Reader's Favorites
Media Casualties Mount

Administration Split On Europe Invasion

Administration In Crisis Over Burgeoning Quagmire

Congress Concerned About Diversion From War On Japan

Pot, Kettle On Line Two...

Allies Seize Paris

The Natural

Gore Book Sales Tank, Supporters Claim Unfair Tactics

Satan Files Lack Of Defamation Suit

Why This Blog Bores People With Space Stuff

A New Beginning

My Hit Parade
Instapundit (Glenn Reynolds)
Tim Blair
James Lileks Bleats
Virginia Postrel
Kausfiles
Winds Of Change (Joe Katzman)
Little Green Footballs (Charles Johnson)
Samizdata
Eject Eject Eject (Bill Whittle)

Space
Alan Boyle (MSNBC)
Space Politics (Jeff Foust)
Space Transport News (Clark Lindsey)
NASA Watch
NASA Space Flight
Hobby Space
A Voyage To Arcturus (Jay Manifold)
Dispatches From The Final Frontier (Michael Belfiore)
Personal Spaceflight (Jeff Foust)
Mars Blog
The Flame Trench (Florida Today)
Space Cynic
Rocket Forge (Michael Mealing)
COTS Watch (Michael Mealing)
Curmudgeon's Corner (Mark Whittington)
Selenian Boondocks
Tales of the Heliosphere
Out Of The Cradle
Space For Commerce (Brian Dunbar)
True Anomaly
Kevin Parkin
The Speculist (Phil Bowermaster)
Spacecraft (Chris Hall)
Space Pragmatism (Dan Schrimpsher)
Eternal Golden Braid (Fred Kiesche)
Carried Away (Dan Schmelzer)
Laughing Wolf (C. Blake Powers)
Chair Force Engineer (Air Force Procurement)
Spacearium
Saturn Follies
JesusPhreaks (Scott Bell)

Biting Commentary about Infinity, and Beyond!

« John Doe #2 Hits The Main Stream | Main | Fun With Flash Media »

It Sucks!

To paraphrase Jay Sherman, The ("It stinks!") Critic.

I saw Attack of the Clones yesterday. I have no idea what Lileks saw in it, but then he seems into things that are campy and kitschy, and this was in spades.

But boy, if I didn't think that those guys who waited in line to see it for months were idiots before (and I actually did), I sure do now.

I will say that I managed to stay awake, and that there was, as expected, the usual Lucas eye candy.

But I really get upset when basic physics and physiology is ignored. No, I'm not talking about the warp drive starships, or even the swerving dogfights--I'll grant them that--they have some kind of propulsion system beyond our current ken.

But when a chain is attached to a guy's wrists, and the tension is increased to the point at which something has to give, and the chain breaks instead of the wrists, come on...

And those love scenes.

Those were just painful.

You felt embarrassed for the actors who had to mouth those lines. People have said that the acting was terrible, and maybe it was, but I don't think that Burton and Taylor could have pulled off that dialogue any better. I do get the sense that Portman is just sleepwalking her way through the series, though. It was a disappointing performance, given her great work in the past. But she's young.

Overall, in terms of the acting, I agree with the consensus--the best dramatist in the movie by far was Yoda--who was computer generated.

Lucas needs to work with someone who knows how to:

• Write dialog
  
• Look for logical plot holes
  
• Direct real actors, as opposed to animatronics and CGI
  
• Cast

If he'd collaborate with someone or several someones who have those skills, and focused himself on making aliens and imaginary planets and cities, he might have a shot at making a good movie.

Posted by Rand Simberg at June 17, 2002 02:02 PM

Comments

All of these problems are endemic to science fiction on the big screen (and the small one as well). I have always had a hard time understanding why it is that a genre that has produced some of the most amazing authors ever (Ellison, Heinlein, Bujold, ect.) can also produce some of the worst trash ever to stink up movies or television. Is there some kind of law?

Posted by David Paglia at June 17, 2002 02:51 PM

I'm skipping the clones until it comes out on DVD, and will probably only watch it if someone else actually rents it.

On the other hand, Ebert & Roeper gave "Minority Report" a unanimous and glowing review, so I'll probably try to see it next weekend.

Posted by Ron Copeland at June 17, 2002 02:59 PM

I don't understand all the focus on the leaden and embarrassing love scenes. Yep, they were all of that - and they were between teenagers (at least Anakin is supposed to be 19). To me, Anakin's lines sounded like something a 19 year old kid would deliver, having practiced them while driving Dad's car over to his girlfriend's house. I give Lucas a pass in having two awkward kids sound like... two awkward kids.

