Alfred Urrutia (
Thu, 27 May 1999 10:52:22 -0700 (PDT)

On May 27, 3:16am, A Long Time Ago, In A Galaxy, Far, Far Away.... wasted
bandwidth discussing:
> Subject: Re: [WOT] was Re: [gundam] New Turn A episode Summary

> If you want to use this form of arguement, then how about using it to say
> the same
> thing about Empire Strikes Back and Return of the Jedi. Sure, they are
> great movies,

That is my only point about viewing them on their own. Of course they are
all really thirds of a 6 hour movie. But they were *released* as three
separate movies and must be judged that way. And I like them all, even if
"Jedi" was the weakest, it still held up better than "Phantom Menace".

> but if you watch them by themselves, with no previous episode
> information,
> they are just as lame. ESB: You've got some kid in the middle of a
> blizzard talking
> to a ghost. What's up with that? Does the ghost have some sort of
> relationship
> with the kid? RotJ: What's the deal with the little green guy? What makes
> him so
> important? If the guy in the brick is supposed to be so hot, how did he
> get into the
> brick? And don't even talk to me about the Jedi tricks Luke started
> pulling out of
> his robe. Viewing these movies is all about perspective. Other than ANH,
> none of

Yes, you make a lot of sense there. But (you knew there'd be a "but") you
could ask the same in "A New Hope", too. What's up with Ben's Jedi tricks?
What's up with Vader? What makes him so important? How does Ben go from
corpse to voice in Luke's head? If Vader is so hot why is he taking orders
from Dracula sitting next to him? Etc., etc. They are just as mysterious
and they were quickly explained (or you just had to deal with no explanation)
so the other two can be critiqued in the same way.

> them were made to stand alone. Each of them reference to and are
> continuations of
> the ones before them. ESB wouldn't make any sense unless you know what
> happened
> in ANH. RotJ's whole basis is that it is a closure to the events that
> started in ANH and
> continued in ESB. You may not like this concept, but The Phantom Menace

> The reason why nobody is accepting your arguement is because it makes no
> sense.

Don't be so quick with the "nobody" part. You are leaving out the group
that is not in the mood to argue with people who are such avid fans of
the series. You should have heard the debate I stumbled into about what
"Terminator 3" could possibly be about with a guy I was standing in line
with at an anime convention. There are fanatics for everything and they
are not too willing to look at their favorite things objectively.

> What you are asking everyone to do would be the same as watching either
> the first
> 3 episodes of 0083 (with the announcer's voice overs in Japanese) or the
> Char's
> Counter Attack movie without ever having heard of Gundam or the events
> that
> took place in the prevous UC series. You are trying to make the arguement
> that those
> two examples should stand on their own with the viewer never having heard
> of
> Gundam before, or the viewer not knowing of the events that they refer
> to. That's
> exactly how I started with Gundam, and I will admit that it's pretty damn
> confusing,
> especially when the characters refer to events and situations that you
> know nothing
> about. That is the arguement you are trying to make, and quite frankly,
> it doesn't
> hold water.

Sure it does. You're right, stepping into the middle of a Gundam series
with no prior knowledge would be a waste of time (I know, I've tried), but
what of complaints about anime series in general (Macross is guilty of this,
too) having "filler" episodes? If they're all important then how can some
parts of it be considered less than others? Because they're poorly written
or add nothing to the story or are in some other way weak. Even if some
things require background knowledge the question remains - was the story
*told* well? Written well? I had no idea of Gundam when I first laid
eyes on a bootleg of "0080" but, let me tell you, that story was complete
unto itself, it was told well, and it can stand on its own without having
seen the first TV series. It is complete, well executed. I'm sure you'll
say that the Star Wars saga, complete, is also well executed. But just as
I can point to an episode of Gundam or Star Trek: Voyager or any other
multi-part series and say "That one pretty much sucked even though I love
the series," I can also say that about "The Phantom Menace". I expect
more from a Star Wars episode. Nothing specific, just a high standard of
quality and story development.

> > Did you like the movies "Alien" and "Aliens"? How about parts 3 and
> 4?
> Loved both of them. Part 3 was okay, but it really is a big letdown. 4
> was Resurrection
> right? I haven't seen that one, so I can't compare.

That's what I'm trying to get at. You can love a series (I love this one
and most of the comics I've read that connect to it) and *still be able
to be let down by a chapter of it*. "Alien 3" had that dog-legged alien
in it, which I thought was great, but the rest was below par. Just because
it's in the same universe doesn't absolve it from sucking compared to the
other two. Wait till you see part 4. Man, I can still smell it. See how
they take a pretty good idea (the book read fine) and film it like shit.

I agree that, once the Star Wars series is completed, it can honestly be
viewed more as a 12 hour movie. But the first two hours currently are the
slowest (minus the saber battles and pod race) and the most childish. If
a writer splits up a huge story into separate chapters/episodes/movies
then they can be judged separately. "Star Trek IV" was childish. "Star
Trek V" was a great idea executed shitty. "Star Trek II" rocked. "Star
Trek VI" was really good. See how this works?


"I'm the Sith ya hated, Jedi's light castrated!
 I'm the Empire Startah!  Wicked Empire Startah!"

- "Firestarter" video + Darth Maul

Alfred Urrutia - Disney FA - 818.526.3338 - -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- - Gundam Mailing List Archives are available at

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Fri May 28 1999 - 02:56:29 JST