Print Story Great Moments in "The Phantom Menace"
Star Wars
By tps12 (Tue Apr 05, 2005 at 03:20:09 AM EST) Star Wars, Phantom Menace, Naboo, Amidala (all tags)
Moment 12


With the Senate in transition, there is nothing more I can do here...

               AMIDALA
          Senator, this is your arena. I
          feel I must return to mine. I
          have decided to go back to
          Naboo. My place is with my
          people.

               PALPATINE
          Go back!! But, Your Majesty,
          be realistic! You would be in
          danger. They will force you to
          sign the treaty.

               AMIDALA
          I will sign no treaty, Senator.
          My fate will be no different
          from that of our people.
< whats this? | BBC White season: 'Rivers of Blood' >
Great Moments in "The Phantom Menace" | 39 comments (39 topical, 0 hidden) | Trackback
Can we skip ahead to the caterpillar scene? by georgeha (2.00 / 0) #1 Tue Apr 05, 2005 at 03:29:04 AM EST
While being very derivative of the critters in ST2: Wrath'O Khan, they were still effective and suspenseful.


okay, wise guy, i'm on to you by tps12 (2.00 / 0) #2 Tue Apr 05, 2005 at 03:43:53 AM EST
I've emailed your ISP. If this harrassment continues, expect to hear from my lawyer.

[ Parent ]
StarWars' greatest contribution to modern society by ad hoc (4.00 / 2) #3 Tue Apr 05, 2005 at 03:49:22 AM EST

--


Strange as it may seem, by yicky yacky (2.00 / 0) #4 Tue Apr 05, 2005 at 03:58:49 AM EST

I'd contend that the second trilogy (the prequels) is actually by the greatest and most noble contribution to society. For, by this measure, one may instantly discern those with critical-thinking faculties from those who'll applaud like retarded sea-lions at any old shit provided it's in roughly the correctly-coloured packaging.
</jadedOldCynic>


----
Vacuity abhors a vacuum.
[ Parent ]
how so? by tps12 (2.00 / 0) #6 Tue Apr 05, 2005 at 04:32:36 AM EST
Aren't the new movies almost universally reviled?

[ Parent ]
Is there a point to this? by Rogerborg (2.00 / 0) #5 Tue Apr 05, 2005 at 04:31:14 AM EST
I'm pretty much done coming up with responses.

-
Metus amatores matrum compescit, non clementia.
is there a point to *your* diary? by tps12 (2.00 / 0) #7 Tue Apr 05, 2005 at 04:34:17 AM EST
It's just a bit of an awareness-raising campaign. Anyway, I'm nearing the end of the film, so it'll end soon enough.

[ Parent ]
That's what I thought in a theater, too by DesiredUsername (4.00 / 1) #8 Tue Apr 05, 2005 at 04:44:23 AM EST
Almost burst my bladder.

---
Now accepting suggestions for a new sigline
[ Parent ]
I asked you first. by Rogerborg (2.00 / 0) #9 Tue Apr 05, 2005 at 04:46:16 AM EST
I am already aware of the film of which you speak.

-
Metus amatores matrum compescit, non clementia.
[ Parent ]
DID YOU KNOW THAT... by DesiredUsername (4.00 / 1) #11 Tue Apr 05, 2005 at 04:49:24 AM EST
Bob is having a sammy for lunch.

NOW YOU KNOW!

---
Now accepting suggestions for a new sigline

[ Parent ]
Anonimouse is cheating on his wife again, eh? by Rogerborg (4.00 / 1) #12 Tue Apr 05, 2005 at 04:57:58 AM EST
This is like a Gentlemans' Club where the armchairs have moulded themselves to their occupants.

-
Metus amatores matrum compescit, non clementia.
[ Parent ]
OK, everyone needs to GET OUT OF MY BRAIN by DesiredUsername (4.00 / 1) #13 Tue Apr 05, 2005 at 05:01:50 AM EST
That was the very example I had at first.

---
Now accepting suggestions for a new sigline
[ Parent ]
Well, sammich or hawt teen sex by Rogerborg (2.00 / 0) #16 Tue Apr 05, 2005 at 05:10:08 AM EST
I'm intrigued that you chose the former.

-
Metus amatores matrum compescit, non clementia.
[ Parent ]
Look for my newsletter in your mailbox by DesiredUsername (2.00 / 0) #17 Tue Apr 05, 2005 at 05:14:02 AM EST


---
Now accepting suggestions for a new sigline
[ Parent ]
but are you aware by tps12 (2.00 / 0) #14 Tue Apr 05, 2005 at 05:08:01 AM EST
Of the greatness of its moments?

I'll revise: it's an appreciation-raising campaign.

[ Parent ]
It raises my awareness by Rogerborg (2.00 / 0) #33 Tue Apr 05, 2005 at 08:54:34 AM EST
Of how it both blew and sucked.  Today's picture reminded me of that mind numbingly annoying Amidala voice.  Sort of Andie McDowell meets Mr Snuffleupagus.

-
Metus amatores matrum compescit, non clementia.
[ Parent ]
ah well by tps12 (2.00 / 0) #34 Tue Apr 05, 2005 at 10:07:45 AM EST
You really can't experience the power of her scenes until you've heard the lines performed by me in my Amidala voice.

[ Parent ]
plspstoggkthx (nt) by ajf (2.00 / 0) #37 Tue Apr 05, 2005 at 02:40:25 PM EST
Seek help by Rogerborg (2.00 / 0) #38 Tue Apr 05, 2005 at 09:28:58 PM EST
If help not found, seek sleeping tablets.  Lots of them.

-
Metus amatores matrum compescit, non clementia.
[ Parent ]
BUT QUEEN AMIDALA GASSED HER OWN PEOPLE!!!! by ENOENT (4.00 / 2) #10 Tue Apr 05, 2005 at 04:47:28 AM EST
Also, given her face paint, she is about due to slip on a banana peel.


Life is just one damned thing after another.
Love is just two damned things after each other.


this comment by tps12 (2.00 / 0) #15 Tue Apr 05, 2005 at 05:08:36 AM EST
Has been forwarded to the Nabooian Secret Service.

[ Parent ]
It's not very "Secret"... by ENOENT (2.00 / 0) #21 Tue Apr 05, 2005 at 05:34:01 AM EST
if they have to wear those funky hats and skirt-jackets.


Life is just one damned thing after another.
Love is just two damned things after each other.


[ Parent ]
Terracentrist (nt) by tps12 (2.00 / 0) #23 Tue Apr 05, 2005 at 05:42:15 AM EST


[ Parent ]
Is there an answer to my question? by theantix (2.00 / 0) #18 Tue Apr 05, 2005 at 05:16:47 AM EST
I am wondering if there is some sort of explanation for the fact that the third prequel isn't aimed at the young kiddies but the first two were.  If the "logic" in the first two prequels was that Jar Jar was there for the kids and this was supposed to be a kid-friendly series, why make the third movie so dark that they have to recommend that young kids not see it?  If in fact the prequels were not aimed at a younger audience, why the fuck did they ruin it with the addition of the Jar Jar creature?  It seems pointless to make two horrible movies with that excuse, and then make a third at the exclusion of the audience the previous two were targeted towards.

(Yes, the movies had other flaws, but they probably would have been decent had the superfluous and annoying Jar Jar character not been so prominent)


Sure, you've got the facts on your side -- but that's just your opinion.

hm by tps12 (2.00 / 0) #20 Tue Apr 05, 2005 at 05:31:22 AM EST
Are "they" really discouraging children from seeing it? IIRC, the marketing for the first two made them look somewhat dark as well.

Also, you are really overstating the impact of Jar-Jar, at least on the second film. He has only two real scenes, and one of them is when he starts the Clone War, so he is pretty toned down (no backflips or tongue tricks, for example). A Jar-Jar–free Clones would have still had the video game action sequences, the nonsensical and ultimately pointless plot, the horribly awkward love scenes, &c.

You have something of a point for Menace, though. If you find Jar-Jar irritating enough that every scene with him even in the periphery is ruined for you, then you will never enjoy the movie. To me, he's only really grating when he does something completely goofy, like stepping in poo, so I can pretty well enjoy most of the movie despite his existence. OTOH, I will readily admit that I have a high tolerance for filmic pain and will enjoy most anything projected against a white screen, especially if it involves lasers (speaking, almost, of which, I saw an ad the other day for a sequel to one of the few movies that I absolutely could not stand, XXX. Good lord, Hollywood, how do you do it...).

[ Parent ]
discouragement by theantix (2.00 / 0) #26 Tue Apr 05, 2005 at 06:21:43 AM EST
Well, I'm not sure what they are really doing, but this is what they are saying, anyhow.

re: Jar Jar, you pegged me completely... I would like to see that movie with his character completely edited out... some of the scenes might make less sense but it would still be a better movie.  Meh, but in the end it's just a movie, and I'll live.

Like you I enjoy most movies... hell I even enjoyed xXx on a certain level despite the fact that it was actually pretty much just ass.


Sure, you've got the facts on your side -- but that's just your opinion.

[ Parent ]
weird by tps12 (2.00 / 0) #29 Tue Apr 05, 2005 at 06:27:39 AM EST
I can't even imagine what a Lucas-written non-kid-friendly scene might be like. One can only hope it involves Yoda cussing.

[ Parent ]
wasn't there something going around by sootzoo (2.00 / 0) #32 Tue Apr 05, 2005 at 08:38:51 AM EST
called "the phantom edit" back when the first movie was released? Some kids who'd divx'd the movie after cutting out all the jar-jar scenes?

The Macho-Asshole relationship advice paradigm: "Fuck that bitch. Fuck her up the ass." -edward
[ Parent ]
triple x was brilliant. by rmg (2.00 / 0) #30 Tue Apr 05, 2005 at 07:19:21 AM EST
you just don't understand it.




[t]rolling retards conversation, period.
[ Parent ]
The answer to your question: George Lucas by DesiredUsername (4.00 / 1) #22 Tue Apr 05, 2005 at 05:35:06 AM EST
Seriously, watch (and I mean watch, not relive your childhood) the first 3 again. They aren't that good. Better than the prequels, but that's simple enough to explain through age and an attempt to have even wider, "family-friendly" appeal. Disneyfication, in other words.

Also, IAWtps12 in re: Jar Jar. He's terribly, terribly annoying in I but you hardly see him in II and that movie was actually worse!

---
Now accepting suggestions for a new sigline

[ Parent ]
re: George Lucas by theantix (2.00 / 0) #27 Tue Apr 05, 2005 at 06:22:57 AM EST
You could be right about Jar Jar in the 2nd prequel.  To be honest my expectations were so low for that movie I hardly even paid attention to it.  I've only seen it once, but I remember it as not being as bad as the first prequel... but there is a good chance that is only because I had fairly high expectations for the first one despite the reviews.

I have watched the original eps, and I still find them to be of high quality despite the prominently poor acting by Mark Hamill.  I find them better perhaps because they are less Disneyfied, as you suggest.  I'm not saying they are oscar-quality, just that they are good sci-fi fairy tales that do a better job than most other popular incarnations of that genre (star trek, matrix, etc).


Sure, you've got the facts on your side -- but that's just your opinion.

[ Parent ]
JIH...oh by DesiredUsername (4.00 / 1) #28 Tue Apr 05, 2005 at 06:25:54 AM EST
Yes, the Star Wars movies are better fairy tales (but worse SF) than Star Trek. I have no opinion of them relative to The Matrix.

---
Now accepting suggestions for a new sigline
[ Parent ]
"attack of the clones" by aphrael (4.00 / 1) #35 Tue Apr 05, 2005 at 11:13:24 AM EST
The SF Chronicle ran a review, which Jared and I love to quote, which said - in essence - "Attack of the Clones: Much, Much, Much, Much, Much better than Phantom Menace. 2 out of 5 stars."
If television is a babysitter, the internet is a drunk librarian who won't shut up.
[ Parent ]
Audience has aged... by gshamster (4.00 / 1) #25 Tue Apr 05, 2005 at 06:13:05 AM EST
It's been 5 years since the first movie.  If that one was aimed at 8-10 year olds, then they would be 13-15 years old now.  Perfect age point for a PG-13 movie.

Another example of this is the Harry Potter books. The audience grows up and the books increase in length, complexity and topics addressed with them.

[ Parent ]
Weird by TypographicalError (2.00 / 0) #19 Tue Apr 05, 2005 at 05:29:25 AM EST
It's been so long since I've seen episodes 1 & 2, and I've seen so much cool Star Wars stuff in the intervening time, that I'm actually remembering some stuff from them fondly.

The only therapy is to watch them again. Like pouring bleach on a cut.

do it by tps12 (2.00 / 0) #24 Tue Apr 05, 2005 at 05:43:26 AM EST
I just watched Episode II for the second time last week. There were a few cool and good things I'd forgotten about, but mostly horrible stuff I'd repressed.

[ Parent ]
my god, that woman. by rmg (2.00 / 0) #31 Tue Apr 05, 2005 at 07:21:23 AM EST
she's the embodiment of everything that's good and pure. an avatar of truth and justice in a war stricken universe. her willingness to sacrifice for her people knows no bounds. i'm speechless.

who could play such a role?




[t]rolling retards conversation, period.

Oh yeah, Lucas was on crack when he wrote that. by Orion Blastar (2.00 / 0) #36 Tue Apr 05, 2005 at 11:27:36 AM EST
AMIDALA
          "Senator, this is your arena. I
          feel I must return to mine. I
          have decided to go back to
          Naboo. My place is with my
          people."

Translation "You make me ill. I'd rather take my chances with my people, than stay here with you and your evil agenda."

PALPATINE
          "Go back!! But, Your Majesty,
          be realistic! You would be in
          danger. They will force you to
          sign the treaty."

Translation "I pwn j00 b1tch! Go back as I planned, all is going according to plan. They work for me, and you have not yet figured that out."

AMIDALA
          "I will sign no treaty, Senator.
          My fate will be no different
          from that of our people."

Translation "I know what you have in store for me and my people. I'd rather face my chances with them. I will seek help from the Jedi council and see if I can get some help to foil your evil plans."

Of course, this is all before Darth Tator gets tied into it somehow. Not Darth Vader, but Darth Tator, who was edited out of the original Star Wars trilogy.


"I drank what?" - Socrates after drinking the Conium
nah by tps12 (2.00 / 0) #39 Wed Apr 06, 2005 at 12:02:24 AM EST
I am pretty sure Amidala still thinks he's on the level at that point. As for Palpatine, it's always hard to tell whether his plans are being foiled or whether he planned everything out...that's just crappy writing, I agree.

[ Parent ]
Great Moments in "The Phantom Menace" | 39 comments (39 topical, 0 hidden) | Trackback