Den of Geek

In defence of The Phantom Menace

James T. Cornish


The Phantom Menace is in no way perfect, but I don't believe it deserves the rather savage mauling it received upon its release.

George Lucas’ first Star Wars prequel has been widely criticised over the years, but does The Phantom Menace really deserve it? Here’s James’ defence of Episode One...

Published on Aug 31, 2010

The late 1990s were a joyous time for Star Wars fans. The release date of The Phantom Menace was drawing ever closer, and anticipation for it was at an all time high. Fans were buying cinema tickets, watching the trailer for film in coming attractions, and then leaving before the film they'd paid to see began.

The big day finally came and the reaction was lukewarm at best. The reviews from critics were something of a mixed bag. American critic Roger Ebert gave it four out of five stars. Empire magazine was less favourable, giving it only three stars. The public, however, were far less forgiving. The Phantom Menace has been branded (among other things) 'a disgrace to Star Wars', 'unforgivably bad', and 'a piece of utter crap'.

The Phantom Menace is in no way perfect, but I don't believe it deserves the rather savage mauling it received upon its release. I've trawled through some of the more negative reviews to address some of the most often cited complaints. So, without further ado, here is my defence of the film.

Let's begin with what people view as the crowning turd in the water pipe: Jar Jar Binks and the Gungans. Jar Jar was, quite frankly, an embarrassment. He's a bit like a Wicket W. Warrick for the 1990s. But he will have had little kids giggling with delight. So, I think that that's something we can forgive George Lucas for.

Under no circumstances will I ever like Jar Jar, but I will accept him as a necessary evil. Because like him or not, Jar Jar is a crucial part of the Star Wars saga. Were it not for Jar Jar's presence on Coruscant in Attack Of The Clones, Palpatine would not have been granted the emergency powers that allowed him to start the Clone Wars.

As for the rest of the Gungans, well, they're really just there to provide cannon fodder for the Battle Droids in what was a very impressive battle sequence. Boss Nass is a tad irritating, but at least it gives a chance for the legendary Brian Blessed to become involved with the saga.

Oh, and while I'm on the subject of Jar Jar, a quick word about racism. There is no racism in this film. Anyone who says that Jar Jar is a stereotype of Jamaicans and that the Nemoidians are a stereotype of Asian businessmen is the kind of idiot who deliberately reads into things just so they can get offended and have a good rant about it.

One frequent criticism is that The Phantom Menace is dull. This criticism is directed at the plot of the taxation of trade routes and the scenes in the senate. The Phantom Menace is set in peacetime and, therefore, problems faced by the inhabitants of the Star Wars universe will be significantly more mundane than those in the original trilogy.

Also, the taxation plot is really only used as a minor component of Palpatine's overall plan and a precursor to the invasion of Naboo. I won't criticise anyone for finding the senate scenes dull. It's not typical of Star Wars, but this is mainly because the original trilogy was set during a dictatorship, where democracy didn't exist and the senate was just for show.

Personally, I find the senate scenes to be brilliantly done and a fantastic showcase for Ian McDiarmid's acting. It's a bold experiment for a sci-fi film series noted for being full of action, where characters mainly solve their problems with blasters, but it seems to work.

Democracy is the cradle of civilisation and the Star Wars universe is no exception to that. It's a well observed satire on how politicians can manipulate things so easily. The senate scenes, no matter how dull you may find them, are pivotal to the prequel trilogy. It's the start of Palpatine's rise to power and, without these scenes, the rest of the plot concerning the formation of the Empire would make no sense.

The film has been criticised for its overuse of CGI but, to be honest, I fail to see the problem. Some may comment that it diminishes the reality of the film and makes it seem more artificial, but if you're watching a film full of gun toting robots and dogfights in outer space, realism shouldn't really be a priority.

For much of the film, the CGI blends seamlessly with the rest of the film's elements. Also, the more visually spectacular aspects of the film, such as the Podrace or Otoh Gunga, would not be possible if CGI was not used.

I'll at least try to defend the dialogue. It's a bit clunky at times but that's something of a minor irritation. It's only when Lucas tries to sound grand and inspiring that the dialogue falls a bit flat. Senator Palpatine's dialogue is brilliant, but Darth Sidious (despite them being the same character. Oh, come on. It's not like you didn't work it out when you saw the film) fails to convey any sense of menace due to him spouting the same old evil clichés that we've heard too many times already.

Oh, and let's not forget the absolutely appalling vernacular of the Gungans. It would have been a much better idea to have them speaking a foreign language, with Jar Jar acting as a translator rather than giving the entire species a mangled version of English.

The film also takes a lot of flak for its characterisation. I've already addressed the issue of Jar Jar, so I'll move on to the next most hated character, Anakin. It's been a frequent criticism that Anakin does not show any signs of evil and is nothing like the character he is destined to become. I can negate this argument with two words: he's ten.

You'd be hard pressed to find an evil ten-year-old (though if you try Slough, you might have some luck). Hitler probably wasn't insane and murderous at the age of ten. This film is about Anakin's very beginnings and, therefore, he's not going to show many characteristics of sci-fi's second greatest man-machine villain (Davros comes first, in my opinion).

