site banner
PaperclipPerfector  24d ago (text post)   2692 thread views

Friday Fun Thread for March 7, 2025

Be advised: this thread is not for serious in-depth discussion of weighty topics (we have a link for that), this thread is not for anything Culture War related. This thread is for Fun. You got jokes? Share 'em. You got silly questions? Ask 'em.

1
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

It has been 20 years since Revenge of the Sith came out. The entire Star Wars series was formational in my childhood and teenage years, and Revenge of the Sith was one of the few movies I saw in theaters as a teenager. When it was released, it was widely considered a step above the Phantom Menace and Attack of the Clones. The story was darker and more mature; and Jar Jar was essentially non-existent.

I just rewatched it as a 35 year old. So how well has it held up over the last twenty years?

First, the good:

  • On a technical level, while digital movie cameras were still in their relative infancy, it has a sharper and crisper look than Attack of the Clones. Attack of the Clones was the first major picture to be shot entirely digitally rather than with 35 or 70 mm film, and it shows. Many of the shots are soft and do not have the detail of film. The lack of "analog noise" and the ease of imposing digital effects were the only benefits in 2002; by 2005 the situation had improved considerably.
  • Lightsabers show up vibrantly on early digital cameras. They seem to visually "pop" out of the screen.
  • The sound design was widely considered a disappointment after the tour-de-force of the Phantom Menace and Attack of the Clones. However, there are still some solid scenes. Anakin's lightsaber effect as he ignites it before killing the younglings has a deep and menacing bass note that can only truly can be appreciated on a high-end system. The heart-thump juxtaposition during the twin birth scene and the rise of Darth Vader is top-notch, and again can only be appreciated with a good sound system. Surround activity is mostly active and ships whiz seamlessly across the sound stage.
  • John Williams has some of his best work. He weaves in the Imperial March throughout the final half of the movie, notably during Darth Vader's destruction of the separatists and more subtly during Padme's funeral and construction of the Death Star. The haunting twilight moment between Anakin and Padme as they gaze at each other across Coruscant is a perfect mixture of sound and cinematography. Indeed, that scene is the pivotal point where the movie starts taking itself seriously.
  • Speaking of cinematography, there are some outstanding moments as well. While keeping the Star Wars feel, there are some genuinely powerful framing; including the aforementioned Coruscant scene, the "Order 66" scene, Padme's funeral (with the camera fading on Anakin's childhood gift to Padme), and Darth Vader being carried to the medical center during a thunderstorm.
  • Padme is portrayed as a tough, no compromise idealist during the first two movies. Marriage and pregnancy seem to have softened her. Even at the end, when confronted with Anakin's "evil" she doesn't fully turn on him. If Anakin hadn't gone berserk when seeing Obi Wan, she may have been convinced to support him even as he took power in the Empire. As I grow older, I consider duty a high calling, and I believe she should have continued to support Anakin (until, that is, he tried to kill her) even as he ascended into Power. The fact that there was this ambiguity in a major blockbuster is pleasantly surprising, and stands in contrast to (say) Chani in the film adaptation of Dune. (As an aside...Dune is supposed to be "Star Wars for grown ups" yet the heroine acts more like a child than in Star Wars).
  • There is some good--sometimes great--acting by Ewan McGregor. He was a standout among a cast that includes some excellent actors (including later Best Actress Natalie Portman). Ian McDiarmid also has one or two excellent scenes, in particular the conversation with Anakin at the opera.
  • The story itself is not a "black and white" "good versus evil" story. The Jedi really are plotting to take control of the Senate. They truly are lost: they lack conviction in their own ideals. They play the politics like any other faction. If it wasn't for the (contrived? arbitrary?) distinction between the Jedi and the "Dark Side", it would have been difficult to say who was "in the right" (at least, until kids started getting slaughtered).

Now for the bad:

