|
It's not just that particular fight scene; Mustafar, the volcano planet, is consistently presented as a HELL DIMENSION version of Naboo. It's important to recall how Planet imagery is used in Star Wars 1978 and the other films. Tatooine, Alderaan and the Death Star are all the same planet, as viewed from different perspectives. Literally different worldviews in collision. So Mustafar is Naboo - stripped of all the finery and decadence, it reveals that the only thing that mattered was the Death-Star lookalike mining facility, that was hidden behind closed doors. And remember: Anakin is trying to destroy this black machinery and put out the fire, thereby purifying Naboo. This is key to the joke at the end of the Ep. 6 special edition: when Lucas includes shots of crowds celebrating on Tatooine, Naboo and Coruscant, aren't these the same three planets from A New Hope? The metal world, the desert world, and the world of fairy tales. The victory is tempered by the implication that the one is destined to eliminate the other, while the weakest remain powerless.
|
#
¿
Aug 24, 2015 18:57
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 25, 2024 14:54 |
|
|
Megaman's Jockstrap posted:I'm just curious: what is your criteria for determining "these are two different things" vs. "these are the same thing viewed differently" in a movie? Over in the comic book thread you said that Richard Donner made Clark Kent and Superman two completely different people, and now you're saying that these 3 planets are in fact the same planet and I just can't see any consistency. What are you using to make this determination? It's in how it relates to the characterization. While Luke is literally moving from the desert planet to the jungle planet, it's really just expressing his change in attitude. Instead of feeling abandonned by god and hopeless ("we seem to be made to suffer") he sees the world as a place full of adventure and whatever. In Superman: The Movie, it's not only that Lois perceives Superman and Clark as completely different people; Kal El himself is split between these two identities. It even uses the same Star Wars imagery: each identity occupies a different world. Superman lives in the remnants of Krypton, while Clark lives in Metropolis, and there's very little overlap.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 24, 2015 20:52
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:And the rest of the trilogy keeps this triumvirate of barren-fertile-metallic. Exactly, though there are exceptions that prove the rule. In A New Hope, you have Alderaan and the Death Star as mirrors to eachother, then Yavin appears at the very end as a way of escaping this dynamic. It's a new hope, if you will. However, in one of the clearest examples of how the different planets just externalize the character's feelings, there's a sudden offscreen leap where Yavin 'turns into' Hoth. The fantasy of romantic adventure has worn off for Luke, and the unglamorous reality of being a rebel has set in.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 24, 2015 22:59
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:Which is in turn replaced by the mud of Dagobah- there's still life in the way of the Jedi, but it's not clean anymore. Those specific relationships are definitely very important. In Ep.4, the protagonists try to escape their despair by setting out in search of a magical kingdom, but then find that the kingdom doesn't actually exist - the king is actually a despotic emperor, and there's only Death. When the planets are treated as purely literal, you lose the vital criticism of Alderaan. Obiwan and Leia offer false hope. Her father can't save them, if he's not a part of the Empire already.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 24, 2015 23:31
|
|
|
When Obiwan says Anakin is his best friend, the context is that he has a total of two friends, and the 'best' one his adopted son / coworker. It bears repeating that Obiwan's actual best friend is Dexter, but they never hang out. The big question is why. And here we're getting into a recurring theme, because why does Chewbacca appear as Yoda's good friend in Episode 3? The short length of the cameo is, itself, the point: Chewie is Yoda's best friend, but he's excluded from the narrative. Like Dexter (and Jar Jar, and so-on), he's only a part of the story insofar as he's useful to the Jedis.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 25, 2015 21:27
|
|
|
LinkesAuge posted:Maybe we should get another prequel in which we explore the friendships Obi-Wan and Yoda had. :p This whole situation is a weird one, because it's based on the bizarre idea that Star Wars is not a series of films. Obiwan and Anakin actually exist and are, canonically, Friends. Because Obiwan said they were friends in A New Hope, which is G-Canon. So, the films fail to accurately depict the characters' objectively-existing friendship. Canon (or Head-Canon) overrides the actual films and, as a result, Star Wars fans don't actually like Star Wars. In reality, there is nothing that exists offscreen. There is only what is on the screen. So the Dexter scene is a microcosm of that friendship, that tells you everything you need to know, and nothing more or less. Everything else is a deliberately blank gap. These gaps are commented upon in the films themselves. Padme is shocked to see that Anakin is suddenly like three feet taller. He is both literally and figuratively an entirely different person. All the films work this way. MrMojok posted:There is zero evidence in canon or non-canon material that Chewbacca is Yoda's best friend Actually, there's a scene in Episode 3. Do we see any other friends? No. Therefore, Chewbacca is Yoda's best friend. Possibly his only friend. It depends on how you count Mace Windu. SuperMechagodzilla fucked around with this message at 22:18 on Aug 25, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Aug 25, 2015 22:14
|
|
|
Goodbye, Chewbacca. Miss you, I will. This scene is fuckin fantastic. I love it.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 25, 2015 22:30
|
|
|
Fred Breakfast posted:In order for the prequel trilogy to work, Anakin needed a convincing fall from grace. But he simply wasn't graceful in any way in the first place. Well duh. You're making the same criticism that Stephen king did, when he tried to 'fix' Kubrick's version of The Shining with the miniseries. Kubrick's point was that "there's something inherently wrong with the human personality. There's an evil side to it. One of the things that horror stories can do is to show us the archetypes of the unconscious; we can see the dark side without having to confront it directly", whereas King wanted the story to be that of a fundamentally good man who is 'turned into a monster' by alcoholism and whatnot. The point you miss is that the Jedi were never 'graceful'. Anakin's decent into evil, to the extent that he has one at all, occurs offscreen in the ten year gap between Episodes 1 and 2. He steps into the cult compound, vanishes, and then emerges wrong. porfiria posted:I don't think you can really conclude Chewie is Yoda's best/only friend. I bet Yoda jacks it sometimes even if they never show it. The scene in Episode 3 is a pretty unambiguous reference to ET. It's only missing the rainbow when he flies away in the fuckin' egg. Also, like ET, Yoda doesn't have genitals. He's a puppet. SuperMechagodzilla fucked around with this message at 23:42 on Aug 25, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Aug 25, 2015 23:24
|
|
|
Anakin killed all the Jedi, not Vader. We never see Darth Vader genocide anybody; he thought the Death Star was a fuckin terrible idea. Vader's worst traits are that he's a torturer, and (in Episode 4 only) that he compromises his ethics by tolerating the Imperial officers' bullshit.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 25, 2015 23:40
|
|
|
Corek posted:What happened to Tarfful, Chewbacca's boss and Yoda's other best friend? He died.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 25, 2015 23:58
|
|
|
PerrineClostermann posted:This, unironically. He never really champions the jedi ways or hold himself to some noble ideal. "Compassion, which I would define as unconditional love, is essential to a Jedi's life."
|
|
#
¿
Aug 26, 2015 01:05
|
|
|
Eiba posted:The prequels aren't uncomfortably dark. They're not chilling or disturbing. They're awkward and stilted. That's a misinderstanding: the prequels go beyond horror and into sheer comedy. Yoda climbs into an egg and reenacts the ending of ET, with the roles of both Elliot and Elliot's dog played by growling sasquatches. An egg, like Mork! If the prequel films aren't laughing with you, they're laughing at you. Everyone has picked up on the comedy element to some extent or another. Many just consider themselves above the joke - above the films - and make fun of Jar Jar as if he was 'supposed to be cool', as if his failure to be cool wasn't the joke already. And then: as if Star Wars fans' ideas of 'cool' weren't what were already under attack. These are the people who get played the hardest; nobody actually gets mad at 'stilted dialogue' for over fifteen years. The genius of the prequels is that they're always two steps ahead of any attempt to pin them down. They have the ring of truth. And, if my experience has taught us anything, the truth does hurt. People shrink from it like a hot stove. So yeah, people are afraid. It's just that they're afraid of a movie where a kung fu master goblin-elf fights Dracula. OhGreatAGinger posted:[Anakin's] not us, he's the messiah, he is virgin birth space Jesus whose coming has been foretold by ancient prophecy, born with more potential than the most powerful of Jedi. The fun with any prophecy is that it generates the very events that it foretells. Anakin was created by the prophecy. SuperMechagodzilla fucked around with this message at 19:42 on Aug 26, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Aug 26, 2015 09:21
|
|
|
rear end Catchcum posted:It's not just about him not telling the story I wanted, it's that they are not good movies and have very little other than lightsabers and names in common with the OT. They're needlessly complex and bloated and came off more like "Wait, George, you think THAT's what Star Wars was about?!" It's like a super nerd spent years and years and years in his garage working out this overwrought back story for a story that was so incredibly simple (and a story told 100 times before). It's interesting to go through posts like this, following the train of thought. Or, in this case, not following it. What on earth are you saying?
|
|
#
¿
Aug 26, 2015 20:21
|
|
|
ThePlague-Daemon posted:I don't think it's accurate to say they wanted Jar Jar to be cool. They wanted something different than what he is, but that doesn't necessarily mean they want him to be cool. C-3PO isn't cool, and he's a slapstick comic relief character, but those complaints aren't directed toward him. C-3PO's only occasionally funny, but he's funnier than Jar Jar. "I also wanted to make Jar Jar an effective humorous foil for the humor-deficient Jedi, so I dubbed him into an alien language and added subtitles. He is now more cynical, world-weary and tagging along with the Jedi to save his own neck." -Fan Editor of "The Phantom Menace: Radical Re-Edit"
|
|
#
¿
Aug 26, 2015 20:31
|
|
|
rear end Catchcum posted:The OT is so unbelievably simple. The bad guys are the empire, the good guys are rebels. The best good guy is dressed in white, the best bad guy is all in black. There's a princess and a rogue who has a cool partner. That's it. What's the connection between "chewbaca was a general in the PT" and "the best good guy is dressed in white in the OT"? That's not a comparison. Your thinking is totally disorganized. Even a cursory evaluation shows that the 'PT' is quite simple: the bad guys are everybody. There was one good kid who is dressed in light beige, but he was beaten by a bad guy dressed in black.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 26, 2015 23:52
|
|
|
It's important that, at the end of Revenge Of The Sith, we get a montage of bittersweet imagery - all the things that are soon to be destroyed.Bongo Bill posted:Obi-Wan intended Luke to be a weapon against the Emperor. The first step was to make Imperial oppression personal to him - hence the lie that it orphaned him, not in the vague impersonal ways of the state, but as a direct victim of the traitor who personally conducted a religious purge. And this is why you have the animosity between Own and Ben. Revenge Of The Sith ends with the happy couple on their farm, adopting a child - and the foreknowledge that they will soon be dead, their farm ruined and abandonned. Like a Rumplestiltskin kind of figure, Obiwan gave them the child on the unspoken condition that it would be taken away again in short order. His farm is obliterated as definitively as Alderaan is You don't need additional backstory; Owen is clearly a dupe, and a victim of the Republic.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 27, 2015 09:56
|
|
|
teagone posted:I admire the thought you put into this, but you're really reaching with this explanation. Ignore, for the moment, that this is a Star Wars film. What we have here is a literal Queen (or ex-Queen, whatever) chilling out in some dirt farm at the rear end-end of the galaxy. The implications are unavoidable. But let's go back/forward to the scene this is a reference to:   Owen is now at the head of the table, but disconnected from his wife - no longer sitting beside her. And, although they've evidently bought a new table, Luke is still sitting in Padme's spot. And there's another important nuance: Owen and his father sit with the weird farming equipment looming behind them. Meanwhile, in A New Hope, we always see Luke in a reverse angle shot:  A bright, orange glow emanates from the opposite end of the room. Note also that, from this angle, Owen doesn't appear in the shot at all. Luke is disconnected from all that, thinking of brighter things. SuperMechagodzilla fucked around with this message at 11:47 on Aug 27, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Aug 27, 2015 11:44
|
|
|
homullus posted:This never bugged me until now. Why does Obi-Wan want to take Luke to Alderaan? The Jedi who tightened their grip on power already had it slip through their fingers galaxy-wide and were purged; only those who relinquished all attempts to influence events survived (Yoda and Obi-Wan). Bringing Luke there, to the center of what is left of the Republic while the Empire is super-strong sounds just utterly terrible. There's no Jedi to teach Luke on Alderaan. Luke's bloodline holds no particular influence over the Senate and he's not an impressive or charismatic person (HEY, WHAT'S THAT FLASHING??). Obi-Wan doesn't know about Leia. Wait, what? The first half of the first film is spent laying this out in detail. They go to Alderaan because the lady in the hologram begged for help. Also, we need to underline to the fact that Alderaan is a fictional kingdom in a fairy story. 'Going to Alderaan' means striving to create a utopia. Obiwan goes 'back to Alderaan' because he wants to return to that 'civilized age', and wants Luke to learn all about it too. Obiwan then realizes his utopian vision has failed, and literally sacrifices himself to make way for A New Hope. That's why you misunderstand "no, there is another". Yoda's not talking about "Skywalker family members". He's talking about hope, in the abstract. The idea that he was specifically just talking about Leia is an exceedingly clumsy retcon, that can be dismissed as more bullshit from Obiwan. A better interpretation of Yoda's words is that he's referring to Vader. SuperMechagodzilla fucked around with this message at 17:20 on Aug 27, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Aug 27, 2015 17:09
|
|
|
I dunno if you've watched A New Hope recently, but Alec Guinness really plays up the 'seductive trickster' aspect of the character. Obiwan is trying to seduce Luke away from his adoptive parents, because he believes the young kid's got potential. The point is to get Luke high on the prospect of going on Jedi adventures. It doesn't matter what the exact adventure is. When you look at A New Hope and Revenge Of The Sith together, it's even clearer that Obiwan left Luke on Tatooine in order to let him grow up in humble surroundings, so that he would be easier to indoctrinate later. He literally twirls his moustache after handing Beru her new baby. The prequels simply reaffirm and clarify what was already the case: Owen is a victim of not just the Empire but the Republic as well. He's treated as disposable in the narrative because he is disposable, to the rebels. We have foreknowledge that the happy family will be destroyed,
|
|
#
¿
Aug 27, 2015 18:57
|
|
|
PriorMarcus posted:Well the newest rumour is that the plot deals with force users suddenly popping up all over the galaxy in recent months and many suspecting Luke did something to alter the balance of the force and start this. Kylo Ren is just one such guy and he happens to also be a villain whose associated with a Sith worshipping cult. Captain Phasma is charged with finding any new force users and killing them, including ones inside the First Order, and that's how Finn gets cast out/on the run. Assuming that's the case, we've already run into trouble because, as has been pretty thoroughly established, the Jedis' psychic mutant powers are inherently 'dark'. The authentic light side belongs to everyone - including (especially) droids.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 27, 2015 21:27
|
|
|
boom boom boom posted:What? That's a perfectly fine shot, and extremely good for 1999.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 28, 2015 02:03
|
|
|
Mogomra posted:They all look the same and they're standing on a giant pool table. It's pretty clearly terrible and shiny cg. Too bad they couldn't pull it off to look believable. So the shot would be good if the textures were matte and all the characters looked slightly different? Go back to 1999 for a moment. What advice would you give to the animators?
|
|
#
¿
Aug 28, 2015 03:42
|
|
|
I said come in! posted:This looks like something out of the Total War game series. The funny thing is that series in-game graphics look better and more detailed then this. No they don't. Here's the latest game, on max settings. 
|
|
#
¿
Aug 28, 2015 07:58
|
|
|
It's also worth noting that, like the infamous Windows desktop image, the grassy hills of Naboo are not actually CG. They were shot at an actual location: Livermore Hills, in California. Some other shots of the grass are miniatures.
SuperMechagodzilla fucked around with this message at 08:49 on Aug 28, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Aug 28, 2015 08:46
|
|
|
Let's look at some other CG shots. This is all CG, overtop of a photographed background - although there's a good chance that the robot is a prop. Battle droids puppets were frequently used, composited into the scenes. Vehicles in the gungan battle scene are also, frequently, miniatures. The prequels are characterized not by an excess of CGI, but a great many scenes where it's impossible to tell what is or is not CGI without close examination, because the effects are seamless. people are basically complaining about the film's extremely good compositing.  This shot is was created with a miniature. Live action extras were then composited overtop. Only the aliens are CGI. SuperMechagodzilla fucked around with this message at 20:00 on Aug 28, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Aug 28, 2015 19:23
|
|
|
Rogue One works as a basic concept because you don't necessarily need to put Jesus and saints and prophets in your film for it to be a Christian film. If anything, those elements can distract from the message. You get people following false prophets just because they talk a certain way and wear the right clothes. In other words, Rogue One will about a bunch of people who believe in the Force, but none of them will be psychic mutants.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 28, 2015 23:58
|
|
|
