Revenge of the Sith 3 years later

[Sandor 797]

I think it's called bitterness.

Guess so. It's interesting however to wonder about the psychological forces at work here: the motivation to constantly, obsessively and emotionally target the prequels and George Lucas.

I haven't totally figured it out, but I am in awe of it.

[JoeinAR 1,949]

as a teacher of kids roald, you should learn to read, how am I bitter? You've come in on the tail end and without a doubt not even read the intial post. You're two posts in this thread are bashing as are all the whiners in here but the criticism of ROTS is legitimate, if you thought not, there are many points I make that you could try to disagree with but you don't instead you attack me.

[Morlock 11]

Indeed. It didn't feel like a synthesized digital universe. Didn't feel plastic. And Neeson and MacGregor did seem to get into their roles.

Have to disagree strongely here, McGregor was too wooden in the first two prequels ("Wot happened?!"). It's only in ROTS that his performance loosened up. It's only at his third attempt that he found Obi.

I sensed him desparately trying to become an appropriate predecessor to Guinness in the second and third one, but, generally, to little effect. In the first one, he had nothing to do with Obi-Wan as we knew him, but he was effective as his own character. He seemed quite comfortable as Neeson's protege to me.

[Hlao-roo 389]

Hello again, Roald. The simplest response to your perplexity is that at least one or two of the original Star Wars films (if not the entire trilogy) meant a great deal to Joe and other so-called "prequel bashers" here, and the perceived failure of the new films to satisfactorily complete the story arc is a great disappointment to them. This disappointment leads to frequently pointed criticism of George Lucas because at the root of the prequels' failures, they believe, is Lucas' deeply flawed approach to filmmaking. So it's not surprising then that they get bitter, they cling to-- never mind, scratch that.

In Joe's case, he says that, three years after, he wanted to see the last prequel film with an open mind and then render his new assessment. I admit that, at times, it may be rather difficult to imagine that Joe has the ability to be open-minded -- he's as starkly and unashamedly opinionated as any other member here -- but I think we should at least try to give him the benefit of the doubt.

[Sandor 797]

Joe, your criticism towards ROTS is legitimate IMO and I agree with you on many points.

I don't attack you personally Joe, and I do have a lot of respect for you and your viewpoints, but I do wonder about the constant need of some members to slander the prequels or Lucas every chance they get.

I could write a complete manifesto on films like Jumanji or The Boogeyman, but what would be the point? I hated those films, and why invest valuable time to ventilate my disgust of those films over and over again?

But you know as well as I do that posting a negative topic on ROTS (like a negative topic on Jerry Goldsmith or Michael Giachionna (spelling??)) will instill in people a need to respond. My guess is that you deliberately are trying to get these people to react to your initial post and somehow put yourself at the center of it all.

So it's not surprising then that they get bitter, they cling to-- never mind, scratch that.

Hlao-roo, your post would make perfect sense if Joe would admit to what you're saying: that he is bitter and disappointed about the whole prequel experience. Then his topic starter would get a lot more respect from me.

My personal opinion: the prequels are not as bad as some members claim here they are (especially ROTS), but I also am disappointed by the films in the end. It could have been magic, a dream come true, but the stuff that made the original trilogy so great (Star Wars and ESB in particular) is sadly missed in all prequel Star Wars films.

Great designs, characters that I love, a story with a heart, etc. Those elements are not there no matter how I'm trying to see them every time I watch them.

Do I blame Lucas? Not really. He is still one of my favorite filmmakers, responsible for creating a universe that I love and two of my favorite films of all time. That is more credit than I can give to most people. I take out the nice things in the prequels and cherish them, but as a whole it may be one of the most disappointing events in my life.

And from there I move on. Star Wars and ESB will ALWAYS be great, no matter Jar Jar or that ridiculous 'NOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!' There are thankfully more great things in the world besides the idea of a perfect 6 part film cycle.