  • The CGI. CGI will never stand up over time...and yet everything was CGI. Even the Clones were needlessly CGI. The actors spend the entire film against green screen. There were scenes that were obviously shot in a comfortable setting, but Lucas thought would look "cooler" in a more "action" shot, and so actors who are sitting on a green-screen couch are now suddenly supposed to be skimming a few miles in the air. Actors need some context to understand how to act, which is entirely lost if they are transported to a completely different setting post-production.
  • The 2005 digital cameras were loud and most of the dialog was lip-synced after shooting. This doesn't help an actor "feel" the scene.
  • While the actors certainly didn't get much help from the script or the technology, the acting still disappoints. Actors don't emote. They look like they are reading from a script. Ewan somehow managed to take a lousy script and no direction and still provide believable scenes, but no one else was up to the task.
  • The dialog itself is well below average. The movie opening has Obi Wan and Anakin infiltrating an enemy ship. This is intended to be a "fun" part of the movie, and much of the action is enjoyable. However, they are given lines that are clearly intended to be "quippy" but simply fall flat. The "best" line is Anakin's "no loose-wire jokes" when Obi-Wan doubts R2's capabilities. There are dozens of lines that are even worse.
  • This is a movie of two halves, and the first half is far worse than the second. The first half is a lighthearted and rather stupid romp. The other is a serious and dark drama. It is whiplash to go between the two.
  • Anakin's fall to the dark side is too sudden to be believable. Is he after power? Is he distrustful of the Jedi? Does he just want to save Padme? Is he jealous of Padme and Obi-Wan? There can be multiple reasons to ultimately make a life-altering decision, but none of these are truly fleshed out in a way that makes me believe he would turn to the Dark Side. The way to seduce Anakin is through promises of power and through making him feel part of the "inner circle". Yet Palpatine transparently lies to Anakin throughout the movie: from hiding his identity as a Sith Lord to praising Anakin for bringing peace when by that point everyone knows Palpatine orchestrated the entire war.
  • This movie also features some of John William's worst work. The most egregious is the copy/pasta of Duel of the Fates during Yoda and Palpatine's fight. The finale of the duel between Anakin and Obi-Wan feels like a music video more than a movie.
  • Certain scenes have abysmal sound design. While overall the movie feels more "compressed" (less variation between quiet and loud sounds) than Episode I and II, the Jedi confrontation with Palpatine is especially bad. There is almost no dynamic range. Surrounds have little activity. It almost sounds like it was mixed for stereo. General Grievous's death similarly lacks bass where it is severely needed, making the entire battle feel fake and inconsequential.
  • Now that I have three kids, Padme's death seems ludicrous. Once you have kids, they become your will to live, replacing pretty much everything else.

Other notes:

  • Both sides try to paint the other as intolerant and unyielding. "Only the Sith deal in absolutes". "If one is to understand the great mystery, one must study all its aspects, not just the dogmatic, narrow view of the Jedi. If you wish to become a complete and wise leader, you must embrace a larger view of the Force." Much was made at the time that the "Only the Sith deal in absolutes" line was a dig at George Bush's "if you are not with us, you are against us". Now, it just feels like an anachronism from an era where the only "bad" thing was intolerance.
  • The Star Wars movies do not explicitly say why the "Dark Side" is bad. They say hate and anger are key to the Dark Side, and the sinister aesthetics of the Emperor and Darth Vader certainly hint at evil. But when taking a step back, they seem like standard fare politicians, rather than something intrinsically "evil". And the "good" side, as mentioned before, has become just another political faction; also interested in power. Perhaps this is justification for Anakin's sudden turn: there isn't much outward difference between the "good" and "bad" side; so one may as well join the winning side.

The scripting flaws of Episode III reveal just how bad Episode I and II were. Episode I was almost entirely a waste: it introduces Padme and Anakin, and shows Palpatine gaining power. Nothing else in that movie was important for later films. Episode I should have started in Coruscant, where Anakin was in training to be a Jedi and Padme was a senator's assistant. This would have revealed the tension and interplay between the various factions and let their love grow in a far more believable setting. The Clone Wars would have started during Episode I, possibly with the destruction of a large portion of the Senate, which would have helped accelerate Anakin's and Padme's careers. Episode II would have been focused mainly on the Clone Wars, possibly showing how destructive it was even to the core of the Republic. It would also show the growing distrust between Anakin and Obi-Wan, and Anakin's budding desire for power. A risky move would have been to make Obi-Wan the twin's father, but it would have made the journey to the Dark Side far more believable. Episode III would then have been entirely about the Anakin's fall, and the destruction of the Jedi.

How does your interpretation of the Prequels change as a result of the Sequel Trilogy? I'll admit I still haven't seen Ep 8-9, because the first sequel was so unbelievably stupid that I didn't understand what the point was supposed to be anymore.

I grew up with Joseph Campbell interviewed at Skywalker Ranch. Star Wars was both low culture and high culture, and the Prequels played into that: they had grand ambitions to talk about racism and philosophy and ambition and fear. ROTS was a great effort in that direction, I just ultimately think there wasn't enough runway in the films themselves. Friends of mine who consumed stuff like the Clone Wars series liked ROTS better, it was one of the first franchises that found itself in need of side material to work.

I'm 33 now, I was primed for Episode I when it came out, and I loved it. I consumed the side material voraciously, the padawan series with young obi wan learning jedi philosophy, that kind of thing. By the time III came out, I was increasingly bored of it, and had moved on, and I've never quite come back.

How does your interpretation of the Prequels change as a result of the Sequel Trilogy?

You are mistaken, comrade. There was no sequel trilogy.

I maintain that Revenge of the Sith is the best Star Wars movie. While the execution is certainly flawed (in the ways which you already noted), I think the story it tries to tell is a wonderful idea. The slow corruption of a paragon into a villain is a great story, and far more interesting than the standard hero's journey stuff the original trilogy is about. I do wish that the execution was better, but I give it a lot of credit for unevenly executing a great story idea (as compared to the original trilogy which successfully executes a boring story).

