Star Wars I

I watched Star Wars parts I and II with my family in the last week. I had seen part I years ago -- not too long after it came out -- and it was so bad that I didn't want to waste my time seeing part II. I only picked part II out of a video store because I was having trouble finding a PG-rated movie that the whole family would like. Actually, I was having trouble finding PG-rated movies at all. Browsing the shelves of a video store, anything outside of the "Family" and "Kid" sections seems to have about an 80% chance of being rated at least PG-13. I was actually grateful to come upon Star Wars.

Part II turned out to be better than I had expected -- quite a bit better. Then the kids wanted to watch Part I, which I was happy to do, because I realized how little I had remembered from it. On watching it a second time, I now understand why I thought it was so bad. It's because it actually is really, really bad. Let's start with the acting, which was incredibly wooden and uninspiring. In fairness to the actors, however, the script gave them virtually nothing to work with, and I'm sure George Lucas didn't help things with his directing. The plot was confusing, and I still don't understand why it's called "The Phantom Menace." Of course, there's also Jar Jar Binks, whom even my kids found annoying. In addition to being stupid (his most easily recognizable fault), Jar Jar is also very hard to understand when he is speaking. It's not just him, though; many of the characters in Part I speak indistinctly, which is part of the reason why I had such trouble understanding it the first time.

Jar Jar is also exemplary of George Lucas's utter failure at naming people and places in his fictional universe. Great writers can make up unique names that nevertheless sound appropriate in their setting. J.R.R. Tolkien was a master of this: who wouldn't recognize an elvish name from an orcish one, just from the name? He was a linguist, so perhaps that is an unfair comparison, but almost any writer is better than Lucas. I thought Frank Herbert's names were usually quite good. Lucas had a couple of big hits -- fortunately for him, involving major characters -- with Darth Vader and Luke Skywalker. And then you have Greedo; I'm sure a lot of thought went into that one. And Lando Calrissian. And Schmi. And Count Dooku, and Darth Tyranus, and of course Jar Jar. Then there are the place names, like Naboo and (my favourite) Tatooine. Don't these names sound silly to him?

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Country Music

I noticed a long time ago that there isn't much difference between the sound of country music and rock music nowadays. If I'm surfing my radio and I come to a station playing jazz, classical, or rap, I recognize it right away; but if I come to a country or rock station, I often can't tell which it is until the song is half over. Country songs often have screaming guitars that would fit equally well in a hard rock song, and only a minority have a recognizably country instrument such as a fiddle or a banjo. All the same, no one could listen to a country music station for more than a few minutes without realizing that it is definitely not a rock station. What are the differences? There are some stylistic differences. Country songs are more likely to have a boogey beat or certain western-sounding bass lines. They also tend to be more formulaic: if you can't predict how a country song ends, you probably don't listen to much country music. But those things aren'
Read more

Science and Philosophy, Part I: Hume and Popper

I've been listening to a lecture series on philosophy recently, and, even though I haven't gotten past the Greeks yet, it has reminded me of a number of issues that trouble me about science. I want to take the opportunity to express my concerns here. Along the way, I will probably oversimplify philosophy a great deal -- not on purpose, but rather because I have only a simplistic understanding of it. I welcome responses to clear up my misconceptions. One of my issues with science is the famous idea of Karl Popper that it can never establish positive claims, only falsify wrong ones. The history of this goes back to David Hume, the 18th century Scottish sceptic. He shook up the philosophical world by claiming that science could never prove anything through induction -- that is, drawing conclusions about physical laws based on observations. The classic illustration is the sun's rising. Even though the sun has risen every day for our whole lives, and for countless human l
Read more

Three stages in liberal denial of media bias

I was 15 years old in 1984, and an avid follower of politics and the news. When Reagan was making his decision whether to run for re-election, I was opposed to it. It wasn't that I didn't like Reagan; I loved him. But I was convinced that he wouldn't stand a chance in the election, and I didn't want to see him lose. Of course, he went on to win one of the most lopsided elections in history. Why was I so wrong? Because I had been watching network news (the only kind, back then) and the coverage was overwhelmingly negative. Since that time, I have watched with disbelief as liberals have criticized Fox News as unbalanced, culminating in the amazing spectacle of the president himself declaring that Fox is not a legitimate source of journalism. Meanwhile, these same liberals refuse to acknowledge that ABC, NBC, CBS, MSNBC, CNN, etc. (ad nauseum) have any bias of their own. What makes this all the more incredible is that a number of studies have been produced demonstr
Read more