[Ollie 1,059]

I'm so happy that I don't have the need to place post after post expressing my "hatred" of emmerich's Godzilla.

Don't get me started on that film.......

With the exception of a few posts this is an actual discussion where most of the people are giving their opinions in an adult manner as to what was wrong with the films.

If you want to have an adult discussion as to what you like or why you think the prequels are good/great then start your own thread.

[Romão 2,274]

I must add, however, that ROTS does have moments of brilliance, IMHO. For instance, when Obi Wan meets Padme to talk about Anakin, and he just says: "Anakin is the father, isn't he? I am so sorry...". And the music is fantastic. That sequence of Lament, Anakin's Dark Deeds and Enter Lord Vader is fantastic musical showcase.

[JoeinAR 1,949]

Joe, your criticism towards ROTS is legitimate IMO and I agree with you on many points.

I don't attack you personally Joe, and I do have a lot of respect for you and your viewpoints, but I do wonder about the constant need of some members to slander the prequels or Lucas every chance they get.

I could write a complete manifesto on films like Jumanji or The Boogeyman, but what would be the point? I hated those films, and why invest valuable time to ventilate my disgust of those films over and over again?

But you know as well as I do that posting a negative topic on ROTS (like a negative topic on Jerry Goldsmith or Michael Giachionna (spelling??)) will instill in people a need to respond. My guess is that you deliberately are trying to get these people to react to your initial post and somehow put yourself at the center of it all.

So it's not surprising then that they get bitter, they cling to-- never mind, scratch that.

Hlao-roo, your post would make perfect sense if Joe would admit to what you're saying: that he is bitter and disappointed about the whole prequel experience. Then his topic starter would get a lot more respect from me.

My personal opinion: the prequels are not as bad as some members claim here they are (especially ROTS), but I also am disappointed by the films in the end. It could have been magic, a dream come true, but the stuff that made the original trilogy so great (Star Wars and ESB in particular) is sadly missed in all prequel Star Wars films.

Great designs, characters that I love, a story with a heart, etc. Those elements are not there no matter how I'm trying to see them every time I watch them.

Do I blame Lucas? Not really. He is still one of my favorite filmmakers, responsible for creating a universe that I love and two of my favorite films of all time. That is more credit than I can give to most people. I take out the nice things in the prequels and cherish them, but as a whole it may be one of the most disappointing events in my life.

And from there I move on. Star Wars and ESB will ALWAYS be great, no matter Jar Jar or that ridiculous 'NOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!' There are thankfully more great things in the world besides the idea of a perfect 6 part film cycle.

I explained my topic started in a post within this thread, Marc asked why I started with ROTS and I told him, all 6 Star Wars movies are being played on Spike TV, which Im sure you have know idea what that is, and it started the ball rolling.

I am not bitter about the whole prequel experience, I was very excited by TPM, though somewhat disappointed with the results, but I sensed that AOTC would be better, and while I had an initial positive response with a midnight showing the subsequent showing proved that my first impression was wrong. I'll admit I had low expectations for ROTS. I don't think its as terrible as some here do, but I see its many flaws. That said its possible to like a flawed film, so if others here do... fine by all means. We all have guilty pleasures.

[Sandor 797]

and while I had an initial positive response with a midnight showing the subsequent showing proved that my first impression was wrong.

Had the same experience.

all 6 Star Wars movies are being played on Spike TV, which Im sure you have know idea what that is

I (sadly) used to watch TNA Impact on Spike TV, but that's another topic...

That said its possible to like a flawed film, so if others here do... fine by all means. We all have guilty pleasures.

Ok, can't disagree with that.

[Luke Skywalker 1,796]

Then you have the scene where Yoda tells Anakin not to mourn lost ones, yet he himself does just the opposite as the Jedi are slaughtered. Yoda you should be rejoicing for they are now one with the force.

what you see as exciting, daring and cool, I find slow, rediculous, and over the top.