While I'm on the subject of Anakin, even though I'm defending the film, the whole 'virgin birth' conversation was a real head on desk moment for me. Qui-Gon is well characterised as a maverick who trusts himself more than his superiors and is willing to go with his instincts. Padme is basically a Princess Leia clone, but it's a tried and tested character. The young Obi-Wan Kenobi is well thought out and is believable as a younger version of the wise old character we all know and love.

The best character of this film, and possibly of the entire saga, is Palpatine. In Return Of The Jedi he was shown as a typically megalomaniacal villain, but this time around we see the true depth of Palpatine. He's cold, calculating and delightfully Machiavellian. He could easily accelerate his rise to power by bumping off the necessary obstacles, but instead he's shown to be truly brilliant, by making allies and then playing them off against each other for his own benefit.

Palpatine is quite possibly the greatest sci-fi villain of all time and is certainly the strongest character in The Phantom Menace.

Now, the question of the acting. There's no denying that it's decidedly dodgy at times. Jake Lloyd's performance is very poor and really drags the film down. Surely there were better child actors out there. Was this nepotism at work? I suppose we'll never know. Ewan McGregor's accent keeps slipping, which can be something of an irritant.

Other than those minor niggles, The Phantom Menace has a great ensemble cast with Ian McDiarmid stealing the show. However, Samuel L. Jackson and Brian Blessed are wasted. I would have liked to have seen Jackson being given a more sizeable role and Blessed having a part that allowed him to show how absolutely brilliant he really is. A Star Wars version of his Richard IV from The Black Adder would have been a terrific addition to the film

The standout element of this film is the spectacular action sequences. Duel of the Fates is etched on my brain and will hopefully remain there for a long time. The Lightsaber duels of the original trilogy were very impressive and never fail to send a tingle down my spine. But Duel of the Fates blows all of that out of the water. It's beautifully choreographed and Ray Park's performance is flawless. And the cherry on the cake is that John Williams' musical score is brilliantly evocative and fits the action perfectly.

The dogfight over Naboo is classic Star Wars and invokes memories of Return Of The Jedi. It even retains the element of the good guys blowing up their target from the inside.

Finally, there is the Podrace. It's visually stunning and adds a whole new element to the Star Wars universe, but it's an element that's close to our own culture, despite it being ramped up to delightfully mad levels. We have car racing where there's an occasional crash. In Star Wars they have people roaring through desert canyons at six hundred miles per hour in flimsily constructed vehicles where it's a miracle if there's a race where nobody dies. The whole sequence looks fantastic and there are great moments of dark humour. Come on, you can't deny that you didn't at least smirk a little bit at some of the crashes.

To conclude, The Phantom Menace has it bad points. Most, if not all, films do. But I think you'll find it a lot more enjoyable if you stop comparing it to the original trilogy.

People say that it's not like the originals, but that's a good thing. I wouldn't want a carbon copy of A New Hope. It's crammed full of terrific action sequences, there's some really nice political scenes thrown in, and thanks to the magic of CGI, the whole thing looks bloody gorgeous. So stop comparing it unfavourably to its predecessors and enjoy it for what it is: a fun, bonkers, sci-fi romp with some minor unfortunate flaws.

To finish off, here are ten facts you may not know about The Phantom Menace:

Only one shot in the film is not altered using CGI. It's the shot of the poison gas coming out of the air vents on the Trade Federation ship.

Alan Ruscoe (Daultay Dofine, Plo Koon, and Bib Fortuna), Silas Carson (Nute Gunray, Ki-Adi Mundi, Trade Federation Senator, and Republic Cruiser Pilot), Hugh Quarshie (Captain Panaka), and Steve Speirs (Voice of Captain Tarpals), and Lindsay Duncan (Voice of TC-14) all went on to appear in the revived series of Doctor Who. Toby Longworth (Voice of Trade Federation Senator and the fish salesman in Mos Espa) voiced Caw in the animated Doctor Who episode, The Infinite Quest.

Sets were only built as tall as the actors' heads. The rest of the sets were created using CGI. However, Liam Neeson's height necessitated the rebuilding of the sets, which cost the production team an extra $150,000.

The character of a Jedi named Mace dates back to one of the very first drafts of A New Hope.

Spooks actor Richard Armitage had an uncredited role as a Naboo fighter pilot.

Jar Jar Binks is the first main character in the Star Wars saga to be created digitally.

Natalie Portman's voice was digitally altered to distinguish between the characters of Padme and Queen Amidala.

In early drafts of the script, Naboo was named Utapau. The name Utapau was originally used in early drafts of A New Hope and would later be given to a planet that features in Revenge Of The Sith.

The core plot of the film is based on an early draft of A New Hope, which was written in 1975.

This is the last Star Wars film to use a puppet version of Yoda and the first to feature a CG Yoda. The CG Yoda is seen briefly in the scene where Obi-Wan is knighted.

 

Tags

Users Comments

Re: In defence of The Phantom Menace
Posted By cerveloguy 1 September 1, 2010 06:42:47 AM

Nice try, but – the CGI / it’s blatantly necessary for the space scenes! But to use it on every set? It hurt the yes, eroded any sense of real texture - this is where the CGI has been over and badly done. The pod-race / obviously the idea, speed etc is not the issue, but the irritating Nascar audience, mind numbingly naff announcer/s simply craped it up. Comparisons with the 3 originals / well, ANH and ESB were totally different in terms of style, locations, sets, etc – so why couldn’t the 3 later versions have maintained the good ideas whilst retaining the high proportion of exact same components bar the lead characters? Utapau – shares its name with a B52 Vietnam era airbase in Pattaya (point of interest). The Nemodians were based on Asian voice actors, although ultimately spoken by Caucasians, so they are like westerns pretending to be crafty Asian businessmen…

Re: In defence of The Phantom Menace
Posted By jackmurphy1969 1 September 1, 2010 07:01:09 AM

Thank you! I'm not a huge fan of the film,but its nice to see an article about it that isn't "George Lucas raped my childhood!" Your arguments are well thought out, and I agree with every one of them. I'll now get out of the way while the rest of the internet lines up to call you names for disagreeing with them.

Re: In defence of The Phantom Menace
Posted By Dierk 1 September 1, 2010 07:06:51 AM

As for Anakin, the whole point of this innocent, idealistic, precocious brat is to a) show how anybody can slip to darkness [especially the idealistic, see the mirror image to Anakin in Count Dooku], b) to make the rise and fall and redemption of Anakin/Darth Vader much more emotional. How dull and uninteresting would it be to see an evil child come to power and then be redeemed - and how stupid since he came from evil not good. Jar Jar Binks, probably due to fan's outcries over Menace, has been underused in the two later films; unfortunately his impact about starting the war by trying to do the right thing, the thing Padme Amidala would do, is gone; most people may not even notice it at all since it's now just a throwaway. He's a very tragic figure, always trying but never quite getting there. Not to mention him being what C3PO was in the original trilogy [not that that clown hasn't gotten his slashing]. The major flaw of the newer trilogy, specifically Menace but it goes through to the Wookies in Revenge, is trying to please fans by including oh so beloved figures as the droids. They are completely superfluous in every one of the prequels.

Re: In defence of The Phantom Menace
Posted By redninja 1 September 1, 2010 07:41:54 AM

Nope. It's Arse. Utter, utter Arse. Re the CGI, you can watch the original trilogy (of which I'm NOT a huge fan either - sorry) and believe in the majority of the effects because they have physical presence; they ARE REAL. Whereas CGI falls flat in every way here (and in most other movies) because it's over-slick, 2D sheen is completely out of place. You should feel the physical weight and movement of effects regardless of genre, whether the creatures, ships etc. actually exist or not. I HATE that genre excuse. Plus tedious storyline, awful acting as per usual from Ewan McGregor, and a vague, wandering sense of direction. I was never particularly upset by Jar-Jar Binks because I consider the whole film to be at the same juvenile level. Christopher Lee brilliant as ever though!

Re: In defence of The Phantom Menace
Posted By gifu 1 September 1, 2010 08:14:08 AM

Lay off the Ewoks, Wicket is awesome *sits back and waits for Spaced quotes to appear*

Re: In defence of The Phantom Menace
Posted By cjw24 1 September 1, 2010 08:20:50 AM

Oh yeah, despite the awful acting, the inconsistent, incomprehensible plot, the show boating of the ground breaking CGI, the dull political sub plot, the lack of humanity, a lame excuse for marketing and selling products, and the questionable acts of the characters - yes, The Phantom Menace is a fun romp...just watch the Redlettermedia's 70 minute review. Seriously though, while I don't like the film it is refreshing to see someone trying to defend it...

Re: In defence of The Phantom Menace
Posted By monomatt 1 September 1, 2010 08:24:36 AM

Babylon 5's a big pile of shit!

Re: In defence of The Phantom Menace
Posted By Deggsy 1 September 1, 2010 08:30:25 AM

A good, well-thought out article, James, my compliments for providing a good read. And I do agree with you, at least on some points. The fans' expectations were so high by the time Phantom menace was released that whatever Lucas offered them would inevitably disappoint. Looking back, I can see the use in including a character like Jar Jar, because all the tedious talk about trade federations and embargos would put the ankle biters in the audience fidget in their seats with boredom. But I wouldn't call him a necessary evil and crucial; by the time Attack of the Clones came along, Lucas was surely aware of Jar Jar's general unpopularity among his fans, and so could have passed on the role of kick-starting Palatine’s rise to another character, one more sympathetic, or even someone anonymous. Having someone like Jar Jar be the catalyst for the Empire is like being on a long-haul flight with a constantly-screaming brat, only to find out on landing that the same brat has just burned down your hotel. As for the racism charges, James, they don’t go away just because you say we're idiots. It wasn't just one or two people who heard the greedy businessmen sound like Japanese stereotypes, or the inarticulate Gungans as Jamaicans. People with no agenda heard it too. Even if it's an unconscious racism, it can be there. Or should we have not read anything into those two jive-talking urban Transformers in that shitty sequel either? I concede that the senatorial scenes were necessary for the eventual establishment of the Empire, but it would have been far more interesting and believable if Palpatine had eventually gained his power because of a perceived outside threat, a mysterious "other" who, it would have eventually been revealed, was Palatine’s forces all along, stirring up fear and paranoia which would have more easily swayed others to cede him authority. And contrary to what you write, realism *should* really be a priority in a film like this. In fact, it should be more of a priority, because you have to get the audience more involved than in a movie set in a New York apartment. So much of the original trilogy worked because, among other things, it *looked* real. Clothes, props, sets, droids, machines, looked used and beat-up, but functional; actors can make eyeline with people in costumes better than with CGI. Of course there were many scenes in the Prequel Trilogy where Lucas had no choice but to use CGI. But as Cerveloguy pointed out, there were also many simple scenes, involving just two people talking, which could have been done in a quickly-constructed set instead of his beloved green screens. Otherwise he might just as well have gone straight to the Clone Wars cartoons. I pretty much agree with the points raised in the rest of your article, but I’m curious that you forgot to mention the notion of midichlorians, and I’m curious what you thought of Lucas’ retcon there?

