> > > > the identity of C-3PO's creator,
> > >
> > > Not stupid. Wait and see how that comes together in
> > > episodes 2 and 3 before downing it.
> >
> > Err... No. It's too silly. Maybe Lucas can pull it out
> > of the fire in the later movies, but that still doesn't make
> > it a good idea in this one.
>
> The whole point is that these movies are supposed to be taken
> together. Something can't be stupid in one movie if the same
> exact thing isn't stupid in another. All I'm saying is that one
> must necessarily reserve judgment on this issue because we don't have
> all the facts. After all the facts are presented, then the
> whole shebang is either stupid or not. If Lucas manages to develop
> the situation into one where it is perfectly logical that C3PO, by
> virtue of his history with Anakin, later becomes the droid who did
> all he did in episodes 4-6, then it's a perfectly acceptable
> plot development. Remember that this is a prequel. It doesn't
> make sense to say, "The droid that did all that stuff in episodes
> 4-6 just happened to be the one that Anakin built," because you've
> got the chronology is wrong. Instead, say, "The droid created by
> Anakin later became the one that did all that stuff in episodes 4-6."
> If the process by which C3PO becomes who he was in episodes 4-6 has
> no bearing on his being created by Anakin, then I agree, it's pretty
> contrived. But if being created by Anakin is later shown, in
> episodes 2 and/or 3, to be *why* he became in episodes 4-6, that's
> called good plot and character development and should be commended.
> As we don't know what happens in episodes 2-3 yet, reserve judgment,
> as that's only fair.

The problem I have with this is that it's -already- inconsistent with what occurred in episodes IV through VI... unless C-3PO gets his memory wiped at some point, which is a cheesy dodge at best. How come he didn't recognize Obi-Wan Kenobi's name (neither he nor R2 apparently had ever met or heard of him)? Why is it that he didn't know Darth Vader was Luke's father? Why didn't he even -mention- any of this to the rebel folks? They might have been able to use his knowledge of his creator's mind against him. There are dozens of questions like this.

It's just too obvious that Lucas didn't intend for this relationship to exist until he started writing Episode I. When that sort of tacked-on plot element shows through so obviously, it bothers me. I consider it a sign of poor planning and poor writing.

> > No. The droids were much better comic relief,
>
> I happen to agree, but this doesn't in itself make Jar Jar bad.

True. But you said that Jar-Jar was 'like the droids'. I'm merely stating that he wasn't anywhere near as good. As comic relief, he's mediocre at best, and he certainly isn't a dramatic character.

> > for a few reasons:
> > 1. They were less slapstick. A little slapstick comedy is
> good. A lot is annoying and repetitive, unless you can pull it
> off -really, really- well, like some of the old silent film folk. And
> the Jar-Jar team couldn't. Most of the droids' comic relief came
> from Abbot and Costello-style dialogue.
>
> That's a difference, but it's not necessarily an indicator of inferiority,
> much less an indicator of badness. I happen to agree that the droids
> were more entertaining than Jar Jar, but that's not what's under
> discussion here. To clarify my position on Jar Jar, I didn't like
> the couple scatological moments of so-called humor, and I didn't
> like the extend to which the "tongue numbing" gag was played out (the
> gag itself would have been fine had it ended just after his getting zapped).

I think it is an indication of badness: excessive slapstick is bad.

The scene you mention here is just one of many where a Jar-Jar gag went on way too long. If Lucas had used Jar-Jar more sparingly, I'd like him a lot better.

> > 2. The droids didn't blow up badguys by accident.
>
> Eh. The place was clogged with enemies. Throw a boomy thing
> somewhere, you're more likely to hit one than not.

The explody-device taking out the tank didn't bother me that much, for the reason you mention here. The particular scene I'm referring to is one where Jar-Jar gets his foot caught in the wreckage of one of the robots, and then starts flailing around trying to get it off. Every time he does this, the droid's weapon fires, taking out a killer droid that was about to wax him. This goes on for a couple of minute, and it was just dumb. It makes the plight of all the warrior-Gungan types marching around him a thousand times less impressive - why don't they all just get lobotomies, so they can blow up as many badguys as Jar-Jar?

> But Anakin's "accident" is and will remain an extreme annoyance
> to me. (Who puts a main reactor in a docking bay, anyway?)

Evil Chinese aliens that want their ship to get blown up, obviously. :)

It also bothered me that they only had one controller hub for this whole army. But that's a seperate issue, and not that horrible anyway (maybe they could only afford one or something).

> > 3. Jar-Jar was practically incomprehensible.
>
> So train your ear to pick up his speech better.