I hate when viewers expect characters to say and act consistently with any and all previous statements or action, unless it in some ways advances their character or sets up a conflict. Yoda was talking about mourning a loss of a loved one several years ago, one that is consuming Anakin. When the Jedi are being slaughtered in mass fashion, mercilessly and brutally, it's hard to celebrate "their becoming one with the force." Those are very different situations. I'm not sure if you were joking with this example, or not, but it's a pretty for citation for why the movie is ridiculous.

Ted

Exactly, i was going to post the same.

How is "I am the Senate"a great line?

I dont think its a bad line at all .

I mean I could picture a self imposer dictator saying that, after being told that he is arrrested and the senate will decide his fate.

I don't think Yoda knew exactly what Anakin was talking about, but while I agree they are different situations, the whole idea that Yoda is discussing is rather cruel and nonsensical. The idea that one should not have attachments kind of belittles the idea that one must care at all about anything. The jedi seem to care about honor, duty, freedom, which are fine but attachment to people is wrong? People are more than just things and possession, learn this I think he has not.

If someone kills anyone you love, you may want (and act) revenge. While most people don´t, one small percentage does. In order to avoid this dark side emotion, the Jedi encouraged unattachment.

Didnt you see that one of the points of the Prequels is show us that the Jedi Order failed and was defeated to oblivion because it was a rigid decadent entity?

It was their rules to prevent any dark side emotion that blinded them. They were also too proud, and saw themselves as better than common people.

the scene already looked quite ridicules with the terrible make-up on McDiarmid....

Watch this video, and in the minute 1:35, tell me if there is much difference in that Palpatine makeup.

The this was that in ROTJ you did not see it unhooded.

It was incidentally the most memorable, because our entire theater burst out laughing....

I can't watch any more.

We must go to different kind of theaters.

In mine, people applauded the movie.

Yep,that's all the board needed in this time of complete Crystal Skull and complete score speculation...more Prequel bashing

Yeah.

Take out Grevious's cough and I'd hate the movie a whole lot less, but I'd still hate it.

Really, how is that THAT importnat?

I mean, how can you endure to live during winter, with all that people with cold and flu?

Grievous' cough is part of the continuity. Remember in the Clone Wars cartoon when he was escaping with Palpatine Mace force crushed his lungs to try and stop him. Obviously it didn't work but that's the reason why he coughs. Hell I'm sure any of you would be hacking up like that if your lungs had been crushed. I personally don't mind his cough either.

Sadly you can kiss that explanation goodbye. Grievous coughs in the new Clone Wars cartoons

I cannot understand how anyone would find Darth Vader's actual fall from grace to be remotely compelling.

Lucas took one of the greatest villians of all time and reduced him to a whiny brat. I can't even begin to believe Vader from Star Wars and Empire is the same person.

Well he definately did not step out from his mother womb, 2 meters tall and breath mask and black vinyl suit inlcuded.

Whiny brats are just the cliched conflictive teenagers. ROTS its not the only movie to feature them...

Yes heavens forbid we are actually having an adult discussion. Instead of people chiming in "this suck, that sucks" there's actually discussion explaining the dislikes and complaints about the films.

Having an adult discussion about a PG-13 and two PG rated popcorn movies, is somewhat a paradox.

I'm not saying that we should speak of one of Plato's dialogues, but other movies with a little more deph, for and overanalising adult discussions.

For normal, fan discussions any movie can do.

Those that hate the prequels sure spend a lot of time typing posts about them .

KM I seriously doubt you've read much of this thread, most of the criticism of ROTS is hard to refute, there is very little talk about the prequels in general here.

The terms FEAR and AFRAID come to mind. Figure why...

OK, Joe as you should expect your post does not change my feelings about the movie.

I still enjoy the prequels, as as a Williams fan the only thing i dont like is the butchering and tracking of the scores.

And yes as KM said, some Padme-Anakin scenes are cringing. Sadly, of late most popcorn movies love scenes are like that.