What bugs me, though, is why Lucas can't be bothered to find out how economics, and politics, and military tactics work in reality (obviously there's no core liberal arts curriculum at UCLA film school). It seems to me that he's digging himself in deeper the more he tries to fill in the back story to the original trilogy. The more he shows us the Republic in action, the more it looks like a ten year old's idea of the way the world works. And the less I mourn its replacement by the Empire (and the less I cheer the destruction of the Empire and reinstatement of the Republic).

Posted by Stephen Skubinna at June 17, 2002 04:59 PM

She's several years older, and a Senator of the Republic.

Posted by Rand Simberg at June 17, 2002 05:08 PM

You can't really consider the Star Wars series as science fiction. It is a fantasy series set in space. Good science fiction will ask the question of what would happen if this science were true. Dune postulated an extreme desert ecology and an economy dependent on control of spice. There were adults making adult decisions. (It became a lousy movie.) The foundation series projects a "mathametical" model of history which allows long term social and economic predictions. (No one will touch it as a movie).

Star Wars elects 14 years as queen and later at the ripe age of 20 she become a leader of the senate. When she leaves, everyone listens to Jar Jar Binks. No wonder the senate is worthless.

Even Hitchhiker's Guide to the Gaxalay had move science fiction in it than Star Wars. (although it was mixed with a great deal of sarcasm) Think improbablity drive, luxury planet forming, Marvin the Robot, etc. In fact, the Star Wars senate seems to serve much the same purpose as the HHG president Zaphod Beeblebrox - it's job is to distract the populus from the fact that someone else is running things.

A new Hope was fun - you felt the panic of the characters, you wanted Han to be less mercenary. The military tactics were almost reasonable - hit and run attacks - a battleship that needed protection from small craft.
Empire Strikes Back was good - Again you felt for the characters, the rebels were still being chased.
Return started ok but became awful when the gophers, sorry Enwoks, defeated the army and you got tired of Luke saying, "You'll be sorry".

The new ones are worthless. If I start to like a character (Qui-Gon Jinn, Darth Maul, Jango Fett), he dies . If I hate him (Jar Jar), I know I'll see more of him. I have watched the first (ANH) many times - I've only seen the cronologic first (PM, AOC) once. It was enough.

Posted by Rick V at June 17, 2002 05:40 PM

I rather agree -- Lucas knows how to exercise his imagination on the screen, but doesn't have a clue how anything from interplantary trade to the corruption of republics by demagogues works in the real world.

Lucas has denied that there will be a third trilogy (perhaps he's read the handwriting on the wall), calling "Episodes 1-6" the life story of Darth Vader, and claiming that he has no idea of what would happen next. A pity of sorts; in the hands of real directors and scriptwriters, a third trilogy could be very interesting, although it would have to be so dark as to make bituminous coal seem reflective by comparison.

Posted by John "Akatsukami" Braue at June 17, 2002 07:29 PM

Lighten up everybody, it is supposed to be fun! I personally think Episode 1 is the best of the lot, but then I mostly just enjoy the visuals and don't worry about stuff like the Princess/ senator's starship sounding like a DC-6.

Posted by Hunt Johnsen at June 17, 2002 08:14 PM

I know it's supposed to be fun. Unfortunately, listening to stilted dialogue, and trying to decipher incomprehensible plots isn't fun--it's alternately frustrating and boring.

Posted by Rand Simberg at June 17, 2002 10:15 PM

The real winner this year IMHO (and next year and the year after if it holds up) is "Lord of the Rings". Alltime best in the fantasy/SF field.

The only flick I can think of that had absolutely solid science was "Destination Moon" with R.Heinlein himself the technical consultant.

Posted by Hunt Johnsen at June 17, 2002 10:41 PM

If you ignore the metaphysical aspects (the Monolith, and those who built it) 2001 still remains the gold standard, in my opinion.

Posted by Rand Simberg at June 17, 2002 10:57 PM

I liked 2010 better, more plot less lightshow. "Silent Running" was pretty cool too except for the rings

As an aside, apparently radical islam and radical chritianity have the same core "family values". Pretty scary....

Posted by Hunt Johnsen at June 17, 2002 11:05 PM

Sorry, this might help expalin the family values comment....

