Just got back from Star Wars.... The official Star Wars discussion thread *spoilers* - Page 7 - The Orange Mane

baja · 05-22-2005, 03:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bob's your Information Minister

Oh crap...

Obi-wan beats a machine with four arms whirling at whorp speed in a light laser fight ya right.

Anyway like i said if you liked the movie fine

baja · 05-22-2005, 03:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jason in LA

Everybody has different opinions on movies. If you don't like it, fine. But don't rain on everybody else's parade.

I heard how great Sideways was. Went to go see it and hated the movie. But if others want to think it's great, I really don't care. Because I know there are a ton of movies that I like that others will hate. I loved the first Mission: Impossible, even though I never hear anything good about that movie. I've never been able to sit through any Lord of the Ring movies. I've fallen asleep every single time (about six tries). But there are many people that love those movies.

To each his own.

How in the hell am I raining on your parade, because I didn't like the movie. Didn't realize I had that much power over you.

Taco John · 05-22-2005, 06:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pezman

The more and more distance I put behind the movie, the less I liked it. Flawed, missed opportunities at certain points, and a wholly unbelievable and rushed turn by Anakin to the dark side.

Dude... He had just cut off Mace Windu's hand, and opened him up for the Emporer to kill him... Where does he go from there? He's got two choices: Fight the Emporer, Join the Emporer. There is no middle ground. I totally saw that as believable given the way the events were set up and transpired. Between the Emporer and the Jedi council, the guy didn't know up from down. Once the decision was made to cut off Mace's hand, he had nowhere to go but down.

Kid A · 05-22-2005, 06:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Taco John

Dude... He had just cut off Mace Windu's hand, and opened him up for the Emporer to kill him... Where does he go from there? He's got two choices: Fight the Emporer, Join the Emporer. There is no middle ground. I totally saw that as believable given the way the events were set up and transpired. Between the Emporer and the Jedi council, the guy didn't know up from down. Once the decision was made to cut off Mace's hand, he had nowhere to go but down.

I was incredulous about his turn to the dark side when I saw it, but upon reflection I think you're right. There was enough reason to make his fall believable, at least by Star Wars standards. I still won't buy Padme's "giving up her will to live" death. Just say Vader choking her was the cause.

Bob's your Information Minister · 05-22-2005, 08:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by baja fan

Obi-wan beats a machine with four arms whirling at whorp speed in a light laser fight ya right.

Anyway like i said if you liked the movie fine

We're talking about Star Wars and you have a problem with unbelievable fight sequences? You have issues.

baja · 05-22-2005, 08:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bob's your Information Minister

We're talking about Star Wars and you have a problem with unbelievable fight sequences? You have issues.

I hear ya but this was over the top even for Star Wars.

Just think back on the original shows they were much more plausible. Plus the archetypal themes were valid.

baja · 05-22-2005, 08:57 PM

Nick Gillespie has one of the more interesting contemporary analyses on the Star Wars phenomenon I've seen. It starts out seeming like a complete rant, but at points is actually fairly insightful. However, he misses the crucial dramatic points as to why the first two movies were both critical and popular successes and why all the other movies have disappointed.

Here's a story:

An orphan boy grows up on a boring farm, dreaming of a life of adventure. He has never met his real parents, and while he loves the people who care for him, he knows he doesn't really belong with them. He meets two exotic strangers who befriend him and become his servants. They wind up leading him through a brief misadventure to an old wizard. The wizard tells him there's more to his past than he ever realized, and gives him a magic sword. He also teaches the boy how to unlock amazing powers he never realized he had within him. After discovering that his family has been killed by minions of a dark knight in the service of an evil king, the boy goes off on an adventure with the wizard into strange lands full of exotic creatures. Their mission: rescue a beautiful princess from the clutches of the same dark knight. The Dark Knight also controls a giant dragon that can wipe out horrifying numbers of people with its devastating fire breath. Along the way on their journey, they are joined by a lovable rogue knight and his strong, silent squire. Together, they invade the dark knight's lair, escaping from the dragon's belly with the beautiful princess in tow. They later rally to destroy the dragon, but before they can bring the dark knight to justice, the dark knight escapes to fight another day. The princess rewards them all, and there is much rejoicing as they are applauded as great heroes. The end.

That, of course, is the entire plot of the first Star Wars film.

The second film is about the budding romance between the rogue knight and the princess, the boy confronting his inner demons, discovering horrifying revelations about his past, and becoming a man. The chapter ends on a note of wonder: scared for the future, but we're older and wiser, and hopeful and determined for the future.

The third movie was little more than a big satisfying "crash" of an ending, wrapping up all the major themes of the first two with some epic battles. Frankly, if it hadn't been for those f****ig Ewoks it would have been a fine film. Dramatically simpler than the other two of course, but that's just becuase it was just a climax. Complaining that it's simpler and less interesting is like complaining that orgasm is simpler and less interesting than foreplay.

The fact that the story was so very simple and so filled with familiar archetypes is the entire reason people have found endless allegories to them in such things as the Cold War, the Iraq war, Vietnam, Nixon, Watergate, and all that other stuff. It's not because Lucas really put any of that in there at all. It's just that a story filled with fairy tale archetypes is one easilyi adapted to almost any real life situation. Can you see the original Star Wars trilogy as an allegory to the Cold War? Sure you can if you want to. You can just as easily see it as an allegory of your conflict with your jerk boss and the lousy company you work for.