[tpigeon 3]

Discourse is not about changing views...

Ted

[Henry B 50]

Watch this video, and in the minute 1:35, tell me if there is much difference in that Palpatine makeup.

The this was that in ROTJ you did not see it unhooded.

Reason #50

[Hlao-roo 389]

Discourse is not about changing views...

Ted

Agreed. Of course, participants should certainly be open to revising their views. By the way, you're perfectly welcome to quote me, although my statement was little more than a regurgitated truism.

[Genius_Gone_Insane 5]

Those that hate the prequels sure spend a lot of time typing posts about them .

True.

Yes heavens forbid we are actually having an adult discussion. Instead of people chiming in "this suck, that sucks" there's actually discussion explaining the dislikes and complaints about the films.

Yes and the complaints haven't changed either, 3 years later. Same complaints, same people, 3 years later. Somehow, disturbingly, I find it entertaining.

I hated Serenity and I put one post up years ago about how bad it was, and I haven't touched it since. I let it go. I'm not saying I'm perfect but it just seems healthier to let things go. Anyway, now I"m beginning to sound like the haters here.

[JoeinAR 1,949]

Yes heavens forbid we are actually having an adult discussion. Instead of people chiming in "this suck, that sucks" there's actually discussion explaining the dislikes and complaints about the films.

Having an adult discussion about a PG-13 and two PG rated popcorn movies, is somewhat a paradox.

I'm not saying that we should speak of one of Plato's dialogues, but other movies with a little more deph, for and overanalising adult discussions.

For normal, fan discussions any movie can do.

OK, Joe as you should expect your post does not change my feelings about the movie.

I haven't asked anyone to change their opinion, and your highlighted statement is just silly, this is a John Williams website/discussion board, if there is a more appropriate place to discuss JW's films and scores than here I don't know where one is.

and genius insane, you've mentioned about serenity and how you didn't like it, well so what, serenity wasn't a blockbuster, it wasn't a JW film, it wasn't a popular film, it wasn't praised at the greatest example of its genre, or the best of a 6 film run, or the last of a trilogy, if you're going to make comparisons try to do better please. And remember this for every post that the some here are calling bashing of the prequels there is a post by someone praising them.

[Hlao-roo 389]

Whiny brats are just the cliched conflictive teenagers. ROTS its not the only movie to feature them...

True. Along similar lines, critics who complained that the sweet, boyish little Ani of Episode I reveals little to no inkling of his future menacing self missed the point that Darkness is not a personality trait but rather the culmination of a dance of individual predispositions, situational factors, and spiritual transformation. Even the most benign of individuals can be claimed by the Dark Side. What bothers me is not that Anakin is revealed to be a brat, but that his impetuosity is handled so clumsily that for all too many in the audience he becomes a laughable and absurd caricature of adolescence.

Having an adult discussion about a PG-13 and two PG rated popcorn movies, is somewhat a paradox.

I'm not saying that we should speak of one of Plato's dialogues, but other movies with a little more deph, for and overanalising adult discussions.

For normal, fan discussions any movie can do.

I recognize your point about not taking ourselves too seriously, but I disagree that having an "adult discussion" about these movies is over the top. One, Mark was referring more to the nature of the discussion than to the substance, per se. Two, the MPAA rating of a film is irrelevant to whether or not its story, characters, and themes are worthy of in-depth consideration. As an example, E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial is a PG-rated summer popcorn flick that is nonetheless rich with ideas about family, friendship, loyalty, loss, and so on. I think it would be sad to close off discussion of the film's implications simply because it's ostensibly breezy entertainment for the infantile.

[tpigeon 3]

Discourse is not about changing views...

Ted

Agreed. Of course, participants should certainly be open to revising their views. By the way, you're perfectly welcome to quote me, although my statement was little more than a regurgitated truism.

Well that goes without saying. The whole point of discourse is for its participants to expand upon and grow their own perspectives.