Re: In defence of The Phantom Menace
Posted By Morph 1 September 1, 2010 08:36:15 AM

It's not a great film but I find it watchable, and the best of episodes 1-3.

Re: In defence of The Phantom Menace
Posted By jonnyellis 1 September 1, 2010 08:36:46 AM

For all those disappointed by the prequels seek out the terrific fanedits that are miles better than the theatricals. The most famous, The Phantom Edit, and The Attack of the Phantom, are true works of art and even have a fascinating commentary by the editor. Proves turds can be polished and even restored my faith in these films http://fanedit.org/49/

Re: In defence of The Phantom Menace
Posted By MadProphet 1 September 1, 2010 08:41:48 AM

Well... Attack of the Clones is still shit!

Re: In defence of The Phantom Menace
Posted By bobajim 1 September 1, 2010 08:51:16 AM

Surely as the preqels are about the rise of Anakin/Darth Vader, he should be a) more central to the first film and not just show up half way through, and b) be interesting in any way, shape or form. Good for you for defending TPM if you must, but it's a delusion, it's badly acted, badly written, badly paced and duller than something as rubbish as GI Joe. How can you not think all the long, dreary mid section is not tedious in the extreme? All the stuff on Tatooine and Courisant is utter drivel. Even the podrace (although well crafted) is pointless because you know the outcome and you don't care about the characters. That's the main thing about it though, you don't care about the characters, at all. You are totally on Luke's side the moment you meet him, but this lot!?! I'm doing it again, I'm just getting all worked up by it. 11 years now, I must move on...

Re: In defence of The Phantom Menace
Posted By cordas2 1 September 1, 2010 09:23:18 AM

Sorry but are you really defending Jar Jar because Lucas decided to make him an important plot pivot in the next film... REALLY? That defence is just ridiculous... Jar Jar could have been a funny character that little kids would love without being the waste of fraking space and huge annoyance that anyone over the age of 5 found him to be... As for the rest of your defence of Phantom its just daft, Lucas wrote a piece of shit movie with a lame assed plot... the reasons it got slated as badly as did maybe a tad harsh in the cold light of day but they are valid... because the movie is weak and doesn't make sense, the characters are none existent and as for the plot... the less you think about the worse it is. If this had been the 1st Starwars movie made I very much doubt there would have been any call let alone cash for a sequel.

Re: In defence of The Phantom Menace
Posted By Klijpo 1 September 1, 2010 09:33:42 AM

Very weak. Redlettermedia has produced a devastating, and accurate, 77 minute review on YouTube (which is also a master class on how to make a film). The political machinations, frankly, make no sense at all. There is no protagonist; everyone does really dumb things; the characters have no character apart from an accent; the Jedi are imbeciles and the podrace goes on so long it is boring. Having said all that, at least Liam Neeson does some acting and the lightsaber duel is rather good, which makes TPM the superior movie when compared to ATOTC and ROTS.

Re: In defence of The Phantom Menace
Posted By Viridis 1 September 1, 2010 09:51:24 AM

The prequel trilogy makes better games than movies, but it has its moments. Ian McDiarmid's Palpatine and his plot to overthrow the Jedi's Republic is indeed the best thing to come out of it. The prequel trilogy really should be looked at as a whole, as a completely different era not only in the Star Wars universe but also in George Lucas's life. I love the evolution of style and architecture and design in ships and environment. I love how the Jedi Starfighter gradually becomes more and more shaped like a Tie Fighter and the Clone warships gradually become more triangular and edgier as the design moves more and more towards the Stardestroyers. There's clearly been a lot of thought been put into all of it, sadly, although the universe benefits from this detail, the movies themselves fall flat, which is a shame. The clunky dialogue is the worst thing to come out of Revenge of the Sith and without it, it would've been awesome. But indeed kudos to Lucas for creating great arcs for Anakin and Palpatine and even Obi-Wan. My favourite scene is the one in ROTS where Anakin and Obi-Wan say goodbye as friends and Anakin's psychology is done so brilliantly subtle. This hatred for his mentor that has been established in the previous movie. Too bad they didn't delve deeper into that. I thought Hayden did a great Anakin. He even looks like Mark Hamill in a way.

