Lucas go to hell

The Star Wars Rape : A lesson in narrative. Just watched atack of the clones. Visually impressive movie. But something is seriously wrong. Not that it can't live up to the extremely low expectations, but it (and ep 1) diminish the first trilogy. Why? Perhaps also an explanation of what was right about the first three?

midi-chlorians: the Force can be measured by particles in blood. An utter destruction of the Force mystique.

Qui-Gon: Good actor, bad role. "If you had only followed the Jedi code, you would be on the council". That's why. Han Solos rogueishness and Obi-Wans Jedi enlightenment - in one character. Doesn't work. The Jedi is the pure warrior-mystic. The jedi is iconic; not human and flawed. Like giving Christ or the Buddha human flaws. Nope.

Yoda fights count Dooku; funny scene. Great laugh. Cool. But this, with Yoda leading the clone army; utter destruction of the Yoda character. Yoda is the Taoist hero; the one who has understood that the ultimate action is doing nothing at all. He belongs in the Dagobah swamps, not as army general or in the high tower. Ofcourse, the Buddha was Sidharta Gautma first. But not over three movies.

Why did they kill of Darth Maul? Silly makeup, good role, very good actor for the role. With the doubleplay the ep. 1-3 dark Jedi are engaged in, why not let darth maul be the alter ego of Dooku (and why not give dooku a decent name?)

Annakin going through teen problems? Why show him as a kid at all? Ep. II had one good moment; the mythical turning point, which was way too short and underplayed; Annakin avenging the death of his mother. This could have been the axis of the entire Annakin story, the entire new trilogy, the defining moment, the moment when the protagonist of the tragedy knowingly takes on Hubris, a single event echoing back and forth through the story. Before this; Annakin would be a hero, after it, gradually becoming a villain. Why complicate it with teen arrogance (and why give the part to an arrogant teen?). But the moment would need a conscious choice on the part of Annakin, a weighing of arguments, and choosing the wrong path.

Darth Vader is the ultimate bad guy. He isn't stupid. He doesn't leave James Bond to swim off the sharks and escape to destroy him. He is the nasty follower of an "ancient religion". There are many unknown things about him. But the best, from a Hollywood blockbuster perspective, is that he is but a servant and you almost never get to see the main bad guy. Like Faustus and Mephistopholis. Somehow; the kid (ep. 1) and the teen (ep. 2) don't do justice to the original Lord Vader. Even if he does look like a walking penis.

The crucial moment of the first trilogy; Luke disregards Yoda and goes to Cloud City, into Vaders trap. Thankfully, Yoda cannot see the entire future allowing for that slit of hope that finally triumphs still making it seem probable Luke will go bad, too.

Elected queens: queens aren't fucking elected. Mythical rulers don't talk about their belief in democracy. That's for real-world people to worry about. We don't watch Lucas movies to learn about real-world people. That's why we watch Kieslowski and Bergman. They don't cover myth, and it's fine, and Lucas didn't attempt to talk psychological realism, and that's fine, but if Lucas wants to attempt high-brow he should do so with a smaller budget at first..

(Is Lucas' Palpatine a commentary on mr. Bush?)

Wish-list: Ep. I-III given a new script by Ursula LeGuin, directed by Emir Kusturica . Lucas in charge of production and special effects. Keep McGregor and whoever plays Palpatine on the cast - fire the rest.

PS: We need a post-situationist movement, an "interactivist movement". All that's required is a term, and an international group of bright people who can define a paradigm.

PPS: "The Phantom Edit" wasn't any better than "The Phantom Menace".

PPPS: I'm 26. 57 minutes ago, I was 25. And I'm writing about Star Wars.