As for your the quote, it is definitely a truism, but one that I've never been able to state so eloquently and simply. As for my quick shot at empiricism, it was more poking fun than anything else. While I am probably more critical of empiricism than most, I absolutely recognize its importance and constitutive significance.

Ted

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Indy, what you're saying is like buying a Honda Civic and saying "Well...the alternator doesn't work, the battery is dead, it doesn't have power windows, the crankshaft is broken, it has no engine oil, and it's out of gas because its gas tank leaks. It's a great car!"

The Honda Civic is far to reliable for that to happen.

[Hlao-roo 389]

Discourse is not about changing views...

Ted

Agreed. Of course, participants should certainly be open to revising their views. By the way, you're perfectly welcome to quote me, although my statement was little more than a regurgitated truism.

Well that goes without saying. The whole point of discourse is for its participants to expand upon and grow their own perspectives.

As for your the quote, it is definitely a truism, but one that I've never been able to state so eloquently and simply. As for my quick shot at empiricism, it was more poking fun than anything else. While I am probably more critical of empiricism than most, I absolutely recognize its importance and constitutive significance.

Ted

Agreed again, although it of course must be an appropriate kind of "growth and expansion." If you get to a point where you're accepting anything and everything, your perspective becomes incoherent. What I meant was that discourse isn't necessarily everyone agreeing to disagree (although that can be fine, too); sometimes participants should come in with the attitude that they could very well be wrong and that they might leave editing or relinquishing far more of their views than might have expected.

Anyway, I apologize to you, as I had mistakenly thought you were taking a shot at psychology, not at empiricism. I myself think science is broader than empiricism, that empiricism is far from the only valid mode of inquiry -- and is indeed a rather incomplete one by itself. Perhaps we are in more agreement then I'd originally thought.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Is this still about ROTS?

[Hlao-roo 389]

Is this still about ROTS?

It was never about ROTS; it was about Joe's desperate need for attention.

[JoeinAR 1,949]

Is this still about ROTS?

It was never about ROTS; it was about Joe's desperate need for attention.

Finally someone who understands.

[tpigeon 3]

Discourse is not about changing views...

Ted

Agreed. Of course, participants should certainly be open to revising their views. By the way, you're perfectly welcome to quote me, although my statement was little more than a regurgitated truism.

Well that goes without saying. The whole point of discourse is for its participants to expand upon and grow their own perspectives.

As for your the quote, it is definitely a truism, but one that I've never been able to state so eloquently and simply. As for my quick shot at empiricism, it was more poking fun than anything else. While I am probably more critical of empiricism than most, I absolutely recognize its importance and constitutive significance.

Ted

Agreed again, although it of course must be an appropriate kind of "growth and expansion." If you get to a point where you're accepting anything and everything, your perspective becomes incoherent. What I meant was that discourse isn't necessarily everyone agreeing to disagree (although that can be fine, too); sometimes participants should come in with the attitude that they could very well be wrong and that they might leave editing or relinquishing far more of their views than might have expected.

Anyway, I apologize to you, as I had mistakenly thought you were taking a shot at psychology, not at empiricism. I myself think science is broader than empiricism, that empiricism is far from the only valid mode of inquiry -- and is indeed a rather incomplete one by itself. Perhaps we are in more agreement then I'd originally thought.

Yes, definitely. I speak rather optimistically about discourse being all happy-go-lucky and unifying the world. Of course, it's not that simple. The growth and expansion I speak of is one strongly embedded in inquiry and dialogue. My original point, I suppose, that discourse is not about changing minds, but facilitating an atmosphere in which participants can actively engage a variety of viewpoints, in doing so expanding their own.

I should also note that my criticism of empiricism comes from a thoroughly qualitative background. I was initially more bitter towards empiricism when I first dove into communication and cultural studies, but I have since learned quite a bit more and acknowledged its importance, flaws and all. I only wish it were not the only mode (or one of the few) of dominant inquiry.