Re: In defence of The Phantom Menace
Posted By Carbontoe 1 September 1, 2010 10:33:58 AM

The problem with parts I & II is nobody cares!! What George should have done is made Sith into two films and then followed it with another that brings you up to part IV.

Re: In defence of The Phantom Menace
Posted By DamonD 1 September 1, 2010 11:16:43 AM

It's my least favourite SW film, but I still enjoy it (haven't seen it for a few years though). I've seen far too many truly terrible films to believe the Worst. Film. Everrrr. rage when it comes to this flick, but people on the Net get very emotive about SW including me. I liked it, liked AOTC more and love ROTS. My childhood stayed un-raped.

Re: In defence of The Phantom Menace
Posted By tinspider 1 September 1, 2010 11:27:39 AM

No, it's awful. I try to watch it every now and then and kid myself into thinking it's not that bad but as soon as Jar Jar shows up it all comes crashing back. I get a horrible feeling in my chest and I remember that yes.. it is that bad. The ONLY redeemable points for me are Maul and the Duel of the Fates bit at the end.

Re: In defence of The Phantom Menace
Posted By Timon 1 September 1, 2010 11:31:37 AM

Lucas cocked up because he believed that Anakin's turn to the Dark Side was purely because he was taken from his mother and the impact that has. Casting him so young was a major mistake and thus took a whole film for the prequels to get going. It would have been better to have Anakin as a teenage tearaway surviving on his wits during the carnage of the Clone Wars. Not some trumped up trade dispute. The RedLetterMedia review essentially lays out everything that is wrong with this film much better than I could. http://www.redlettermedia.com/phantom_menace.html

Re: In defence of The Phantom Menace
Posted By crichton13 1 September 1, 2010 11:39:39 AM

It's shite - end of. Oh, to monomatt 1 - "GET OUT!!"

Re: In defence of The Phantom Menace
Posted By zabulus 1 September 1, 2010 12:04:14 PM

my main problem with the film is the bad acting, I know the original trilogy is hardly the benchmark for acting but at least Harrison Ford and Carrie Fisher have on screen prescence, everytime anakin in either 3 films opens his mouth I am immediately aware I'm watching a movie and a bad one at that. Even Liam Neeson sucked in that film

Re: In defence of The Phantom Menace
Posted By zabulus 1 September 1, 2010 12:09:26 PM

although i suppose the actors don't have much to go on with Lucas' shitty dialogue

Re: In defence of The Phantom Menace
Posted By Lachesis 1 September 1, 2010 12:12:05 PM

Yes I agree with most of your comments, especially palpatine/McDiamond and Duel of Fates sequence. However the damage done by Jar Jar and Anakin (here and in Haydens hands) is more problematic for me and taints the rest of the film more severely. Although I do enjoy Phantom equally with the other 2 prequels tbh which have their own share of problems (and its only marginally worse than RTJ imo).

Re: In defence of The Phantom Menace
Posted By Viridis 1 September 1, 2010 01:30:04 PM

I agree that if Sith had been split into two parts with references to AOTC's clone origins and Palpatine's masterplan, it would've been awesome. And also Anakin's turn to the dark side was rather too quick, but his subtle dislike for his mentor was done quite well IMO. Hayden did capture Darth Vader's personality and air of self-loathing and violent ruthless anger and recklessness, but also fierce loyalty. Darth Vader is mature version of it all, more dark, lonely, trapped within the world he himself created. George got all of that. IMO he understood perfectly that mindset and the psychology behind it and Ewan McGregor is never to be underestimated. Obi-Wan's sense of humour in the second part only made Anakin angrier. It's the little things, the fact that it's QuiGon who saw the potential in the kid and not Obi-Wan and that Obi-Wan is more like a brother, and not the father he needs, subtle things that create the bigger picture. The prequel trilogy is great in its own way, but as separate movies they don't stand up the way the original trilogy does. The overall storyline and goal affected the quality. Also the entire factory sequence in AOTC. Why the fuck was that included? They should've cut that. But a brilliant stroke of genius to cast Christopher Lee as Count Dooku, with Peter Cushing in A New Hope as Governor Tarkin Dracula and Van Helsing are united in the same franchise once again!

Re: In defence of The Phantom Menace
Posted By Omniaural 1 September 1, 2010 02:12:06 PM

The prequel trilogy is ripe for a remake/special edition in a number of years. After that time there is bound to be an audience that will watch a re-edited version and hopefully technology will allow them to create new scenes that rectify the flaws from the original (mostly plot derived).

Re: In defence of The Phantom Menace
Posted By KWillyvox 1 September 1, 2010 02:50:39 PM

We're STILL talking about this?

Re: In defence of The Phantom Menace
Posted By DavidFullam 1 September 1, 2010 03:01:36 PM

Ep 1, how do I hate thee? Let me count the ways. Nearly every alien character, not just Jar Jar, being some kind of grotesque racist stereotype. The wholesale rewriting of the established facts of the backstory. Natalie Portman. The sluggish pace. The pussyficatrion of the Jedi (although that gets worse in the next two films), Liam Neeson's dead performance (I guess he knew it was crap and didn't go all out). The totally fake Yoda puppet. I could go on forever, but I have to go to the bathroom.