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A61275-2002Jun16.html

Posted by Hunt Johnsen at June 17, 2002 11:07 PM

Here's hoping the Mars trilogy by Robinson gets turned into a movie...ditto for Foundation, but it never will since there aren't any battles or fight scenes, and according to Hollywood, the public lusts for blood...well, we can hope for a BBC miniseries.

Posted by James at June 18, 2002 10:14 AM

While the trilogy has myriad flaws, I give Lucas credit for having incorporated a marvelous theme. Anakin's descent into Darth Vader and his eventual redemption (as well as the terrific visuals) are what make Star Wars worth watching. It's quite easy to see yourself in Anakin. He begins as just a kid, for all his talents, very much like any other child we've seen. Now he's an awkward teen, dealing with love and having trouble with authority, just as many of us did when we were children. Anakin's descent to the Dark Side is disturbing and tragic because it's easy to see ourselves in it.

I won't defend the many flaws of the films. But I won't apologize for what I enjoy in them, either. 2001 may have had marvelous physics, but the plot was dismal at best, nonexistent at worst, leaving the film with only its visuals to support it.

Posted by Andrew Olmsted at June 18, 2002 08:26 PM

The plot was dismal?

Only to those who don't read/grok scifi.

2001 was not a popular success.

But it was a great cinematic achievement.

Posted by Rand Simberg at June 18, 2002 08:29 PM

Perhaps I don't grok sci-fi, then, although I certainly think I read my fair share of it. To be perfectly honest, however, if the best argument in favor of something is that people don't like it are too stupid/ignorant to understand, I submit it's not a particularly good argument.

Posted by Andrew Olmsted at June 19, 2002 05:35 PM

That's not only not the "best" argument, but it's not an argument at all. But that's OK--I didn't make that argument. There is no correlation (AFAIK), either positive or negative, between great fiction and popularity, and I don't believe that I claimed that there was.

I was simply stating my opinion that 2001 was a great movie, and the fact that many (or Andrew Olmstead) didn't like/understand the plot is irrelevant to that opinion.

Posted by Rand Simberg at June 19, 2002 09:07 PM

I'm not looking for a fight, Rand, but you said the plot was dismal only for those who don't read/grok scifi. That sounds like an argument to me. The thrust of those sentences is that people wouldn't call the plot dismal if they had read/grokked scifi. If that was not your intent, fine, but to say you simply didn't make that argument doesn't seem accurate.
In any case, it's not relevant to whether or not 2001 was a great movie (a question that ultimately comes down to taste and is therefore a matter of individual judgement), although certainly in my case, because I didn't understand the plot, I don't consider the movie particularly good. The cinematography was very good, but so was much of the cinematography in Star Trek: The Motion Picture. That was insufficient to redeem the movie (again, in my opinion). I would hardly expect my opinion of the movie to change your perspective on it, and I would now argue it was unwise of me to make the comment, as it clearly drew attention away from the point I was attempting to make. A good lesson learned about staying on topic, I suppose.
In any case, the world is full of people who think that "Weekend at Bernie's" was the height of cinematic achievement, and nothing anyone ever says can (or necessarily should) alter that belief. Perhaps someday you can explain the plot of 2001 to me, so I can watch it again and not close out the movie by turning to my wife and wondering aloud what all the fuss was about.

Posted by Andrew Olmsted at June 20, 2002 11:07 AM

Well, I guess I don't consider the phrase "don't read/grok scifi" to be semantically equivalent to "stupid/ignorant." So if you took it that way, I apologize--it certainly wasn't intended.

Can I explain the plot? Depends on what you mean by "explain."

There are a lot of possible interpretations of it, which is, to me, what makes it both deep and interesting. Your mileage may vary.

But for a better idea of what Clarke had in mind, I'd recommend reading "The Sentinel" and the book version of the movie (which came out after the movie).

Posted by Rand Simberg at June 20, 2002 01:31 PM

Thank you, sir. I'll give those a shot when I return home.

Posted by Andrew Olmsted at June 20, 2002 03:50 PM

I think 2001 was helped a great deal by the fact that most of the audience was stoned to the gills on one psychoactive chemical or another....Of all of Clarke"s work, this (The Sentinal") is probably one of the most obscure. Too bad they didn't do "Sands of Mars" or "Prelude to Space".

Posted by Hunt Johnsen at June 20, 2002 04:38 PM


Post a comment

Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:


Remember info?