The original Star Wars trilogy was nothing but a fantasy story given a more "real seeming" background by putting it in space with aliens instead of in a magical fairy kingdom. By the end of our teen years most of us come to the realization that no matter how hard we imagine it, we know we're never going to find the magical portal that leads to Middle Earth or Hogwart's--but by putting his fantasy stories in space, and invoking New Age mysticism with "The Force," George Lucas made it a little easier even for grownups to think maybe something like all that was actually possible. Oh not likely of course, but they could believe it just enough to make the speculation seem fun and not completely silly; after all, despite the abject failure of parapsychologists to prove their existence after decades of research, most people find things like telekenesis and telepathy far more believable than magic spells and fire-breathing dragons.

The new movies have all that the old ones had and more in terms of stunning special effects and interesting fantasy settings. But they fail dramatically. Why? The main reason, I suggest, is that all the mystery, all the questions the story invokes (What were the "clone wars?" What happened to the Jedi? How did Vader become evil? How does "The Force" really work?) were already set up for us in the original movies. The mysteries are all established for us before we walk in. All that's left is Revelation.

And Revelation is almost always less interesting than mystery--unless your revelation creates still more mystery. If not, the fascination you once had for the mystery generally ends.

For example: one of the reasons people remain so utterly fascinated by JFK-assassination conspiracy theories is that they contain endless mystery: who "really" did it? Who engaged in the coverup? Who else may have been involved? What were their motivations? Are they still around, and if so, what are they up to?

The idea that Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone is an unpopular view. Why? I suggest that it's not just because people don't like to believe that a great and powerful man could be brought down by a lone nut. People don't like that, but there's more to it: if we don't accept that the lone nut did it, then we have a fascinating mystery to enthrall us, into which we can pour all of our own interests and fascinations. How much more interesting! We can now endlessly debate the grassy knoll, the less-popular overpass location for the second (or maybe even third!) gunman, possible Mob involvement, possible CIA or KGB involvement, maybe LBJ or possibly even Castro were involved somewhere...

It never ends, and for many people, just having it end would be upsetting. They don't want a definitive and simple answer because having one ruins their fun. A moody, disaffected Marxist gets off a moderately lucky shot and takes down a President? How utterly boring!

Think similarly about people's fascination with dinosaurs. Why are we fascinated by them? It's not just what we know about them, it's what we don't know that fascinates us. Indeed, a part of the enduring charm of the dinosaur is that every time paleontologists uncover new facts about dinosaurs, those new facts inevitably spark debate and open up still more questions. And it's endless fun to debate the causes of their extinction. (At least, for dinosaur fans it is.)

Or think of physics. Why are we so interested in, say, black holes, or the secrets of the atom? Well, part of it is that as we learn about them, we learn about still mysteries. Usually, new breakthrough discoveries in these areas lead to still more mysteries. Once we definitevely proved the existence of the atom, it raised the next obvious question: what's the atom made up of? For a long time we weren't sure. Then the answer: protons neutrons and elections! Well what are those made up of, and how do they work?

At least so far, the answers to all those questions have not only been interesting in their own right, but they have created further mysteries. So we don't just get an answer to our earlier questions, but we also get new fun: more mysteries!

George Lucas' second Star Wars trilogy falls flat for most people not just because George Lucas is rusty and out of shape from 20 years away from the director's chair--although that's undoubtedly part of it. They also fail not just because of the wooden dialogue--although that's part of it too.

No, their biggest failure by far is that these new films present no new mysteries. There's some political intrigue, but most of it seems obscure and uninteresting, not grand and compelling. Beyond that, almost none of the story in this second set of films creates any mysteries for us to wonder about or debate.

We're just handed a pile of answers, most of which don't go anywhere. Nor are the answers organized in the way of great archetypal themes like the first two films were: Lucas tries to do this with gestures like giving Darth Vader a virgin birth, but it's handled in such an offhand way it's uncompelling.

It's notable that the few times that the movies do rise beyond the pale and tedious it is when they again move into the realm of mystery ("how did this come about?") and into the realm of universal archetypes ("how did a good man become evil?"). Whereas the first films dwealt on both mysteries and on universal archetypes almost entirely, these second films barely manage to do that--and when they do, they don't do it anywhere near as adroitly.

It's telling, though, that almost everyone seems to agree that this third film is the best--and what does this film deal with? It spends the entire film building up a big mystery ("how did he get hurt and become Darth Vader?") that it does not reveal until then end. And it is otherwise all about universal themes: the choices we make in life, fear, loneliness, anguish, rebellion. When it rises to those levels--and when we're kept in suspense by the mystery until the very end--we tend to like the film better.

In short, then:

First set of films: Filled with universal archetypes and themes that everyone recognized at a visceral level. Set up lots of mysteries and challenges. Made fantasy concepts feel almost like maybe, just maybe, they could be real.

Second set of films: Universal archetypes and themes largely missing and/or buried in obscuring, overcomplicated plotlines. Old mysteries solved, with very few new mysteries introduced for us to wonder about. Add in a screenwriter and director who's lost his touch for good dialogue and pulling the warmth out of actors, and you've got a much less interesting set of films.

Here's my prediction to Nick: the original Star Wars films will endure and still be loved even by our grandchildren. Because they were not cultural phenomena: they hit on themes universal to the human experience, regardless of culture.

The second set will be remembered mostly as a sort of addendum, an "here's more if you wanted to explore that universe a bit more." Not unlike The Silmarillion to The Lord of the Rings. Or the fourth or fifth Hitchhiker's Guide books.