He was never a paragon though. He's a whiny arrogant prick in AotC who basically abandons his Jedi training as soon as he's alone with Padme and then commits mass murder. He isn't even really seduced by the dark side, he's tricked because Palpatine just lies about how he can save his wife from death by pregnancy, and then immediately goes into kill-children mode.

The OT is definitely kind of a mess because of how many massive changes they made on the fly. The first movie was intended to be a standalone of course, so it's a very generic hero's journey tale, and Vader and Anakin were two different people. Even in Empire Leia wasn't supposed to be Luke's sister (hence the kiss at the beginning) and Yoda saying "There is another" was referring to his real twin sister secretly being trained somewhere else, but Lucas realized it was going to be an even more complicated mess. RotJ is a pretty wacky movie overall but the throne room scene is peak.

He was never a paragon though. He's a whiny arrogant prick in AotC who basically abandons his Jedi training as soon as he's alone with Padme and then commits mass murder. He isn't even really seduced by the dark side, he's tricked because Palpatine just lies about how he can save his wife from death by pregnancy, and then immediately goes into kill-children mode.

Sure, but those are flaws in the execution. The story tells us that Anakin is a paragon (in Obi-Wan's dialogue in episode 4, with the prophecy about him being the chosen one, etc). So yeah, the execution is flawed but the idea is very much there.

I'd just like to chip in that Matt Stover's Revenge of the Sith novelization does a good job at fleshing out Anakin's worldview and motives, as well as his dynamic with Obi-Wan - though it's also helped that my copy of ROTS is the three-in-one binding of the Dark Lord trilogy. You get the entirety of Labyrinth of Evil first to set up Revenge, and that's a great story that also shows Palpatine's surrogate-uncle relationship with Anakin and how he's been playing the long game of being Anakin's confidant while subtly cultivating his worst traits - his pride and his fear of loss.

Not to invalidate your critique of the prequel trilogy, I think it's a fair critique. I know saying "they fixed it in the novelization" doesn't fix the problems with the film, but I do think the novelization is worth your time if you want an official version (well, Legends-official...) of the story that's more coherent.

Also, I haven't talked about Rise of Darth Vader as the third part of the Dark Lord trilogy - it's good, but really more of an epilogue. Aftermath of Revenge and some character work on Anakin grappling with his cybernetics and dependency on the suit. I'm not doing it justice, unfortunately.

Yeah, Matthew Stover’s version is the best version of RotS for sure.

From my point of view, the prequels are well-written!

Roger roger!

For meme material, the prequels are some of the best movies ever made.

Then you are lost!

We have a contender for one of those one-line AAQCs.

Please explain.

I may be too easily amused, but it's a reference to a line from the prequels itself: "from my point of view it's the Jedi that are evil" (which is followed by "well then you truly are lost").

Have you ever looked into fanedits?

Personally I think the only entertaining thing that came out of the prequels was RedLetterMedia's feature length panning of them.

I've never watched this movie but I found this review interesting.

What is your overall opinion of George Lucas as a creator? Talented director but mediocre screenwriter? A hack on both fronts who got lucky once, aided by riding other people's coattails?

Great vision guy and good executive producer who desperately needs someone else to write the screenplay and direct the movie so his bad ideas can be shot down.

I think Lucas has great ideas: Star Wars and THX-1138 are both interesting concepts. I'm not sure how involved he was in the special effects for the Original Trilogy, but they were revolutionary for the time. I don't think he is a good screenwriter or director. The success of the first Star Wars (I refuse to call it "A New Hope" :)) can be attributed to a lot of luck (it originally wasn't going to even have a score) and creative tension and pushback from the actors and crew. Harrison Ford and Mark Hamil would change their lines or ad-lib; summarized pithily, famously, and probably mistakenly by Harrison Ford's "You can write this, but you can't say it". Empire Strikes Back and Return of the Jedi were not directed by Lucas. Empire Strikes Back in particular, widely considered the best of the Trilogy, had relatively little creative involvement by Lucas.

Excellent brainstormer but badly in need of someone with the power to push back on his worst/most indulgent ideas (several of the worst ideas he had in the prequels we're proposed for the original trilogy but got shelved when others rightfully told him no). I suspect he's better as a writer than a director, but that's trying to evaluate months of work from a few scenes of bts material.

How the world would be different if Spielberg hadn't deferred to Lucas and instead had taken the helm he'd been offered! Three fantastic films, the build-up of the chosen one, only to see him fall to the Dark Side in bits and pieces, obsessed by the loss of the attachments in his life which he'd been told to eschew from the start.

several of the worst ideas he had in the prequels we're proposed for the original trilogy but got shelved when others rightfully told him no

So in the prequel trilogy, he fell victim to protection from editors?

That's my take, at least.

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats