Three years ago, I invented the term "pulling a Fukuyama" to explain why Roger Ebert gave "The Phantom Menace" more stars than "Attack of the Clones":
Ebert has his head so far up his ass, he can lick his own esophagus.
It looks like Roger's cranialrectalotomy was a complete success.
RELATED: The Dark Side is so strong, it seems to have betrayed and murdered George Lucas.
As to your first comment: does that mean Sith good or Sith bad?
As to your second: You (and Chrenkoff), lighten up Francis.
Sheesh.
hinted 7/8/9 are in his mind?
Where has Ebert been? Lucas said a long, long time ago he did 4/5/6 1st because the middle of the book is the most interesting.
Sandy, I thought Lucas did 4/5/6 first because s/f technology wasn't up to the task of doing any of the other parts well enough to suit him.
I'm pretty sure that someone will come along to do 7/8/9. I just hope they get someone other than Lucas to do everything -- write, direct, etc. He can barebones the story, let someone else flesh it out!
How about Rick Berman?
(ducking for cover)
I knew Lucas had gone over to the Dark Side when Pepsi became a sponsor.
I've always thought the idea that Lucas had a nine-part story in mind when he did the original Star Wars to be false. If the Emperor is the personification of the dark side of the Force, then why were several of the Death Star's top staff so dismissive of the Force as a "dying religion"? Knowing how empires work, I can't believe that second- or third-tier leaders would be that derogatory about their emperor's belief and practice.
1. Lucas was making it up as he went along.
2. The officers didn't know the Emperor was Sith.
Ehhh, his story changes. I might still have an article I cut out back in 77 about how the story evolved.
IIRC, no Luke, Leia running "spice" for lack a better word.
Or was it no Han?
BUT - if a spoiler I read is true, even Lucas can't remember his timeline which is pitiful.
I see no problem in giving Phantom Menace more stars than Attack of the Clones... Clones was the worst of the lot for multiple reasons, not the least of it was the direction and storytelling.
That said, other than the fight sequences and battles Phantom Menace isn't much to write home about... so it's like declaring a preference for a burp over a fart. ;)
I've always thought Ebert's taste is terrible. Someone else deserves his income.
As final proof of Rogert Ebert's asshattery:
Ebert's review of The Usual Suspects
Like I tell myself when I read any atrocious Ebert review: "Remember, this is the guy who wrote Beyond the Valley of the Dolls..."
The link explaining the definition of "pulling a Fukuyama" is 404'd, presumably owing to a software change?
i'm in the biz and Ebert is a definite no read. he's too chummy with Hollywood, he spends more time sucking up than being critical.
"Usual Suspects" was a confusing mess.