* Update * As a good lesson in how silly it is for people to look for deep "hidden meanings" in movies that are really just made up of grand archetypes, look no further than Pundit Guys funny piece on how Star Wars is really a messsage to the Catholic Church to keep priestly fidelity and keep women and homosexuals out of the clergy. Me? I say the whole thing's George Lucas' message to my wife to tell her that she should get the day job and let me stay home with the kids and play video games all day.

baja · 05-22-2005, 08:59 PM

Archetypal Criticism and Joseph Campbell

by Ellen K.

Archetypes are typical images, characters, narrative designs, themes, and other literary phenomena which are present in all literature, and so provide the basis for study of its interconnectedness. Critics of this theory claim that its proponents are examining literature according to a few monotonous patterns. Archetypal critics contend that literary greatness depends on themes and images shared with other literature rather than on the author’s originality. In my opinion, this degrades the author, but archetypal critics do not see it so. They say that texts give imaginative focus to existing order and community, and that works of literature, instead of imitating life, as Aristotle stated, actually imitate other works of literature. Whatever a work’s connections to life, reality, society, or philosophy, it does not come from these things.

The origins of archetypal criticism are in psychology and myth analysis. It is also called "myth criticism," although I think this rather limits its applicability. Jung, a philosopher, stated that there were two parts to the human unconscious, the personal and the archetypal. Personal unconscious is our own repressed or other memories which influence us. The archetypal, or collective unconscious is a theoretical pool of memories that everyone shares, a sort of shared knowledge. This was related to myth first by James C. Frazer, who wrote a 12 volume comparison of the myths and legends of different cultures, called The Golden Bough. Joseph Campbell later expanded on this in his The Hero with a Thousand Faces.

Listed below are examples of archetypes and characters which represent them, as defined mostly by Jung, Campbell, and myself

Characters

hero/hero’s journey - the protagonist, the hero’s journey is always his journey from childhood to adulthood, but can also be an actual journey to find something such as his past, usually male examples: Odysseus (Homer), Hercules, Robin Hood, King Arthur
death - the antagonist, attempts to thwart the hero’s plans and waylay his journey, greedy, lustful, usually rich, examples: the White Witch, King John, Hades
shadow - the evil inside the hero, conflict, temptation, obstacles in journey, this is not represented by a character, but is more of a theme, Jung was not clear
mother and father - may be dead, search for parents may be included in the hero’s journey
"wise old man" - provides guidance, often has magical powers, examples: Obi Wan Kenobi, Merlin
"love interest" - usually female, as the hero is almost always male, sometimes distracts the hero from his journey, provides motivation, eventual happiness together
sidekick - self explanatory, provides a foil for the hero, examples: Will Scarlet, Watson
Themes

Good vs. Evil, Light vs. Dark
the misfit in society (the hero or the archetype of death)
interpretation of dreams
the dead returning to life, or simply advising the living (esp. in Greek myths)
Another archetypal critic, Northrup Frye, contends that the origins of the myths are unimportant, that the literary critic needs to go past this and get on with the criticism.

Joseph Campbell

Campbell received a master’s degree in medieval literature from Columbia University. He described myths as a manifestation of the universal human need to explain reality. He wrote The Hero with a Thousand Faces, which compared the myths of various cultures and concluded that they were all the same monomyth, and it was the same hero in each one, hence the title of the book. He examined religion as a myth, and wrote The Masks of God, which claims that all myths have the same message. Critics of Campbell complain about the interpretation that missing elements are significant, rather than a contradiction. One internet critic summed up their complaint saying that all Campbell was actually saying was that "stories people tell tend to have a beginning, a middle, and an end, and a protagonist who does interesting things." This was the only universal connection they saw throughout literature. Other critics point out that one can manipulate, edit, and ignore parts of stories to end up with the same message.

I bring up Star Wars for a number of reasons. It is one of my favorite movies, it is a perfect example of a myth, and George Lucas and Joseph Campbell were good friends. Star Wars contains almost all of the archetypes, and this is what George Lucas intended. He wanted to create a modern day myth. He succeeded admirably. Luke Skywalker is the archetypal hero, he is on a journey to find his father, he receives guidance from Obi Wan Kenobi and Yoda, the "wise old men." Han Solo is the rogue who eventually makes good, and who turns out to be not just interested in money. Darth Vader fills a number of archetypes. He and Emperor Palatine are the representation of death, while Vader is also the father who is unknown to his son. Luke’s discovery of Vader’s true relationship to himself is also an archetypal event. The Dark Side of the Force also represents the shadow which plagues the hero. There are numerous sidekicks, and of course the proverbial love interest, Princess Leia. Lucas had actually read Campbell’s books, and edited his script for Star Wars afterwards. When Lucas showed Campbell the movies at his home, Campbell remarked "I thought real art stopped with Picasso, Joyce and Mann. Now I know it hasn’t."

sirhcyennek81 · 05-22-2005, 09:13 PM

again i say...geeks...every single one of you...

clarker · 05-22-2005, 09:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by baja fan

Look Clarker the movie sucked that's my opinion if that makes me arrogant well you are entitled to your opinion.

The acting sucked, the storyline sucked, the dialog sucked, the heros did humanly impossable fight sequences, all I saw was a movie designed to make boys who wish they were Judis get their blood pumping.

Why is what I think about a movie so important to you anyway?

Thinking the movie sucked doesn't make you arrogant, but saying that because you don't like it then it be a bomb at the box office sounds kind of arrogant.

BTW, if it never made another dime, as of right now you would be wrong about that. $300 million worldwide in 3 days.

baja · 05-22-2005, 09:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by clarker

Thinking the movie sucked doesn't make you arrogant, but saying that because you don't like it then it be a bomb at the box office sounds kind of arrogant.

BTW, if it never made another dime, as of right now you would be wrong about that. $300 million worldwide in 3 days.

What do you think it cost to make?

What was spent pimping it?

What is the expected gross?

300 mil is a lot of dough but what is the break even number.

When I said it would bomb I mean it will gross less than expected.

clarker · 05-22-2005, 10:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by baja fan

What do you think it cost to make?

What was spent pimping it?

What is the expected gross?

300 mil is a lot of dough but what is the break even number.

When I said it would bomb I mean it will gross less than expected.

It took $113 million to make. I don't know what they spent on adds. But after only 3 days and it made 300 million, I think it is safe to say they are going to make a profit.

baja · 05-22-2005, 10:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by clarker

It took $113 million to make. I don't know what they spent on adds. But after only 3 days and it made 300 million, I think it is safe to say they are going to make a profit.

They might make a profit but they did not make a good movie. :-)

Rigs11 · 05-22-2005, 10:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by baja fan

What do you think it cost to make?

What was spent pimping it?

What is the expected gross?

300 mil is a lot of dough but what is the break even number.

When I said it would bomb I mean it will gross less than expected.

It's actually "expected" to make more than the other movies. Lucas spent 113 mill to make it and another 90 mill to advertise. 300 mill in 3 days is impressive...most impressive.Plus this does not count merchandise and dvd sales.

Bob's your Information Minister · 05-22-2005, 10:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by baja fan

Just think back on the original shows they were much more plausible.

No, we just saw less skilled Jedi having fights.

baja · 05-22-2005, 10:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bob's your Information Minister

No, we just saw less skilled Jedi having fights.

As per your MO you take the easy way out.

Guess you jumped over the archetypal reference post or did not understand it.

I do admit it was a long post.

Bob's your Information Minister · 05-22-2005, 10:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by baja fan

As per your MO you take the easy way out.

Guess you jumped over the archetypal reference post or did not understand it.

I do admit it was a long post.

I definitely agree with the archetypal bit, that's why I didn't address it.

How is that the easy way out? It's obvious. We have two old Jedi (one half robot) and a n00b in the OT. It's clear why none of the saber duels were on par with the prequels, featuring Jedi in their PRIME.

clarker · 05-22-2005, 11:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by baja fan

They might make a profit but they did not make a good movie. :-)

Well, that is just one opinion. I thought it was a great movie.

clarker · 05-22-2005, 11:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by baja fan

I hear ya but this was over the top even for Star Wars.

Just think back on the original shows they were much more plausible. Plus the archetypal themes were valid.

When your talking about a movie with all kinds of aliens, laser swords, space ships that travel across a galaxy in a blink of an eye, the argument of what is plausible and what is not, is kind of moot.

Either you buy into the story or you don't.

Taco John · 05-23-2005, 01:36 AM

I just got back from my second showing....

What can I say... I love movie "events." I love catching the late late showing at the theatre near my house for shows that I want to hit alone. Or with my wife when she wants to, but typically, she doesn't because she falls asleep!

Anyway, still a great movie. The criticism of this one falls on deaf ears with me. It's a comic book motion picture. Lucas wasn't trying to write award winning dialogue. He was trying to get across emotions in short comic book panel segments. It's the same way with all of them, and part of what make them so great.

I can't understand how anyone couldn't enjoy that movie, but to each their own. I'm sure I'll hit this one at least once or twice more.

Taco John · 05-23-2005, 01:46 AM

Baja nailed it... This one was a dud.

'Star Wars' Earns Record-Breaking $158.5M

By ALICIA CHANG, Associated Press Writer
Sun May 22, 4:40 PM ET

LOS ANGELES - Moviegoers have turned out in full force for the final chapter of the "Star Wars" saga, which took in $158.5 million since its opening to shatter three-day and four-day box office records.

"Star Wars: Episode III — Revenge of the Sith" grossed $124.7 million from Thursday to Saturday, according to studio estimates Sunday. That's higher than the three-day record set by the first "Spider-Man," which took in $114.8 million in May 2002 — though "Star Wars" had a lower Friday-Sunday take ($108.5 million) than the Tobey Maguire film.

"Revenge of the Sith" rang in a whopping $50 million on its opening Thursday, a single-day record boosted by eagerly anticipated midnight showings, and its total receipts since then beat the four-day $134.3 million opening of 2003's "The Matrix Reloaded." The George Lucas film has also grossed $144.7 million overseas for a total of $303 million worldwide.

"The reaction to the movie is absolutely spectacular," said Bruce Snyder, president of domestic distribution at Twentieth Century Fox.

Last weekend's box office champ, "Monster-in-Law," which marked Jane Fonda's return to the big screen as Jennifer Lopez's villainous prospective mother-in-law, slipped to a distant second with $14.4 million, a 38 percent drop. The Will Ferrell soccer comedy "Kicking & Screaming" took in $10.5 million to finish third.

Theater owners, studios and marketing partners were pleased to see "Star Wars" jump-start the summer movie season.

"It's a very strong start to what will hopefully be a very strong summer," said Paul Dergarabedian, president of box office tracker Exhibitor Relations.

The Adam Sandler-Chris Rock remake of "The Longest Yard" and the animated zoo tale "Madagascar" open in wide release during Memorial Day weekend, traditionally one of the busiest movie viewing times of the year.

But "Star Wars" — which has sold an average of eight tickets per second online at Fandango.com — could remain at the top of the box office despite the competition.

"I think we have a shot to be No. 1 next week even with two giant pictures coming out," Snyder said.

The third and final installment in the "Star Wars" prequel trilogy chronicles the transformation of the heroic Jedi Knight Anakin Skywalker into the villainous Darth Vader. Studio exit surveys showed the audience — usually dominated by men for sci-fi films — was 58 percent male and 42 percent female, with nearly half the viewers under age 25, Snyder said.

"Revenge of the Sith" is the first "Star Wars" film to earn a PG-13 rating. The first five films were rated PG. Considered by critics to be the most entertaining of the prequel trilogy, it easily outperformed "Episode I — The Phantom Menace" and "Episode II — Attack of the Clones," which grossed $64.8 million and $80 million, respectively, in their opening weekends.

Estimated ticket sales for Friday through Sunday at North American theaters, according to Exhibitor Relations Co. Inc. Final figures will be released Monday.

1. "Star Wars: Episode III — Revenge of the Sith," $108.5 million

2. "Monster-in-Law," $14.4 million

3. "Kicking & Screaming," $10.5 million

4. "Crash," $5.5 million

5. "Unleashed," $3.8 million

6. "Kingdom of Heaven," $3.4 million

7. "House of Wax," $3.2 million

8. "The Interpreter," $2.8 million

9. "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy," $2 million

10. "Mindhunters," $909,049

Atlas · 05-23-2005, 01:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kid A

I was incredulous about his turn to the dark side when I saw it, but upon reflection I think you're right. There was enough reason to make his fall believable, at least by Star Wars standards. I still won't buy Padme's "giving up her will to live" death. Just say Vader choking her was the cause.

She didn't lose her will to live. I believe the Emperor killed her.

I loved the movie. I saw it Sunday and I thought it tied up eveything very nice. I loved The way OB1 left Vader by the river of fire. The Vader caught on fire...That was just awesome. Greta movie. It was a little long in parts but those parts were necessary to tie everything together.

Taco John · 05-23-2005, 01:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Atlas

She didn't lose her will to live. I believe the Emperor killed her.

My wife submits she died of a broken heart. The trauma of the grief mixed in with the pain of childbirth is what killed her. Works for me.

Orange4Life · 05-23-2005, 04:26 AM

I said this in an earlier post about Padme's death but I'll say it again. I think Lucas wanted to have the choke hold and stress of labor combine to kill her but felt it would be too much for the kiddies. If you watch Empire with the commentary on Lucas talks about how worried he was about how the kids would take Luke getting his hand chopped off as well as learning Vader was his father. Lucas went as far as talking to child shrinks about how the ending would effect kids. In the end I think Lucas decided the choke/labor death would be too much for the kids and went in the other direction figuring the older audience would be able to put two and two together without spelling it out.

Jason in LA · 05-23-2005, 06:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by baja fan

How in the hell am I raining on your parade, because I didn't like the movie. Didn't realize I had that much power over you.

Don't think so high of yourself. You do not have power over anybody.

05-22-2005, 08:59 PM	#158
baja It is what it Is. Pay attention. Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: in a bunker Posts: 54,395 Adopt-a-Bronco: Julius Thomas	Archetypal Criticism and Joseph Campbell by Ellen K. Archetypes are typical images, characters, narrative designs, themes, and other literary phenomena which are present in all literature, and so provide the basis for study of its interconnectedness. Critics of this theory claim that its proponents are examining literature according to a few monotonous patterns. Archetypal critics contend that literary greatness depends on themes and images shared with other literature rather than on the author’s originality. In my opinion, this degrades the author, but archetypal critics do not see it so. They say that texts give imaginative focus to existing order and community, and that works of literature, instead of imitating life, as Aristotle stated, actually imitate other works of literature. Whatever a work’s connections to life, reality, society, or philosophy, it does not come from these things. The origins of archetypal criticism are in psychology and myth analysis. It is also called "myth criticism," although I think this rather limits its applicability. Jung, a philosopher, stated that there were two parts to the human unconscious, the personal and the archetypal. Personal unconscious is our own repressed or other memories which influence us. The archetypal, or collective unconscious is a theoretical pool of memories that everyone shares, a sort of shared knowledge. This was related to myth first by James C. Frazer, who wrote a 12 volume comparison of the myths and legends of different cultures, called The Golden Bough. Joseph Campbell later expanded on this in his The Hero with a Thousand Faces. Listed below are examples of archetypes and characters which represent them, as defined mostly by Jung, Campbell, and myself Characters hero/hero’s journey - the protagonist, the hero’s journey is always his journey from childhood to adulthood, but can also be an actual journey to find something such as his past, usually male examples: Odysseus (Homer), Hercules, Robin Hood, King Arthur death - the antagonist, attempts to thwart the hero’s plans and waylay his journey, greedy, lustful, usually rich, examples: the White Witch, King John, Hades shadow - the evil inside the hero, conflict, temptation, obstacles in journey, this is not represented by a character, but is more of a theme, Jung was not clear mother and father - may be dead, search for parents may be included in the hero’s journey "wise old man" - provides guidance, often has magical powers, examples: Obi Wan Kenobi, Merlin "love interest" - usually female, as the hero is almost always male, sometimes distracts the hero from his journey, provides motivation, eventual happiness together sidekick - self explanatory, provides a foil for the hero, examples: Will Scarlet, Watson Themes Good vs. Evil, Light vs. Dark the misfit in society (the hero or the archetype of death) interpretation of dreams the dead returning to life, or simply advising the living (esp. in Greek myths) Another archetypal critic, Northrup Frye, contends that the origins of the myths are unimportant, that the literary critic needs to go past this and get on with the criticism. Joseph Campbell Campbell received a master’s degree in medieval literature from Columbia University. He described myths as a manifestation of the universal human need to explain reality. He wrote The Hero with a Thousand Faces, which compared the myths of various cultures and concluded that they were all the same monomyth, and it was the same hero in each one, hence the title of the book. He examined religion as a myth, and wrote The Masks of God, which claims that all myths have the same message. Critics of Campbell complain about the interpretation that missing elements are significant, rather than a contradiction. One internet critic summed up their complaint saying that all Campbell was actually saying was that "stories people tell tend to have a beginning, a middle, and an end, and a protagonist who does interesting things." This was the only universal connection they saw throughout literature. Other critics point out that one can manipulate, edit, and ignore parts of stories to end up with the same message. I bring up Star Wars for a number of reasons. It is one of my favorite movies, it is a perfect example of a myth, and George Lucas and Joseph Campbell were good friends. Star Wars contains almost all of the archetypes, and this is what George Lucas intended. He wanted to create a modern day myth. He succeeded admirably. Luke Skywalker is the archetypal hero, he is on a journey to find his father, he receives guidance from Obi Wan Kenobi and Yoda, the "wise old men." Han Solo is the rogue who eventually makes good, and who turns out to be not just interested in money. Darth Vader fills a number of archetypes. He and Emperor Palatine are the representation of death, while Vader is also the father who is unknown to his son. Luke’s discovery of Vader’s true relationship to himself is also an archetypal event. The Dark Side of the Force also represents the shadow which plagues the hero. There are numerous sidekicks, and of course the proverbial love interest, Princess Leia. Lucas had actually read Campbell’s books, and edited his script for Star Wars afterwards. When Lucas showed Campbell the movies at his home, Campbell remarked "I thought real art stopped with Picasso, Joyce and Mann. Now I know it hasn’t." Last edited by baja; 05-22-2005 at 09:04 PM..

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Star Wars Battlefront, Fable, and Xmen. Comments?	want2bAbronco	Off Topics Forum	12	10-07-2004 07:04 AM
has anyone else wasted $40.00 on tha piece of Crap star wars ?	Spider	Off Topics Forum	28	09-24-2004 11:05 PM

