Thursday, May 19, 2005

George "Palpatine" Bush

This whole Darth Vader as George Bush thing detailed here, there, and every which where is kind of fun to follow and also rouses my curiousity more than I expected. Though I am, in point of fact, still dreading seeing the actual film.

Oh, I know you're not supposed to judge a movie before seeing it. But consider how desecrated my childhood memories of Star Warsand Empire Strikes Back felt once I first spotted Anakin "Yippee" Skywalker in Phantom Menace, the CGI creation: the one who shall not be named, and realized that the only cool new character in a series that used to have gazillions of cool characters would meet a quick light-saber demise after just a few minutes of screen time, how am I too feel otherwise. I'm still shocked at how much I hated Episodes 1 & 2.

But anyway. Politics. This new Star Wars debate is all kinds of funny and all kinds of sad ---It takes a blockbuster movie to get the mainstream media to notice some of the creepy stuff that's been going down in our country? Discuss it we must.

...and by *'it' I mean the country's direction and not whether or not this new Star Wars film is a smidgeon better than the last two. Not that that would be a difficult feat to accomplish. And by 'not a difficult feat' I mean the quality of the movie and not the conversation this country needs to keep having, which won't exactly be a pleasant one.


adam k. said...

Hey, I was saying it right after the election in Nathaniel's "favorite Email in, like, 200 years or or something". (yes, I looked that quote up in my inbox) It makes so much sense. Lots of people understood this parallel with episode 2. Who's seen this picture?
It's pretty awesome. Anyway, off to see Star Wars. Hopefully it'll be decent.

adam k. said...

The last part of that quote, if it isn't clear, reads:

So funny.

Anonymous said...

I am still convinced that those feeling that the older "Star Wars" were better base their feelings on nostalgia. I wanted to die of a heart attack the first time I saw "Star Wars: A New Hope" and "Return of the Jedi" was plain vomit-inducing. True, "The Phantom Menace" was just as awful, with hysterically inane dialogue and plastic characterizations (*exactly* as it was in "Star Wars", with the exception of Alec Guiness, with a villain so dull that his voice hardly matched his heavy breathing anyway, in a "performance" that recalls the worst of Joan Crawford).

At least "Revenge of the Sith" is said to carry the kind of emotional punch and dark, gutsy visual gusto that is the trademark of the best of "Star Wars" (ie, The Empire Strikes Back).

I'm hardly a fan of any five SW movies, but I still wonder - why the hell are the former movies so indredibly superior? As far as I'm concerned, they're as inspired as a piece of wood.

Anonymous said...

While I am sorta anticipating Revenge of the Sith, it says a lot about my Star Wars experience when I say Attack of the Clones is my favourite of the 5.

I just don't see the love. It's weird.

But when I was walking out of Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy I said to my friend (who also HATED it) "I'd rather sit through a Star Wars again."

She whole-heartedly agreed.

But, yeah, I don't see what Lucas has done so differently between then and now.


adam k. said...

Glenn -
Even if you don't like any of them, HOW is Attack of the Clones your favorite?
Empire Strikes Back is and will always be the best film of the 6. Attack of the Clones is just a bad movie.