boom boom boom posted:I think that the reason people harp on bad CGI over bad practical effects is that you can tell when something's actually there or not. A dude in a lovely rubber costume is still an actual thing that's there and interacting with the set and the actors. But a lovely CGI monster isn't there. You don't believe either of them as monsters, they can both be the same level of "fake", but somehow your brain just picks up on the fakeness of one in a way it doesn't with the other. Maybe it's some sort of uncanny valley thing, I dunno. Not really; if that were the case, the 'OT' films would be considered collosal failures due to their use of stop motion, matte paintings and so-on. There are a number of factors that are actually responsible. First, from the beginning, people do not have a good understanding of terms like 'reality' or 'realism'. A basic example of this, since we're in the Star Wars thread, is the nerd view that Star Wars is an actually-existing virtual universe that is slowly being revealed to us. In this view, if we were to pause the film and move the disembodied camera slightly to the left, we could look behind the walls of Jabba's palace and watch him take a poo poo. Influenced by videogame marketing, realism is defined as resolution. Consider the 'CSI' fantasy of zooming and enhancing beyond the original resolution of the image - also visualized by the shot in Matrix where the camera flies through the fuzzy image of a CRT screen, and into the universe it depicts. What this means is that most nerds are actually calling for simulation, but don't say so outright - because that would mean admitting that Star Wars isn't real. There's a very deliberate joke about this in the prequels. Many have noted the sheer number of shots where spaceships take off and land, characters get in and out, etc. -but nobody has considered why. But it's as I've stressed earlier: every world in Star Wars represents a different point of view - each one is an aspect of a single planet. By showing the ships constantly taking off and landing, this fact is obfuscated. Instead of the sudden offscreen leap from Yavin to Hoth, you get constant 'seamless' transitions that create the illusion that these are different worlds, with different cultures. This has implications, especially when you get to the Starship Troopers 'bug planet', with factories full of WMDs, and the heroes start gleefully slaughtering them. It returns to the usual point: "Whenever we encounter such a purely evil Outside, we should gather the courage to endorse the Hegelian lesson: in this pure Outside, we should recognize the distilled version of our own essence." Remove these transitions completely, and you get complaints like "how did Batman get back to Gotham from the Middle East?" And this brings us to the real point: that the most convincing illusions are actually completely different from what nerds claim to want. Yoda, as we've gone over before, is a cartoonish performance by a very limited puppet - but it's precisely the cartoonishness that makes him 'alive', in the same sense that Bugs Bunny is a livelier character than Jakesully. Matte paintings are realistic because they're paintings. Nerds would clear away the brushstrokes so we could get a clearer view. Give them exactly that, and brace yourself for impact. So what we're actually talking about is the intersection of aesthetics and ideology. SuperMechagodzilla fucked around with this message at 06:34 on Aug 29, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Aug 29, 2015 06:32
|
|
|
Phantom menace opens with a shot of a miniature space-ship, cuts to a practical set of the cockpit interior, then cuts to a miniature space-station, and then cuts to a miniature of the space station's interior, where a miniature spaceship lands. There's a shot of CG robots, where they are indistinguishable from rod puppets. The background is a miniature. Subsequent scenes take place on huge, elaborate sets. All the aliens, and a robot, are played by men in suits.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 29, 2015 07:48
|
|
|
LesterGroans posted:
As it happens, that's a miniature. 
|
|
#
¿
Aug 29, 2015 08:17
|
|
|
Y'all are talking about acting the same way you were talking about the CGI earlier. "It's bad for reasons I can't explain." The acting is the prequels is fine. Cnut the Great posted:As far as I know, they never actually used any of those in the finished film. They were just for lighting reference, and also to help the actors visualize what they were interacting with on set. That's something that should be stressed: instead of looking 'real', the prequels' effects are designed to look like (other) effects. The battle droid CGI makes them look like puppets. The miniatures look like CGI. The sets look like miniatures.  The above shot is half miniature, and half live actors on a very large set, with a very small amount of CG overtop. And the result is indistinguishable from the CG shots:  (Or, at least, I think that's all CGI. It's very hard to tell.)