05-22-2005, 08:57 PM	#157
baja It is what it Is. Pay attention. Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: in a bunker Posts: 54,395 Adopt-a-Bronco: Julius Thomas	Nick Gillespie has one of the more interesting contemporary analyses on the Star Wars phenomenon I've seen. It starts out seeming like a complete rant, but at points is actually fairly insightful. However, he misses the crucial dramatic points as to why the first two movies were both critical and popular successes and why all the other movies have disappointed. Here's a story: An orphan boy grows up on a boring farm, dreaming of a life of adventure. He has never met his real parents, and while he loves the people who care for him, he knows he doesn't really belong with them. He meets two exotic strangers who befriend him and become his servants. They wind up leading him through a brief misadventure to an old wizard. The wizard tells him there's more to his past than he ever realized, and gives him a magic sword. He also teaches the boy how to unlock amazing powers he never realized he had within him. After discovering that his family has been killed by minions of a dark knight in the service of an evil king, the boy goes off on an adventure with the wizard into strange lands full of exotic creatures. Their mission: rescue a beautiful princess from the clutches of the same dark knight. The Dark Knight also controls a giant dragon that can wipe out horrifying numbers of people with its devastating fire breath. Along the way on their journey, they are joined by a lovable rogue knight and his strong, silent squire. Together, they invade the dark knight's lair, escaping from the dragon's belly with the beautiful princess in tow. They later rally to destroy the dragon, but before they can bring the dark knight to justice, the dark knight escapes to fight another day. The princess rewards them all, and there is much rejoicing as they are applauded as great heroes. The end. That, of course, is the entire plot of the first Star Wars film. The second film is about the budding romance between the rogue knight and the princess, the boy confronting his inner demons, discovering horrifying revelations about his past, and becoming a man. The chapter ends on a note of wonder: scared for the future, but we're older and wiser, and hopeful and determined for the future. The third movie was little more than a big satisfying "crash" of an ending, wrapping up all the major themes of the first two with some epic battles. Frankly, if it hadn't been for those f***ig Ewoks it would have been a fine film. Dramatically simpler than the other two of course, but that's just becuase it was just a climax. Complaining that it's simpler and less interesting is like complaining that orgasm is simpler and less interesting than foreplay. The fact that the story was so very simple and so filled with familiar archetypes is the entire reason people have found endless allegories to them in such things as the Cold War, the Iraq war, Vietnam, Nixon, Watergate, and all that other stuff. It's not because Lucas really put any of that in there at all. It's just that a story filled with fairy tale archetypes is one easilyi adapted to almost any real life situation. Can you see the original Star Wars trilogy as an allegory to the Cold War? Sure you can if you want to. You can just as easily see it as an allegory of your conflict with your jerk boss and the lousy company you work for. The original Star Wars trilogy was nothing but a fantasy story given a more "real seeming" background by putting it in space with aliens instead of in a magical fairy kingdom. By the end of our teen years most of us come to the realization that no matter how hard we imagine it, we know we're never going to find the magical portal that leads to Middle Earth or Hogwart's--but by putting his fantasy stories in space, and invoking New Age mysticism with "The Force," George Lucas made it a little easier even for grownups to think maybe something like all that was actually possible. Oh not likely of course, but they could believe it just enough to make the speculation seem fun and not completely silly; after all, despite the abject failure of parapsychologists to prove their existence after decades of research, most people find things like telekenesis and telepathy far more believable than magic spells and fire-breathing dragons. The new movies have all that the old ones had and more in terms of stunning special effects and interesting fantasy settings. But they fail dramatically. Why? The main reason, I suggest, is that all the mystery, all the questions the story invokes (What were the "clone wars?" What happened to the Jedi? How did Vader become evil? How does "The Force" really work?) were already set up for us in the original movies. The mysteries are all established for us before we walk in. All that's left is Revelation. And Revelation is almost always less interesting than mystery--unless your revelation creates still more mystery. If not, the fascination you once had for the mystery generally ends. For example: one of the reasons people remain so utterly fascinated by JFK-assassination conspiracy theories is that they contain endless mystery: who "really" did it? Who engaged in the coverup? Who else may have been involved? What were their motivations? Are they still around, and if so, what are they up to? The idea that Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone is an unpopular view. Why? I suggest that it's not just because people don't like to believe that a great and powerful man could be brought down by a lone nut. People don't like that, but there's more to it: if we don't accept that the lone nut did it, then we have a fascinating mystery to enthrall us, into which we can pour all of our own interests and fascinations. How much more interesting! We can now endlessly debate the grassy knoll, the less-popular overpass location for the second (or maybe even third!) gunman, possible Mob involvement, possible CIA or KGB involvement, maybe LBJ or possibly even Castro were involved somewhere... It never ends, and for many people, just having it end would be upsetting. They don't want a definitive and simple answer because having one ruins their fun. A moody, disaffected Marxist gets off a moderately lucky shot and takes down a President? How utterly boring! Think similarly about people's fascination with dinosaurs. Why are we fascinated by them? It's not just what we know about them, it's what we don't know that fascinates us. Indeed, a part of the enduring charm of the dinosaur is that every time paleontologists uncover new facts about dinosaurs, those new facts inevitably spark debate and open up still more questions. And it's endless fun to debate the causes of their extinction. (At least, for dinosaur fans it is.) Or think of physics. Why are we so interested in, say, black holes, or the secrets of the atom? Well, part of it is that as we learn about them, we learn about still mysteries. Usually, new breakthrough discoveries in these areas lead to still more mysteries. Once we definitevely proved the existence of the atom, it raised the next obvious question: what's the atom made up of? For a long time we weren't sure. Then the answer: protons neutrons and elections! Well what are those made up of, and how do they work? At least so far, the answers to all those questions have not only been interesting in their own right, but they have created further mysteries. So we don't just get an answer to our earlier questions, but we also get new fun: more mysteries! George Lucas' second Star Wars trilogy falls flat for most people not just because George Lucas is rusty and out of shape from 20 years away from the director's chair--although that's undoubtedly part of it. They also fail not just because of the wooden dialogue--although that's part of it too. No, their biggest failure by far is that these new films present no new mysteries. There's some political intrigue, but most of it seems obscure and uninteresting, not grand and compelling. Beyond that, almost none of the story in this second set of films creates any mysteries for us to wonder about or debate. We're just handed a pile of answers, most of which don't go anywhere. Nor are the answers organized in the way of great archetypal themes like the first two films were: Lucas tries to do this with gestures like giving Darth Vader a virgin birth, but it's handled in such an offhand way it's uncompelling. It's notable that the few times that the movies do rise beyond the pale and tedious it is when they again move into the realm of mystery ("how did this come about?") and into the realm of universal archetypes ("how did a good man become evil?"). Whereas the first films dwealt on both mysteries and on universal archetypes almost entirely, these second films barely manage to do that--and when they do, they don't do it anywhere near as adroitly. It's telling, though, that almost everyone seems to agree that this third film is the best--and what does this film deal with? It spends the entire film building up a big mystery ("how did he get hurt and become Darth Vader?") that it does not reveal until then end. And it is otherwise all about universal themes: the choices we make in life, fear, loneliness, anguish, rebellion. When it rises to those levels--and when we're kept in suspense by the mystery until the very end--we tend to like the film better. In short, then: First set of films: Filled with universal archetypes and themes that everyone recognized at a visceral level. Set up lots of mysteries and challenges. Made fantasy concepts feel almost like maybe, just maybe, they could be real. Second set of films: Universal archetypes and themes largely missing and/or buried in obscuring, overcomplicated plotlines. Old mysteries solved, with very few new mysteries introduced for us to wonder about. Add in a screenwriter and director who's lost his touch for good dialogue and pulling the warmth out of actors, and you've got a much less interesting set of films. Here's my prediction to Nick: the original Star Wars films will endure and still be loved even by our grandchildren. Because they were not cultural phenomena: they hit on themes universal to the human experience, regardless of culture. The second set will be remembered mostly as a sort of addendum, an "here's more if you wanted to explore that universe a bit more." Not unlike The Silmarillion to The Lord of the Rings. Or the fourth or fifth Hitchhiker's Guide books. Update * As a good lesson in how silly it is for people to look for deep "hidden meanings" in movies that are really just made up of grand archetypes, look no further than Pundit Guys funny piece on how Star Wars is really a messsage to the Catholic Church to keep priestly fidelity and keep women and homosexuals out of the clergy. Me? I say the whole thing's George Lucas' message to my wife to tell her that she should get the day job and let me stay home with the kids and play video games all day.