Re: In defence of The Phantom Menace
Posted By hulk_smash75 1 September 1, 2010 03:07:25 PM

As a couple of posters have already said, watch the RedLetterMedia take on these movies. You will never be able to watch them the same way again. I personally like him pointing out that even the people around Lucas at the time had no idea what he was doing and probably wanted to tell him it sucked, but they like their jobs.

Re: In defence of The Phantom Menace
Posted By sailorgaia 1 September 1, 2010 03:46:44 PM

Oooh, I want to beat the dead horse too!! XD I think zabulus is totally on the mark. While the original triolgy is not the pinnacle of dramtic acting, each character makes you believe they are who they are, which is essential in keeping you in the fantasy. Whenever I watch the prequels I feel like I'm constantly reminded I'm watching a movie because of the stiffness of the acting. I have also grown to feel like a major plot opportunity was lost in the writing of the prequels which has been one of my biggest gripes with Phantom Menance. Perhaps this is because I am a girl and I can relate in this way, but I feel like Padme bonding more with a ten year old as opposed to her adult rescuer (Obi Wan) was rather unrealistic. One might argue she is a practiced politician, wise beyond her years and above such things but having been a fourteen year old girl once, I really feel like a small crush would have developed at least on her side toward the handsome and practical knight. Since romance was made such a big plot point in the next two films, it would really have added a deeper level to it: fueling the resentment and jealousy Anakin has towards Obi Wan, giving a better reason for his insecurity concerning Padme's fate, and definitely adding a bit of believability to the situation. We all know Obi Wan is made to be the poster child of all Jedi's so it even would have been interesting showing that side to him; the temptation, so to speak, and how he rejects it to be the better Jedi. It also would have made his bond with Luke later a little more interesting. The small hints of this could have made the Phantom Menance much deeper, like the hints of romance (foreplay) between Han & Leia in "A New Hope." Sure, I'm a bit of a romantic, but so is George Lucas. He started it with the mushy crap! :P

Re: In defence of The Phantom Menace
Posted By theshadowalker 1 September 1, 2010 05:29:46 PM

TPM is, I'm sorry, a mess. And, given my total lack of enthusiasm for anything that Lucas had done since about 1980, I went into the theatre with very low expectations...and I was still disappointed! (Which disproves, IMO, the "high expectations" argument I sometimes hear.) For example, even the worst fan fiction couldn't've come up with something as daft as "midi-chlorians". (So, what, the Force is basically a viral infection? Dumb, dumb, dumb.) That said, I've always felt kind of sorry for Jake Lloyd. I mean, in a film where even established thespians like Neeson, McGregor, Portman, Jackman, et al., are clearly struggling with Lucas' lack of direction, is it really fair to single out the kid's performance? Especially when he's given lines like, erm, "Yippee!"

Re: In defence of The Phantom Menace
Posted By ds_grandy 1 September 1, 2010 05:40:43 PM

I also think people are too hard on this movie. There are things to complain about but nothings perfect. Regarding the slow plot, this is why George decided to make episodes 4 to 6 first. Regarding Jar Jar...Think about it, one of the things George was faced with was gaining a new fan base. There would be children out there that may not have watched a STAR WARS film before or too young to fully appreciate it if they had. So I think the whole point of Jar Jar was a character for the kids to enjoy and hopefully keep them interested because if you get the 5 to 7 year olds hooked on the first film they will stick around for the next two, which would make them about 11 to 13 ish when Revenge of the sith came out. I'm not saying Jar Jar WAS THE reason to keep watching the prequal trilogy but it was something that I think young kids found entertaining. My only true gripe is the over use of CGI. A condition that I now call "George Lucas Syndrome". Where CGI is used not to benifit a scene or the plot but "just because I can do it"

Re: In defence of The Phantom Menace
Posted By Robmac 1 September 1, 2010 06:33:02 PM

Episode one is quite frankly a 'big bag of bollocks' I would say more but i am going out for a curry.

Re: In defence of The Phantom Menace
Posted By Robmac 1 September 1, 2010 06:33:08 PM

Episode one is quite frankly a 'big bag of bollocks' I would say more but i am going out for a curry.

Re: In defence of The Phantom Menace
Posted By mokofil 1 September 1, 2010 07:52:22 PM

Yeah, it's not brilliant but it's also far from being the worst film ever made. Some of the criticisms levelled at TPM could also be levelled at Return of the Jedi (terrible dialogue, extended toy ad, etc). I actually find it relatively easy to view the prequels as a separate entity from the original trilogy. What offends and angers me FAR more than the prequels is all the (...tries really hard to think of the right word...) bollocks that Lucas added to the original trilogy in the "Special Editions", which now seem to be canon as far as Lucasfilm goes (I guess the blu-rays will be the "Special Editions" rather than the originals?). What he did to the sections in Mos Eisley is worse than all of the faults of the prequels put together, and for me completely unforgiveable. Actually, I've just remembered - Vader's "Nooooooooooooooo!" at the end of Sith might tip the balance somewhat.