|
|
#
¿
Aug 29, 2015 18:07
|
|
|
MrMojok posted:One of my favorite awful line readings in the last film is right before Anakin and Obi-Wan's duel, when Obi-Wan says "I will do what I must" and Anakin replies "You WILL try..." That's not how he pronounces it at all. Christensen pronounces each word calmly, deliberately, and forcefully. The reading is much closer to "You Will Try." From your overemphasis on "WILL", it seems that you expected a sort of naturalistc reading like "You'll try." - or a more campy "You will TRY!" - but neither is appropriate for that particular part of the scene. Anakin doesn't lash out in rage. He waits patiently for Obiwan to ignite his laser sword first. SuperMechagodzilla fucked around with this message at 22:12 on Aug 29, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Aug 29, 2015 22:09
|
|
|
Rewatching the lava swordfight at the end of Episode 3, you can see how memes develop. This gif, for example, is listed on Imgur as "The strangest part of the lightsaber duel in Revenge of the Sith."  And like ha-ha, they're not even hitting eachother! But in the actual film, what's happening is fairly obvious. The two characters are spinning their swords faster and faster, building up momentum for one big strike. This is immediately followed by the bit where they repel eachother like identical poles of two magnets. The force is visualized as a literal magnetic force produced by two magnetic fields. And charging up momentum? Momentum is the product of Force multiplied by Time. When you cut out the slower motion beforehand and the 'one big strike', because you don't understand the significance, you get that gif.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 29, 2015 22:39
|
|
|
MrMojok posted:That scene was put in there because somebody thought it would look cool. There is no logic to whirling around their swords like that, to gather momentum for a strike. They're magic space swords, and very heavy.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 29, 2015 22:54
|
|
|
Steve2911 posted:The 'you're supposed to hate the Jedi/Anakin/Jar Jar/midiclorians' argument really baffles me, because it results in a film in which no one is supposed to be liked. You're not supposed to do anything. You are absolutely free - and therefore absolutely solely responsible.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 29, 2015 23:18
|
|
|
You get a lot of people reading the thread and going "I rewatched the films, paying attention to what I was supposed to think, but I just don't see it." The thread's not a substitute for the act of reading. You have to be actively paying attention to the way shots are composed, the intercutting of images, and so-on. You alone are responsible. You can't blame the children.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 29, 2015 23:39
|
|
|
It's worth noting that the gif represents literally one second of footage.Corbeau posted:That's completely different. That sequence at the end of the Princess Bride swordfight is there to show that Inigo has lost his composure and is completely natural for fencing when someone is totally flustered and out of it (and the other guy is toying with them). The waving around sequence in RotS, on the other hand, is entirely unnatural and mostly serves to highlight the most egregious suspension-of-disbelief-breaking tendencies of lightsaber choreography. It's incredibly hammy and feels out of tone for what is set up to be a tragedy. Dracula attacks Yoda with his lightning powers. The prequels are tragicomic. Brazil is a good example of a film that matches the prequels in both tone and content. In this specific case, it's a Dragonball-type magical battle between wizards, where they charge up before attacking. The 'charging up' contributes to the pacing of the fight scene, which is edited as an escalating series of buildups and explosions.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 30, 2015 02:33
|
|
|
HUNDU THE BEAST GOD posted:Again, have you ever seen any martial arts film? Boxing, kung fu, whatever. Once you get past Bruce Lee, all of it is utterly unbelievable in every way. The style of fighting in kung-fu films resembles nothing in reality, full stop. It's choreography. Exactly. The joke on the fans is that the purest, most authentic Jedi combat - the real deal, from the height of their power! - is indistinguishable from the lowest kitsch.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 30, 2015 02:46
|
|
|
Everything about the lava fight emphasizes that they are 'brothers'. They repel eachother like magnets, they do the same exact same move. There's a bit where Anakin grabs Obiwan's arm and tries to force him to kill himself, so Obiwan literally fights himself. Every little detail has some importance. My favorite is the part where Anakin stomps on a worker-droid and crushes it into the lava, using it body as a vehicle while its limbs melt off. The building shaped like two massive hands has already been pointed out, where one of the hands get cut off. Also note the extreme amount of emphasis placed on tension cables. You can hear them constantly vibrating throughout the fight. There's another nice touch that the swordfight takes them past some alien workers, who are just standing on a platform doing their job. It's this big epic battle in hell, and the guy who works there 9-to-5 looks up like "huh? What's up with those jerks?" The fight is clearly not meant to be taken absolutely 100% seriously, because Lucas undercuts it periodically with these reactions. SuperMechagodzilla fucked around with this message at 04:01 on Aug 30, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Aug 30, 2015 03:58
|
|
|
Corbeau posted:Which is enough to give the audience whiplash considering that the same sequence includes a man screaming in agony while being burnt alive. The entire film suffers from this problem, like it can't decide what tone it's trying to set. The tone is completely appropriate. The point is that Anakin is dying pathetically, and the screaming in agony while being burnt alive!!! is an ironic punishment for having inflicted the same pain on the worker-droid, minutes earlier.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 30, 2015 04:39
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 25, 2024 14:54 |
|
|
It's a Jorge-like mispronunciation of Palpatine's first name: Steve. Steve Palpatine.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 30, 2015 05:16
|
|