05-22-2005, 09:13 PM	#159
sirhcyennek81 Yes...swooping is bad... Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Florence, Colorado Posts: 20,772 Adopt-a-Bronco: All of them.	again i say...geeks...every single one of you...

05-23-2005, 01:36 AM	#170
Taco John 24/7 Broncos In Elway I Trust Join Date: Apr 2001 Posts: 49,742 Adopt-a-Bronco: Peyton Manning	I just got back from my second showing.... What can I say... I love movie "events." I love catching the late late showing at the theatre near my house for shows that I want to hit alone. Or with my wife when she wants to, but typically, she doesn't because she falls asleep! Anyway, still a great movie. The criticism of this one falls on deaf ears with me. It's a comic book motion picture. Lucas wasn't trying to write award winning dialogue. He was trying to get across emotions in short comic book panel segments. It's the same way with all of them, and part of what make them so great. I can't understand how anyone couldn't enjoy that movie, but to each their own. I'm sure I'll hit this one at least once or twice more.

05-23-2005, 01:46 AM	#171
Taco John 24/7 Broncos In Elway I Trust Join Date: Apr 2001 Posts: 49,742 Adopt-a-Bronco: Peyton Manning	Baja nailed it... This one was a dud. 'Star Wars' Earns Record-Breaking $158.5M By ALICIA CHANG, Associated Press Writer Sun May 22, 4:40 PM ET LOS ANGELES - Moviegoers have turned out in full force for the final chapter of the "Star Wars" saga, which took in $158.5 million since its opening to shatter three-day and four-day box office records. "Star Wars: Episode III — Revenge of the Sith" grossed $124.7 million from Thursday to Saturday, according to studio estimates Sunday. That's higher than the three-day record set by the first "Spider-Man," which took in $114.8 million in May 2002 — though "Star Wars" had a lower Friday-Sunday take ($108.5 million) than the Tobey Maguire film. "Revenge of the Sith" rang in a whopping $50 million on its opening Thursday, a single-day record boosted by eagerly anticipated midnight showings, and its total receipts since then beat the four-day $134.3 million opening of 2003's "The Matrix Reloaded." The George Lucas film has also grossed $144.7 million overseas for a total of $303 million worldwide. "The reaction to the movie is absolutely spectacular," said Bruce Snyder, president of domestic distribution at Twentieth Century Fox. Last weekend's box office champ, "Monster-in-Law," which marked Jane Fonda's return to the big screen as Jennifer Lopez's villainous prospective mother-in-law, slipped to a distant second with $14.4 million, a 38 percent drop. The Will Ferrell soccer comedy "Kicking & Screaming" took in $10.5 million to finish third. Theater owners, studios and marketing partners were pleased to see "Star Wars" jump-start the summer movie season. "It's a very strong start to what will hopefully be a very strong summer," said Paul Dergarabedian, president of box office tracker Exhibitor Relations. The Adam Sandler-Chris Rock remake of "The Longest Yard" and the animated zoo tale "Madagascar" open in wide release during Memorial Day weekend, traditionally one of the busiest movie viewing times of the year. But "Star Wars" — which has sold an average of eight tickets per second online at Fandango.com — could remain at the top of the box office despite the competition. "I think we have a shot to be No. 1 next week even with two giant pictures coming out," Snyder said. The third and final installment in the "Star Wars" prequel trilogy chronicles the transformation of the heroic Jedi Knight Anakin Skywalker into the villainous Darth Vader. Studio exit surveys showed the audience — usually dominated by men for sci-fi films — was 58 percent male and 42 percent female, with nearly half the viewers under age 25, Snyder said. "Revenge of the Sith" is the first "Star Wars" film to earn a PG-13 rating. The first five films were rated PG. Considered by critics to be the most entertaining of the prequel trilogy, it easily outperformed "Episode I — The Phantom Menace" and "Episode II — Attack of the Clones," which grossed $64.8 million and $80 million, respectively, in their opening weekends. Estimated ticket sales for Friday through Sunday at North American theaters, according to Exhibitor Relations Co. Inc. Final figures will be released Monday. 1. "Star Wars: Episode III — Revenge of the Sith," $108.5 million 2. "Monster-in-Law," $14.4 million 3. "Kicking & Screaming," $10.5 million 4. "Crash," $5.5 million 5. "Unleashed," $3.8 million 6. "Kingdom of Heaven," $3.4 million 7. "House of Wax," $3.2 million 8. "The Interpreter," $2.8 million 9. "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy," $2 million 10. "Mindhunters," $909,049

05-23-2005, 04:26 AM	#174
Orange4Life Ring of Famer Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: SkiUtah Posts: 2,243	I said this in an earlier post about Padme's death but I'll say it again. I think Lucas wanted to have the choke hold and stress of labor combine to kill her but felt it would be too much for the kiddies. If you watch Empire with the commentary on Lucas talks about how worried he was about how the kids would take Luke getting his hand chopped off as well as learning Vader was his father. Lucas went as far as talking to child shrinks about how the ending would effect kids. In the end I think Lucas decided the choke/labor death would be too much for the kids and went in the other direction figuring the older audience would be able to put two and two together without spelling it out.