RE: Off-topic: NY Times says Episode III is better than Star Wars

RE: Off-topic: NY Times says Episode III is better than Star Wars (Full Version)

All Forums >> [General] >> General Discussion

Message

rhondabrwn -> RE: Off-topic: NY Times says Episode III is better than Star Wars (5/23/2005 9:14:32 AM)
Just got home from the theatre. I would rate it as "passable action adventure fare" and nothing more. As others have commented in published reviews, I felt totally detached from the characters. I'm an emotional gal, but I didn't so much as tear up over any of the deaths. Anakin's "conversion" was ludicrous in it's speed. Later the physical transformation into Darth Vader looked like an INDY team changing tires in a pit stop! They didn't even bother to clean off the burnt skin and clothing remnants... whirrrrr... new legs on.... whirrrr... breath mask drops on.... clunk... add he helmet.... DONE! I would have cut several of those endless battle scenes and used the time to expand Anakin's "conversion" in both the mental and later physical sense. The length of some of the lightsabre duels could have been shortened also. Clearly, it was intended as a CGI fest and plot and acting was of lesser concern. Technically, I HATE space battles that have huge ships flying around a few feet from each other surrounded by 10,000 fighters. I hated that in "Starship Troopers" and I hate it here. Starship combat would be at long distance missile range with a reasonable number of fighters and bombers coming in close. The original Star Wars had it about right in terms of the numbers of ships involved. Of course, then it was a lot harder to create the effects. Now it's too easy to use a "cookie cutter" to put ships into the film. "Independence Day" suffered a bit from skies full of formations of F-18's packed into tight formations as well as the swarms of alien fighters. They are just overdoing the CGI, it starts looking like wallpaper after awhile. BTW... surprisingly I thought the much ignored "Starship Troopers 2" was actually a pretty darn good movie. Much more realistic than the original even though it lacked the "stars". Check it out - it's worth watching.

kaiser73 -> RE: Off-topic: NY Times says Episode III is better than Star Wars (5/23/2005 9:37:18 AM)
The Movie is good. I don't think the actors were so bad. I think the weak point is Lucas as Director. The story is (for once) "possible". With better dialogues and another director this movie would have become very very good. As someone said, less battles and more dialogues and more time to the Padme/Anakin story and internal struggle of Anakin would have made wonders. Like giving more time for Anakin to pass to Dark Side...in the movie it happens in 1 minute without much thinking or struggle. However, it's enjoyable, and much much much better than previous 2 (and of Return of the Jedi).

Warfare1 -> RE: Off-topic: NY Times says Episode III is better than Star Wars (5/23/2005 10:33:46 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: rhondabrwn Just got home from the theatre. I would rate it as "passable action adventure fare" and nothing more. As others have commented in published reviews, I felt totally detached from the characters. I'm an emotional gal, but I didn't so much as tear up over any of the deaths. Anakin's "conversion" was ludicrous in it's speed. Later the physical transformation into Darth Vader looked like an INDY team changing tires in a pit stop! They didn't even bother to clean off the burnt skin and clothing remnants... whirrrrr... new legs on.... whirrrr... breath mask drops on.... clunk... add he helmet.... DONE! I would have cut several of those endless battle scenes and used the time to expand Anakin's "conversion" in both the mental and later physical sense. The length of some of the lightsabre duels could have been shortened also. Clearly, it was intended as a CGI fest and plot and acting was of lesser concern. Technically, I HATE space battles that have huge ships flying around a few feet from each other surrounded by 10,000 fighters. I hated that in "Starship Troopers" and I hate it here. Starship combat would be at long distance missile range with a reasonable number of fighters and bombers coming in close. The original Star Wars had it about right in terms of the numbers of ships involved. Of course, then it was a lot harder to create the effects. Now it's too easy to use a "cookie cutter" to put ships into the film. "Independence Day" suffered a bit from skies full of formations of F-18's packed into tight formations as well as the swarms of alien fighters. They are just overdoing the CGI, it starts looking like wallpaper after awhile. BTW... surprisingly I thought the much ignored "Starship Troopers 2" was actually a pretty darn good movie. Much more realistic than the original even though it lacked the "stars". Check it out - it's worth watching. I think you are spot on with your comments about CGI in movies. Some directors use too much CGI. And it becomes tiresome... and boring... CGI should enhance a film; CGI should never be the film... Movies such as Gladiator added CGI in a non-intrusive manner that enhanced the viewing experience... Just having thousands upon thousands of starships or drones milling about everywhere is just silly...