Re: In defence of The Phantom Menace
Posted By Vinnydoz007 1 September 1, 2010 08:18:22 PM

On the topic of Special Effects. I hope to god, directors and producers realize while special effects may look great in trailers, people still want the movie to feel "real". on some level at least. Overusing SE ruin movies almost immediatly. There are exceptions, Avatar maybe, but not many. The second trilogy was clearly marketed to a particular audience. So the SE and flashing lights and bells and whistles were exactly what those kids ate up. Most of us felt cheated, expecting a deeper maybe even darker storyline. But alas, we got stuck with Jar Jar Binks and little Anakin. My only true hope, is that in time, the genre will be opened up to others besides Lucas. I want other people to be able to play with that universe. Ive said, since the second trilogy came out, if there was a R rated, dark, deep, star wars movie, it would do very well. Not as well, but well enough to be worth making. Think of all there is in the universe. So many options, so many places to go and see and uncover. But we get the Disney version, because kids buy toys. Its a sad consumer world we live in.

Re: In defence of The Phantom Menace
Posted By skinnymelinx 1 September 1, 2010 08:30:16 PM

the wosrt thing lucas added to the original trilogy was in ROTJ when the band is playing in jabbas palace..that was truly awful. as for TPM i gotta say that when it first came out i thought it was shite but ive grown to like it even though it is corny at times. anakins brady bunch quality is jarring but it serves to contrast his descent into darkness in the third film. as a trilogy i think the prequels stand up but it may be wise not to compare them to the originals as those films contained something special, something all the CGI in the world cannot recreate. the pod race is the highlight for me and i agree that the gungans are childish but its aimed partly at kids so what can you do.

Re: In defence of The Phantom Menace
Posted By Gareth3377 1 September 1, 2010 08:36:12 PM

At long last - a well balanced (IMO) and thought out article on TPM. As someone who grew up through the OT I really enjoyed the prequel trilogy and never liked (nor got) the "George Lucas raped my childhood" angle. The PT is 1. more Star Wars and 2. Great Fun. My nephew grew up with the PT and loved every film as well as the originals. In fact I'd probably annoy a lot of OT fans - but I liked the special editions and the addons. Hell I even approve of the removal of Sebastian Shaw. Jar Jar wasn't that annoying (no more so than the Ewoks). As for darkness? Why does everything have to be so dark these days. The PT is very, very dark - destruction of democracy, anti-speciesism, child killing, temptation, slavery, manipulation, corruption, betrayal. These themes are very dark. Also, with regards to the last film I still found myself thinking that Anakin could well turn away from the dark side and all will be well - even with the knowledge that he would become Darth Vader. No, the PT films aren't perfect, but then, neither are the OT (there's a lot in ROTJ that's just padding). Cheers.

Re: In defence of The Phantom Menace
Posted By RichyH 1 September 1, 2010 09:15:50 PM

TPM has a few isolated reasonable moments but is otherwise awful. Just goes to show that when GL is left to his own devices and surrounds himself with 'yes' men, he produces tripe. He hasn't done a good movie since 'Empire' in 1980.

Re: In defence of The Phantom Menace
Posted By pete3206 1 September 1, 2010 09:50:10 PM

Worst movie ever, I will only see it 3 more times - today!

Re: In defence of The Phantom Menace
Posted By charlatan 1 September 1, 2010 10:57:06 PM

At the time I saw it, I came out of the cinema thinking not bad, could have been better, but they had an awful lot of story to tell and managed to pack it in without me feeling it was being hammered into my skull. Sure, the podrace was over long, but Darth Maul was without a doubt cool, Liam Neeson was solid, and the lightsaber fights were spot on. That all done, we were ready and raring to go in the next two films. Then came Attack of the Clones like a car crash, and my patience with the building up of the story from the first film went right out the window. I can muster a modest appreciation of TPM, but not the Clones. Ugh. Oh, and there's no forgiving Jar Jar Binks. If the second movie had been preceded by a five-minute short titled The Many Deaths of Jar Jar Binks, it would have enhanced my appreciation infinitely.

Re: In defence of The Phantom Menace
Posted By Utini42 1 September 2, 2010 04:15:22 AM

Great piece. Thoughtful and well voiced. I agree completely. I had to scroll down fast to avoid seeing any of the snarky comments. :)

Re: In defence of The Phantom Menace
Posted By darknite125 1 September 2, 2010 05:12:31 AM

I have always felt that Phantom Menace while bad was still fairly watchable unlike the other two prequels which were horrible in ever way imaginable.

Re: In defence of The Phantom Menace
Posted By cerveloguy 1 September 2, 2010 06:18:24 AM

He should have let Tarantino direct it. Tarantino wanted to apparently. Maybe somebody will remake parts 1 - 3 in the future and get it right. Clearly consensus is anti part 1 in its current completed from.

Re: In defence of The Phantom Menace
Posted By rottenjohnny 1 September 2, 2010 09:44:50 AM

Episode 1 was disappointing, no doubt about that, but it's not quite as bad as people first made out. The plotting of Palpatine and the Darth Maul 3-way duel belong in a better film, but the terrible performance of Jake Lloyd and the annoying Jar Jar Binks do their best to eliminate any good will I have for the film. Given George Lucas' passion for re-working his movies it wouldn't be too much of a stretch to edit a real actor into Jake Lloyd's place, or re-dub Jar Jar with a less annoying voice. They would be the only reasons I would buy a Special Edition.