No. :)

> This is way too personal of an issue to blame on the movie. It
> may have affected your personal enjoyment of the movie, but it
> has no bearing on the movie's actual worth.

If it were just me, I'd agree with you. But I'm not the only person that's said this. It's not a fatal flaw all by itself, but it's certainly another straw for the ailing camel.

> I had no problem with it, and frankly I prefer such deviations in
> speech -- after all, doesn't it make sense that different alien races
> would speak differently?

Absolutely. What about Yoda, Greedo, and Chewbacca (I'm going to bring these three up again later)? They all had speech patterns different from ours; in fact, two of them spoke different languages entirely. I had no trouble understanding any of them, though (not when there were subtitles, anyway).

> This is what I'm talking about. This kind of "if the shoe fits,
> you're wearing it" mentality when it comes to racism. "If I can
> make up a way in which this could be construed to express racism,
> it obviously must be what's intended." Give me a break.

There's making up ways, and there's having them shoved down your throat. I didn't go into this theater thinking 'Gee, I wonder if I can find a racist element in this movie'. It beat me over the head until I was forced to acknowledge it.

> Try to figure out what the movie's saying, and THEN evaluate
> whether those messages are racist or not. If everybody did that,
> there would be a lot fewer frivolous accusations of it, and
> the cases of genuine racism might get the attention they deserve.

I don't think the overall message is all that racist. Rather the reverse, in fact. However, there does seem to be an undercurrent to the effect that it's alright to hate -some- races. Just the evil money-grubbing cowardly ones.

> Where in the movie did you see where it says ALL members of this
> race are "money-grubbers"? There was what, three of them in the
> movie?

There was the whole crew of the mothership (although only a few are featured with speaking roles), and there was their delegation at the Senate (which was obviously supporting them). There was a large enough sample to draw a few conclusions. Particularly since those folks probably didn't buy an entire droid invasion army by themselves. There's obviously widespread support for their agenda.

> Personally, I think it's highly prejudicial to make the leap
> that the portrayal of a few characters of one race must necessarily
> logically extend to portray ALL the race.

I don't. We have no other information about the race than what is shown in the movie, and when -every single character from a race- in the movie is presented in one way, we have to draw certain conclusions. In all fiction, we only get to see the world through a certain window, and we can't see what's outside of the border. As far as we're concerned, the members of the race presented in the work of fiction -are- the only members of that race.

> By that pattern of logic, you are enhancing the perception that people
> are not individuals but mere members of a race with uniformly consistent
> values.

I'm only reporting what the movie seems to state itself. Look at the Gungans and the Ewoks, for instance - both races exist for the purpose of comic relief, and even the most serious members come off as silly (watch Boss Nass try to pronounce a few simple words before you disagree with me here). All the Hutts are supposed to be gangsters (I must admit that this implication is stronger the script notes and the book than the movie, but still).

> In the context of the movie, (1) it made sense that the few alien
> characters of that race be of similar mind, as they were members of
> a government collectively driven toward a single goal; (2) it made
> sense that these characters were the only characters of their
> race to appear; (3) there is no good reason to believe these aliens
> were representative of their race;

See above re: what information we have and don't.

> (4) *somebody* has to be the badguy -- how ludicrous (and even
> racist) is it to assert arbitrarily that all movie badguys have
> to be white males -- or how petty is it to say that for every non
> white male badguy, a member of the same race must appear as a
> counter-balancing goodguy?

Alright. Here's where it's time to bring Greedo back. He was a badguy (albeit a minor one), and if he was white I -will- eat my hat. But he wasn't obviously a member of some other earth race, either. As for equal time, it would be nice if there was even a -tiny- voice of dissent in the evil race. Just some indication that there was a particle of resistance to the badguys' agenda. I don't think that's too much to ask for.

> On the other hand, these points are moot with me in the case of TPM,
> because I do not believe there is a substantial enough correlation
> between the alien race and the Asian race anyway.

Um. Ok. I guess I can't disagree about what you do and don't see. But I'm not alone in perceiving things this way, so it's obviously not something that just popped into my head because I'm deranged.

> Sure, they have a stronger resemblance to the Asian race than
> to any other human race, but as I mentioned earlier, you can't
> have an alien race that *doesn't* resemble one human race more
> than another, particularly when actual humans are doing the voices.

Yoda, Greedo, and Chewbacca. And Jabba the Hutt. And whatever the hell the pair of folks in the bar were (twisty-nose man and his furry friend). And the Ewoks. And Admiral Ackbar. And the bounty hunters.

I think Lucas managed to pull this off a whole bunch of times. Certainly, none of those races bring any particular human race to mind (at least not for me). He could have done it again. But he didn't.