rhondabrwn -> RE: Off-topic: NY Times says Episode III is better than Star Wars (5/24/2005 12:50:01 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Warfare1 quote: ORIGINAL: rhondabrwn Just got home from the theatre. I would rate it as "passable action adventure fare" and nothing more. As others have commented in published reviews, I felt totally detached from the characters. I'm an emotional gal, but I didn't so much as tear up over any of the deaths. Anakin's "conversion" was ludicrous in it's speed. Later the physical transformation into Darth Vader looked like an INDY team changing tires in a pit stop! They didn't even bother to clean off the burnt skin and clothing remnants... whirrrrr... new legs on.... whirrrr... breath mask drops on.... clunk... add he helmet.... DONE! I would have cut several of those endless battle scenes and used the time to expand Anakin's "conversion" in both the mental and later physical sense. The length of some of the lightsabre duels could have been shortened also. Clearly, it was intended as a CGI fest and plot and acting was of lesser concern. Technically, I HATE space battles that have huge ships flying around a few feet from each other surrounded by 10,000 fighters. I hated that in "Starship Troopers" and I hate it here. Starship combat would be at long distance missile range with a reasonable number of fighters and bombers coming in close. The original Star Wars had it about right in terms of the numbers of ships involved. Of course, then it was a lot harder to create the effects. Now it's too easy to use a "cookie cutter" to put ships into the film. "Independence Day" suffered a bit from skies full of formations of F-18's packed into tight formations as well as the swarms of alien fighters. They are just overdoing the CGI, it starts looking like wallpaper after awhile. BTW... surprisingly I thought the much ignored "Starship Troopers 2" was actually a pretty darn good movie. Much more realistic than the original even though it lacked the "stars". Check it out - it's worth watching. I think you are spot on with your comments about CGI in movies. Some directors use too much CGI. And it becomes tiresome... and boring... CGI should enhance a film; CGI should never be the film... Movies such as Gladiator added CGI in a non-intrusive manner that enhanced the viewing experience... Just having thousands upon thousands of starships or drones milling about everywhere is just silly... Exactly! The first time you see 100,000 CGI troops arrayed it is amazing (LOTR) the next time you see it (TROY) it is boring. Ultimately, it is always going to be the storyline and the acting that makes a great motion picture. Graphics just help enhance the experience.

Bossy573 -> RE: Off-topic: NY Times says Episode III is better than Star Wars (5/24/2005 1:13:55 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: rhondabrwn I felt totally detached from the characters. Anakin's "conversion" was ludicrous in it's speed. I was good with them but being a Star Wars junkie, I would have been surprised if it was any different. The movie was long aleady for this type of thing. Basically, Lucas was making up for the time lost in the unexplainable Episodes I & II. The character development you seek should have been handled more thoroughly before Episode III ever hit the screens. Saw it twivce this weekend and came away fron the second viewing even more impressed. But like I said, I dig the whole scene so mine is not an "unbiased" opinion. [:)]

coregames -> RE: Off-topic: NY Times says Episode III is better than Star Wars (5/24/2005 10:57:35 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: rhondabrwn Clearly, it was intended as a CGI fest and plot and acting was of lesser concern. While I enjoyed Episode III, I agree that all three prequels overuse CG to the extreme. At least it didn't seem quite as jolting this time, as Lucas and crew attempted to bridge the gap between the looks of the two trilogies. This movie had the worst dialogue moments of all the Star Wars movies, making me cringe in places (I almost groaned out loud during the lovey dovey moments between Anakin and Padme). This is one reason I prefer Peter Jackson to Lucas today. Obviously, Jackson owes a lot to the innovations Lucas has brought to moviemaking, but Jackson has retained his love of miniatures and real sets, and also, slaves over the screenplay as lovingly as he does the special effects. It helps that he realizes his limitations and collaborates with his wife and Philippa Bowens. I can't wait for his take on King Kong.

riverbravo -> RE: Off-topic: NY Times says Episode III is better than Star Wars (5/25/2005 8:40:15 AM)
I really liked episode 3.I mite even go see it again. Finaly the dark side wins,the jedi are almost wiped out,yoda is in exile,kenobi to watch over luke.We get to see how Vader became a cyborg,the fall of Annakin, the whole schmeel....man I really liked it.After the last two episodes[8\|] Episode 2 was decent. Also the Boba Fett thing was pretty neat too....its worth seeing on the big screen.

pasternakski -> RE: Off-topic: NY Times says Episode III is better than Star Wars (5/25/2005 8:55:20 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: coregames This is one reason I prefer Peter Jackson to Lucas today. Yeah, I can hardly wait for King Kong XXIII.