As for psychology, I am somewhat critical of its practice and literature, since much of it is based so strongly in empirical inquiry. But I am not an anti-psychology advocate. My wife is on her way towards getting her graduate degree in psychology, though she tends to be more on the practice side of it. Psychology has real importance, but I think it has a long way to go though. Then again, doesn't everything?

Ted

[Luke Skywalker 1,796]

Watch this video, and in the minute 1:35, tell me if there is much difference in that Palpatine makeup.

The this was that in ROTJ you did not see it unhooded.

Reason #50

Exactly, SINCE Luke does not get scarred in ROTJ, one SHOULD assume that the scarring of palpatine is a hoax, and his true face is the scarred (consume/eaten by the darkside) one.

But it cant be an illusion because the droids and videocameras would record him with his true face.

The official explanation: Permanent makeup-> He changes his face features with a sith ritual, and only a sith power can undone it.

It's true.

(BTW i think that in the SW galaxy some good permanet Make up should be in stores so one would not need sith rituals and all.

Yes heavens forbid we are actually having an adult discussion. Instead of people chiming in "this suck, that sucks" there's actually discussion explaining the dislikes and complaints about the films.

Having an adult discussion about a PG-13 and two PG rated popcorn movies, is somewhat a paradox.

I'm not saying that we should speak of one of Plato's dialogues, but other movies with a little more deph, for and overanalising adult discussions.

For normal, fan discussions any movie can do.

OK, Joe as you should expect your post does not change my feelings about the movie.

I haven't asked anyone to change their opinion, and your highlighted statement is just silly, this is a John Williams website/discussion board, if there is a more appropriate place to discuss JW's films and scores than here I don't know where one is.

That is something i want to be cleared to me.

Because it seems talking about Indy IV was somewhat taboo.

I recognize your point about not taking ourselves too seriously, but I disagree that having an "adult discussion" about these movies is over the top. One, Mark was referring more to the nature of the discussion than to the substance, per se. Two, the MPAA rating of a film is irrelevant to whether or not its story, characters, and themes are worthy of in-depth consideration. As an example, E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial is a PG-rated summer popcorn flick that is nonetheless rich with ideas about family, friendship, loyalty, loss, and so on. I think it would be sad to close off discussion of the film's implications simply because it's ostensibly breezy entertainment for the infantile.

Yeah the PG was bad chosen but you got it right, having an adult discussion (a serious discussion) on a movie like this (for over 3 years...) its a little too much.

I mean, what are we having here is a 'pissed OT fanboys' vs. 'blind PT ans SW saga fanboys' discussion.

I think you cannot compare E.T. with ROTS... not even with Star Wars. E.T has much more deph.

[Genius_Gone_Insane 5]

Exactly, SINCE Luke does not get scarred in ROTJ, one SHOULD assume that the scarring of palpatine is a hoax, and his true face is the scarred (consume/eaten by the darkside) one.

But it cant be an illusion because the droids and videocameras would record him with his true face.

The official explanation: Permanent makeup-> He changes his face features with a sith ritual, and only a sith power can undone it.

I feel that this may be better left unexplained. One could argue that the 'giver' of the force lightning would be scarred while the 'taker' would just sort of die.

However, I would also guess that Lucas placed the changeling in AOTC for a reason, and I wouldn't rule out the possibility that Sidious is a changeling, which Lucas may explain it at some point.

One more time:

George Lucas, almighty

[Ollie 1,059]

I believe that to be his true image and he used the darkside to project a false image of himself.

Plus he was probably a much older man to begin with.

[Henry B 50]

Watch this video, and in the minute 1:35, tell me if there is much difference in that Palpatine makeup.

The this was that in ROTJ you did not see it unhooded.

Reason #50

Exactly, SINCE Luke does not get scarred in ROTJ, one SHOULD assume that the scarring of palpatine is a hoax, and his true face is the scarred (consume/eaten by the darkside) one.

