[ SECRET POST #3217 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #3217 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.


__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.


__________________________________________________



08.


__________________________________________________



09.


__________________________________________________



10.


__________________________________________________



11.










Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 03 pages, 064 secrets from Secret Submission Post #460.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[(Anonymous)]

Quality is subjective.

Artistic merit is subjective.

The prequels aren't objectively good or bad. They're works of media and you either like them or dislike them.

[(Anonymous)]

I don't know. I don't want to get into a heavy debate about the basic elements of aesthetic theory, because lord knows that's a quagmire. But at the same time, I think there's a meaningful distinction between different kinds of criticism as a film. And, at least for me personally, on a phenomenological level, I am capable of recognizing when I feel I dislike something in a movie on grounds of taste, and when I am criticizing a specific thing that exists on screen for the role it plays in the film as a work.

So like, it's one thing to say that Jar Jar is a poopiehead and I find him annoying. It's another thing to say that the movie doesn't have a protagonist and it suffers from the lack of an emotional throughline. And it's not clear to me - if you're not allowed to have the second kind of conversation - how you're going to talk about movies at all, honestly.

[(Anonymous)]

"It's another thing to say that the movie doesn't have a protagonist and it suffers from the lack of an emotional throughline."

That's still a VERY subjective argument, though, because I've never struggled to identify a protagonist for TPM (Qui-Gon) and it has some of the most emotionally resonant moments in the entire six movie films for me (such as Anakin leaving his mother).

If you don't see those things, I'm not saying your perception is wrong. But to try to push your perception as objective fact is what annoys a lot of people.

[(Anonymous)]

(NA)

Really? Qui-Gon? He didn't feel like a protagonist to me.

[(Anonymous)]

AYRT

I guess, to me, the thing is that while it's Padmé's story (in that the central conflict is the issue of rescuing her people from the Trade Federation), Qui-Gon is the character that we follow throughout the story for the most part. I've thought of saying that he and Padmé are co-protagonists (because there are two stories here -- the issue of Naboo and finding Anakin -- that run through TPM) but I do think that Qui-Gon has a tendency to predominate.

In particular, I think Lucas did this to emphasize his absence and it worked for me because I definitely missed him in the following episodes. When he died, it felt like something had been lost (to me at least).

[fishnchips]

Just because something doesn't have a clear protagonist it doesn't mean it's objectively bad, though. Some things work perfectly as ensemble pieces.

[(Anonymous)]

That's true, and then that leads to a further conversation about whether it functions as an ensemble piece (and I don't think it does).

But the point I want to make, I guess, is that this type of conversation that we're talking about is a different kind of conversation than talking about whether or not Jar Jar is a poopyhead.

[fishnchips]

That is true.