Why if I wasn't Jewish I'd go into a rant the likes of which you've never seen! However as it turns out I am Jewish and today is the day I count my gold.

 Reply

See this link for information about it.

[en.wikipedia.org]

 Reply

I could even forgive Jar Jar but for Hayden Christensen.

 Reply

In my opinion, Hayden Christensen is actually a fairly competent actor. I present Shattered Glass and Jumper (a sleeper hit, in my opinion) as evidence. He present a much wider range of emotion and acting ability in these two films. Jumper wasn't the best movie ever, but it was decent fun, and he was good in it. It's unfortunate that Hayden has been stigmatized by the new Star Wars trilogy, but such is the way of Hollywood. You win some, you lose some.

 Reply

Samuel L. Jackson, Natalie Portman, Ewan McGregor, Christopher Lee, Liam Neeson, Keisha Castle-Hughes.... all gave absolutely horrid and utterly forgettable performances. Since each of them has performed well in other films, I attribute this largely to poor direction, the absolutely banal tripe they were forced to utter, and the nearly complete lack of sets. Not a single actor in the new trilogy put forth a performance that was convincing or emotionally evocative or dramatic.

 Reply

He's no different than a plumber or a carpenter. We pay the money, we get to demand whatever level of perfection we like.

Too many people tend to forget what artists used to be - it wasn't so long ago that they were just another type of content producer, like a farmer or a fisherman. Now they're erroneously revered as demi-gods or muses. Something that really ought to be corrected.

If I pay for it, I get to be as snotty about the quality as I like. It is, after all, my money. If I spend it on something, that something becomes my property.

Oh, you're an artist and you don't like that thought? Then create for yourself, keep your creations to yourself... and have fun starving in a freezing garret somewhere. Your artistic integrity will remain intact. For whatever little that's worth.

 Reply

I rest my case.

 Reply

It *has* happened before. Artists shunned because they're not willing to go along with what's popular. Doesn't mean they're wrong OR right to do so. It just means that they'll go hungry when they go against what the public wants.

No wrong or right is involved here. Merely "Pimp yourself for my cash, movie-boy. Lemme see some more of that good old-fashioned groveling & butt-kissing before I throw any nickles your way."

Rather uncivilized, but then anyone who thinks humans are civilized is due for massive disappointments in their lives.

 Reply

The movie industry, for better or worse, tends to pander to the lowest common denominator, and focus groups, in order to take in the most cash. Whether an individual likes it, or not, is largely irrelevant. Whether or not George Lucas pandered to commerciality is also irrelevant. You did not fund or produce the creation of the product. You paid to see a finished product that you had no creative say in making. You have every right to criticize the finished product, I don't dispute that; But to enter into the theater with a sense of being "owed" a specific movie experience is both ludicrous and exceedingly egotistical.

As I stated before, I didn't really care for the new trilogy very much. I thought the pacing was bad, the dialogue was terrible and the acting and directing were incredibly stilted. The "special effects" were so rampant they hardly seemed special at all. As a long-time fan of the Star Wars franchise, I was disappointed that they didn't give me the same thrill as the original trilogy (or the Timothy Zahn novels), but I didn't feel as though I got cheated. If anything, I considered the fact, that perhaps I went in expecting too much, and that George was no worse than he'd ever been, but that my expectations had matured.

As for your general outlook on art, creativity and integrity, well, it's not my place to criticize your worldviews. As I said above, art, for many artists, is about creating what they enjoy, and the joy of the process. To bend to the will of a market (or as you eloquently put it, for us to become "flunkies") then the process becomes largely devoid of joy and sponteneity. Ironically, this is often the point where people cry out that an artist has become "too commercial" and is "selling out" in order to simply make handfuls of cash.

Which way do want it? Original, spontaneous artistic creation, or market-driven focus-group assembly line "art"? Either way, I have a feeling you will not like the product. And who specifically should George Lucas have groveled for? You? And why you, specifically? Why not some guy in Idaho who really enjoyed the goofy battledroids and slapstick elements? What make syour specific opinion special? Was George supposed to take daily opinion polls to pen his script?

I'm not shocked by your statements, it's pretty much what I expect of those who feel personally affronted when they've seen a bad film. But you seem to lack a coherent and logical exposition for your point of view, which baffles me.

 Reply

I think the new trilogy was a huge success, not because of the money they made (shitloads) but because he connected with what I believe to be his target audience - children. I absolutely hated all three of them, but my nephews loved them at least as much as I loved the original 3 when I was their age.

 Reply

If the artist choose to let popular opinion influence the outcome that is absolutely fine. But the expectation that an artist/writer/director create something based solely on the demands of fans... well, that's somewhat absurd, to me. On the other hand, if it's purely a money-making proposition, then sure, write a formulaic movie based on demographics and market research. In the end, some will love it, some will hate it, and some will have no opinion at all.

 Reply

Hey now.

As someone who has been here for quite sometime, I can say that there are better ways to make comments. If you are going to say something like "piss off", you have to make your inflection clear. You may ask, "why is there anything wrong?". And the answer is simple. When you say "Piss off" the way your did you are directly referring to the writer and personalizing it. Voicing your opinion is okay, snapping at a writer in a personal manner is not so okay.

Example of a much more ideal comment:

How can you even put the Ewoks in the same sentence and Indiana Jones 4? I've always loved the Ewoks so to all the haters you can just piss off in my book.

You see how that got your point across and even used your words yet was much less rude?

Do I like the Ewoks? Sure.But that might have to do with the fact that I was little girl several years after it came out and found them cute. But I was totally head over heals over the Jawas and carried around the cutest Jawa plush toy where ever I went. Now, to make my commenting point clear, anyone who wants to ruin my time watching the Jawas scramble around the screen with there little noises and/or can't handle my freakish obsession with my Jawa minifigs can go get a horse and ride of into the sunset. Off a cliff. :-)

 Reply