with "I disagree" (although I won't actually edit the post because that would involve more effort than I can currently be bothered to exert).

    03 Jun 2005, 02:33

  17. My opinions are my own – I don't need anyone to think for me. And I think that it is reasonable to expect a better answer than "because" when asking a question is it not?

    03 Jun 2005, 02:36

  18. "Why do you like chocolate cake?" "Because it's nice."

    "Why do you like Star Wars?" "Because it was enjoyable."

    As I said, standards of 'reasonable'. But I appreciate the retraction. Now let's all get together and make Hayden Christensssssssen effigies, and "burn him with fire".


    03 Jun 2005, 08:32

  19. Heh – I don't think I need to, Rachel has kinda made my point. (Not about my opinion, but the reasoning about why my opinion will never satisfy you).

    03 Jun 2005, 09:10

  20. Well actually I do believe I like chocolate cake because of the release of endorphins it triggers – see….I have no choice in the matter.

    Alan – once again, I'm not ASKING to be satisfied. I am however asking not to be insulted in future.

    03 Jun 2005, 10:57

  21. Richard

    why did you delete my comment?

    03 Jun 2005, 12:11

  22. C'mon, how many times have I asked you "why do you like chocolate sooo much", to which you've responded "because it's great", or "it's nice"? Not that I mind, of course, because it's ok to give that kind of response when it comes to such highly opiniated things.

    Also, surely your comment here is an unreasonable explanation if I've ever seen one :P (you're of course going to object with "I wasn't serious", but neither was e.g. Heather, and even humour is representative of something inherent).

    @Richard: what comment was that? perhaps you'd like to give your full name, or sign in if you're from Warwick.

    03 Jun 2005, 12:33

  23. oops, not heather, helen :)

    03 Jun 2005, 12:34

  24. Anyway, this is never going to be resolved. I'm going to leave it at this. No taking offence – you asked for challenges! See you soon.

    03 Jun 2005, 12:36

  25. @Richard: Because it was off–topic, unless I totally missed the point. If I remember correctly it was about large chickens being a turnon.

    03 Jun 2005, 13:15

  26. @Rachel: Of course I wasn't serious. The fact that you prempted this statement doesn't make it any less true. Also, when did I attack Helen for what she said? I didn't. I said her apparent attraction to a guy in a big black helmet with breathing difficulties was rather scary, that is all.

    Please stop forcing me to respond. I know you have little else to do due to the whole spraining–your–ankle–while–stepping–off–a–curb deal, but at least you can still type. That has become difficult for me due to this.

    03 Jun 2005, 13:20

  27. Hehehe, no one is forcing you to respond.

    Last word! r0×0r,

    03 Jun 2005, 13:34

  28. Or I could just close the thread.

    03 Jun 2005, 14:13

Add a comment

You are not allowed to comment on this entry as it has restricted commenting permissions.

June 2005

Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa Su
May |  Today  | Jul
      1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 10 11 12
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20 21 22 23 24 25 26
27 28 29 30         

Search this blog


Most recent comments

  • Bob, I have three words for you…RIGHT FUCKING ON! except for the thing about girls…as I am a gir… by wouldn't you like to know on this entry
  • 96 seconds, expert, sayin by Brandon MacNeil on this entry
  • i use lol,omg,wtf,hehehhee,hhahahahahahha,ehem and heavy ass shit…. by Jack Aledruis Herringtonn on this entry
  • I think these phrases are very necessary, Naomi, since people OFTEN misinterprate your intentions wh… by Tim on this entry
  • holy shit dude i agree… lol… i liek use tiz as a filla w0rd n shiz lolh4x pwnt liek nubz0r lol k… by smoker on this entry

Blog archive

Not signed in
Sign in

Powered by BlogBuilder