But it cant be an illusion because the droids and videocameras would record him with his true face.

The official explanation: Permanent makeup-> He changes his face features with a sith ritual, and only a sith power can undone it.

It's true.

Huh? Oh, I was just pointing out how bad Palpatine's makeup looks in Revenge of the Sith. I know McDiarmid got a little older and chubbier, but there's surely more they could have done to make him look like his Return of the Jedi self.

Ironically, Revenge of the Sith was nominated for an Oscar in Best Makeup... What a joke of a category!

[Luke Skywalker 1,796]

I believe that to be his true image and he used the darkside to project a false image of himself.

Plus he was probably a much older man to begin with.

Yeah until i read the cameras and droids, you cannot alter their minds to create the false image.

But yes the dark side has been always told as consuming for the flesh.

And even if he is not makeuped, but the dark shadow and hood make Sidious in TPM and AOTC look more like the scarred version (ROTJ Included) than the palpatine version.

Huh? Oh, I was just pointing out how bad Palpatine's makeup looks in Revenge of the Sith. I know McDiarmid got a little older and chubbier, but there's surely more they could have done to make him look like his Return of the Jedi self.

the shot when Palpatine finally hoods himself and smiles (after telling anakin to raid the jedi temple) is very much a classic palpatine, with 25 years less of using the darkside.

BTW, the ROTJ makeup looks different depending the shot, light and angle. Same happens in ROTS.

[tpigeon 3]

I agree. I actually started to like that scene after Mace's death. Williams' score is particularly good.

Ted

[Morlock 11]

Huh? Oh, I was just pointing out how bad Palpatine's makeup looks in Revenge of the Sith. I know McDiarmid got a little older and chubbier, but there's surely more they could have done to make him look like his Return of the Jedi self.

The makeup in the last two film is not very good in general. The Arena fight in AoTC looks like a Halloween party with home-made masks and makeup. Palpatine looks like Frankenstein when before he is hooded, and too heavily made-up afterwards.

Ironically, Revenge of the Sith was nominated for an Oscar in Best Makeup... What a joke of a category!

I don't know, Rick Baker does some amazing stuff. But, in general, it too often goes to the crew that turned the good looking young star into some ugly looking real person.

[A24 4,346]

In ROTS, Ian McDiarmid is at his best when he plays the senator. He overacts when he becomes Darth Sidious, even when compared to ROTJ.

Alex

[Dalton007 0]

"Hold me like you did on Naboo"

[Ollie 1,059]

[tpigeon 3]

Like I said before, for someone who is apparently sold on the power images, Lucas rarely lets an image speak breathe for itself. He wants to convey every bit of feeling in the painfully literal dialogue. To him, nothing is there unless it's spoken in the dialogue. If it's not said by someone, than it's not there. He doesn't feel confident enough in his own visuals and story, and he doesn't want any ambiguity when it comes to the viewer interpreting the meaning of the story. Therefore, he assures that we're all following his logic and dictation of the story by removing any possibility of another interpretation than his own. In other words, he is consumed by his own self-love and desperation to control everything. And it's gotten the best of him.

Ted

[A24 4,346]

Like I said before, for someone who is apparently sold on the power images, Lucas rarely lets an image speak breathe for itself. He wants to convey every bit of feeling in the painfully literal dialogue. To him, nothing is there unless it's spoken in the dialogue. If it's not said by someone, than it's not there. He doesn't feel confident enough in his own visuals and story, and he doesn't want any ambiguity when it comes to the viewer interpreting the meaning of the story. Therefore, he assures that we're all following his logic and dictation of the story by removing any possibility of another interpretation than his own. In other words, he is consumed by his own self-love and desperation to control everything. And it's gotten the best of him.

Ted

Which is in stark contrast with how George made films in the seventies. THX 1138 is almost a silent film. Even the first Star Wars has an underlying mythical urge not pronounced with dialog.

