Yuku free message boards

Yeah, I read that, but I still think it's kind of a lame justification.

I think the star scale does have relative and absolute components. The relative part is a matter of content, the absolute a matter of quality.

The content is relative to what you expect from the genre. You wouldn't complain about The Godfather because it doesn't make you laugh as hard as Airplane, and you wouldn't complain about E.T. The Extra-Terrestrial because it's not as suspenseful as Aliens.

But the absolute part comes in because, regardless of what content you're praising something for, the amount of praise should be comparible for different movies with the same score. A 3.5 star (out of 4) review should not be almost entirely complaining, regardless of whether the movie is a drama or a "space opera".

If he really wanted to praise it for returning to its space opera roots, he could have done that. But he didn't. He complains about the dialogue and the love stuff, sure. But he even complains about the action and "space opera" stuff!


"The dogfight between fighters in the original "Star Wars" and the dogfight that opens this one differ in their complexity (many more ships this time, more planes of action, more detailed backgrounds) but not in their excitement."

"[T]he opera hall [is] not as engaging as the saloon on Tatooine in the first movie."

"[T]he thrill is gone. ... [T]he lightsaber battles in "Episode III" are more like isometrics."


If he thought Revenge of the Sith was better than Attack of the Clones, okay, he can give it a higher score. But AotC got 2 stars, so a 3 or even 2.5 (which probably would have been closer to the mark) would be higher.


And what's the meaning of this phrase?

"George Lucas has achieved what few artists do; he has created and populated a world of his own."

Don't all artists create and populate a world of their own?

If the key part of that phrase is supposed to be "of his own", so that it's not just that he comes up with characters (like every artist does), but, oh, wow, the characters he comes up with are aliens, okay, all fantasy artists create and populate a world of their own.

And how much of this "world" was created in Revenge of the Sith in particular, and how much was created by George himself?

For the former question, I'd say almost none. Almost every element of RotS comes from the earlier trilogy. All of the main characters (Anakin, Obi Wan, Palpatine, C3PO, Yoda, hell, even Chewbacca, even though he doesn't do anything; Padme doesn't count because she doesn't do squat) were from the original trilogy. There were almost no interesting new aliens or characters in this one (those tall, thin aliens that were played by Bruce Spence were boring compared to the creatures in the original trilogy).

The closest thing to a new, interesting alien was General Grevious... and did Lucas come up with him? I've heard that he was introduced in the Clone Wars cartoon, and Lucas decided to put him in the movie.