Re: In defence of The Phantom Menace
Posted By jonnyellis 1 September 2, 2010 12:44:50 PM

Rottenjohnny, check out the famous 'Phantom Edit' as it manages to dramatically improves Jake's performance and the character by simply omitting a lot of his spoken dialog, makes his character seem a lot more dangerous as you dont know what he's thinking half the time (no 'yippees or angel talk etc) When Anakin is in the starfighter at the end, everything he does is intentional, by removing the 'oops' and 'what does this button do?' it manages to sell the character as the one described in New Hope. Basically just type Phantom Edit into google, its ace. Also Attack of the Phantom is miles better than Clones.

Re: In defence of The Phantom Menace
Posted By willbass86 1 September 2, 2010 01:18:37 PM

I agree! Davros IS better than Darth Vader!!!

Re: In defence of The Phantom Menace
Posted By Holmes 1 September 2, 2010 03:42:00 PM

Sorry, but TPM was an utter turd burger of a film. Sure, there were some decent bits interspersed amongst the turds, but the turds won. And no mention in the article about the utter BS that was 'midichlorians'? That alone completely ruined the entire premise of the spiritual nature of 'The Force' as established in the original movies. And for what? A weak plot device that really served no good purpose. The turds won.

Re: In defence of The Phantom Menace
Posted By DavidFullam 1 September 2, 2010 05:28:14 PM

Now that I've returned from the bathroom, I have a few more beefs. The big one being many people's least favorite part of the film-Midi Chlorians. We as youths had been led to believe that if you believed in the Force and trained hard enough, you could be a Jedi. Now we find out it's a genetic old boy's club. Sure would have been up shit creek had Luke and Leia not been blue bloods. Hugh Quarshie seemed to be following Liam Neeson's lead when it came to his performance, ie-"This is crap, I'm not going to give it my all." And the lack of the high ground rule. As in-Darth Maul-"Give it up Obi Wan, I have the high ground." Obi Wan-"Sorry Maul, Lucas won't invent that rule until Ep 3." Oh well, at least the special effects and saber duels were top notch.

Re: In defence of The Phantom Menace
Posted By MarvMarble 1 September 2, 2010 07:24:50 PM

While the Phantom Menace is in some ways my least favoured of the Star Wars films, I largely agree with a lot of the points made (although I think the acting was pretty bad, although that might be to do with them adopting a 1920s acting style. Not that I'm dissing the 20s, it's just this isn't a 20s film and they aren't 20s actors). I don't hate any of the films actually although the prequels could have been so much better. I actually thought the political Sith machination stuff was pretty cracking.

Re: In defence of The Phantom Menace
Posted By geekcentral 1 September 3, 2010 12:34:49 PM

sorry but the pod race is just Days of Thunder with special effects. Right down to the plotting of the race. Pfft!

Re: In defence of The Phantom Menace
Posted By Tlotoxl 1 September 3, 2010 03:26:22 PM

The biggest probem for me with TPM is that I *loved* the look of Darth Maul and the glimpses of the fights (the first not including very old men or Vader but experts at the top of their powers) we had in the trailers, but not only do we get only about 2 minutes in the middle of the film before the climax then he is killed off in the finale thus dissapointing me massivly that he would not be in 2 & 3. The biggest problem with the trilogy is that it is totally confusing as to who is working with who.

Re: In defence of The Phantom Menace
Posted By Bigcloits 1 September 5, 2010 04:01:55 PM

This “defence” of Phantom is even more full of stupid than the movie itself, and certainly the worst article I’ve ever found on DoG. If I’d had the misfortune to encounter this the first time I visited this site, I never would have returned. Examples of daft: * By your own account, the dialogue ranges from “clunky” to “appalling.” Great defence! Well played, sir, well played! * Getting “kids giggling with delight” at Jar Jar does not make him a “forgivable” character. Kids will giggle with delight at farts. * Defending JJ as “crucial” part of the plot is ... quaint. You say that like it could not have been written any other way, like it would have been impossible for a writer to write JJ out of the story, almost like you believe JJ is real, and the story is real, and it HAD to be written that way, because that’s what happened ... * It’s dull because it’s in PEACETIME? [sarcasm]Yeah, because it’s impossible to tell an interesting story that doesn’t take place in a war zone.[/sarcasm] * Palpatine is “quite possibly the greatest sci-fi villain of all time.” Really? The GREATEST? I’ve seen more memorable villains on Saturday morning cartoons. * I absolutely CAN deny that I smirked “a little bit at some of the crashes.” Watch me: I did not smirk a little bit at some of the crashes. And, even if I did, “smirking a little bit” is hardly what I look for in a film. “Oh, it was great, I smirked a little bit!” Good grief, man. Simply asserting that Phantom only had “some minor unfortunate flaws” does not make it so.
Post a Comment
Security Code* Get another image
 
 
The Phantom Menace

The Phantom Menace

Untitled Document

Follow Den of Geek on

Related Articles

SEARCH

Coke Zero
Advertisement