Alex

[tpigeon 3]

Exactly. For as bad as the dialogue in Star Wars was, it had a rhythmic quality to it that complemented the exuberance of the film's brilliant visuals. Interestingly, Lucas didn't edit at the same hyper-rate he has done with the prequels. There were long, sweeping shots in that movie, sometimes of the most simple things (desert), but he made it compelling. That's totally absent in the prequels.

Ted

[Genius_Gone_Insane 5]

There were long, sweeping shots in that movie, sometimes of the most simple things (desert), but he made it compelling. That's totally absent in the prequels.

Ted

You are incorrect.

[tpigeon 3]

Perhaps you might cite something?

Ted

[Genius_Gone_Insane 5]

No.

[tpigeon 3]

Why bother to refute something unless you can support your view?

Ted

[Hlao-roo 389]

Why bother to refute something unless you can support your view?

Ted

Ted, I don't think you give him enough credit. That "no" of his was exceptionally well-written. Let's take another look at it.

No.

Wow. This is truly a master at work.

[Genius_Gone_Insane 5]

Seriously go watch these movies again and try to enjoy them. There are too many scenes to list.

[tpigeon 3]

There are indeed long shots in the prequels, but they usually serve the purpose of Lucas trying to show off how cool something looks. I'd be interested to know the average shot lengths of each the six Star Wars movies to do some sort of comparison.

Ted

[booboobasher 0]

TFM Was truly dreadful -Jack Loyd acting....- Yahoo R2!! Every print of the film NEEDS TO BE BURNED!!!

[A24 4,346]

Exactly. For as bad as the dialogue in Star Wars was, it had a rhythmic quality to it that complemented the exuberance of the film's brilliant visuals.

And these visuals suggested more than what we saw (there's a world outside the frame). I don't think George even achieved that in TESB, his most beloved installment. But back to my "underlying mythical urge", I'm afraid the visuals are not alone responsible for this. It's also in the way George nonchalantly presented his characters, it's as if they were already there and as if they still will be there when the film crew is gone. Perhaps there was more of a documentary style to it.

Alex

[Dalton007 0]

Pause Fight

"But, from my POV the Jedi are evil"

Resume Fight

Brilliant.

[Elmo Lewis 6]

I don't think George even achieved that in TESB, his most beloved installment. But back to my "underlying mythical urge", I'm afraid the visuals are not alone responsible for this.

Doesn't he hate The Empire Strikes Back? He even made his own edit after he saw the original one, but everyone else (Gary Kurtz) hated it, so they we back to the former.

It's also in the way George nonchalantly presented his characters, it's as if they were already there and as if they still will be there when the film crew is gone. Perhaps there was more of a documentary style to it.

That's an old saying among young writers for film. When deciding the structure of a scene, always "walk in late, walk out early" so you get straight to the point.

[Dalton007 0]

George did an uncredited writing polish on Empire.

[A24 4,346]

Doesn't he hate The Empire Strikes Back? He even made his own edit after he saw the original one, but everyone else (Gary Kurtz) hated it, so they we back to the former.

I was talking about the public. I'm almost certain TESB is the most popular one. And you're saying Lucas hates it? I didn't know that. Perhaps that's why he deviated from it and why ROTJ is so 'different'.

[Neimoidian 14]

Doesn't he hate The Empire Strikes Back? He even made his own edit after he saw the original one, but everyone else (Gary Kurtz) hated it, so they we back to the former.

I was talking about the public. I'm almost certain TESB is the most popular one. And you're saying Lucas hates it? I didn't know that. Perhaps that's why he deviated from it and why ROTJ is so 'different'.

I believe the "hatered thing" is slightly exaggerated by the media. From the very beginning Lucas has planned ESB to be the darkest part - story wise - and RotJ to be happy-go-lucky adventure once again. He seems to prefer more lighthearted movies and he certainly might have been concerned about the heavy weight of ESB, but saying he hates that movie seems unbeliveable to me.