Mr.Frag -> RE: Off-topic: NY Times says Episode III is better than Star Wars (5/25/2005 2:59:15 PM)
Effects were certainly Lucas level but it just seems like the acting between action scenes was aimed at the absolute minimum number of words to get to the next action shot. Oh well, thats what you get when you cater to 3 generations at once. Just seemed too rushed to me. Guess LotR has spoiled us to what a movie should be [:D]

parusski -> RE: Off-topic: NY Times says Episode III is better than Star Wars (5/25/2005 3:41:51 PM)
Oh yes the acting was wooden. I enjoyed the movie for one reason: Knowing why Darth Vader wore that life support suit. The ending should be re-done though. Show what happens to Luke and Lea first, then show the mask going on DV. The last thing we should hear is Darth Vader taking that fist wicked breath.

IronDuke_slith -> RE: Off-topic: NY Times says Episode III is better than Star Wars (5/26/2005 1:40:55 AM)
Overall, I can't help thinking he only got away with the last trilogy because an entire generation fell in love with the first. I thought Sith was 1.5 hours of dross saved by 45mins towards the end which was the best section of the three latest movies by far. Lucas's faults are legion, and I can't help but wonder what this franchise might have been in the hands of Jackson, or Spielberg. The dialogue is awful and sounds like it has been lifted out of a 50s war movie. He has no sense of humour, so the light hearted lines are so bad, Arnie would refuse to say them. This affects the acting that is passable at best (Lee, McDiarmid) ropey and well below what they are capable of for others (Jackson, McGregor) and euphemistically %^&* poor for others (Christianson). The scary thing about Darth Vader is not so much what he does, but more that I understand hundreds were auditioned before Lucas found his Darth. The CGI is pointless at times because there is so much going on, you can't actually see much but a blur of colour. He has absolutely no discipline at all when it comes to blending and using his special effects. All this combines to give you a complete lack of tension until the laughably underdone conversion of Vader takes place, at which point the film picks up for a better finale. The last 45 mins were stronger, despite some of the acting, and Lucas showed a darker side with some of the scenes that were at least written in a way that could unsettle. That said, like everyone else I've seen most of them umpteen times and was never going to miss it, and am glad Lucas has got it off his chest. I look forward to the remakes in 20 years. They will be better. Regards, IronDuke

Warfare1 -> RE: Off-topic: NY Times says Episode III is better than Star Wars (5/26/2005 4:39:55 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag Effects were certainly Lucas level but it just seems like the acting between action scenes was aimed at the absolute minimum number of words to get to the next action shot. Oh well, thats what you get when you cater to 3 generations at once. Just seemed too rushed to me. Guess LotR has spoiled us to what a movie should be [:D] You are right there: LoTR raised the bar substantially. Jackson seems to have a real touch for doing sword and fantasy type movies. I would like to see him do "The Odyssey", "Jason and the Argonauts", "The Voyage of Sinbad-Type moves" (I still kinda like the older movies like "The Golden Voyage of Sinbad"), "King Arthur", etc... Lucas has so much CGI on the screen at once that it simply becomes mind-numbing... subtle he ain't - heheh Jackson proved with the LoTR that young and old still prefer a good story, along with special effects...

Zeta16 -> RE: Off-topic: NY Times says Episode III is better than Star Wars (5/27/2005 1:12:11 AM)
I have wondered this for a long time. Why do people think the original movies are so great. I have watched them many times and esp I and II many times and III twice now. The acting in all of them is not very good. In ROTJ Hamill seems to mail it in and there are corney lines in all of the movies. Maybe it is becasue I was 7 by the time ROTJ came out I really don't know. I loved the ROTS and even AOTC. So why do you think the orginial ones are so much better.

Warfare1 -> RE: Off-topic: NY Times says Episode III is better than Star Wars (5/27/2005 7:05:48 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Zeta16 I have wondered this for a long time. Why do people think the original movies are so great. I have watched them many times and esp I and II many times and III twice now. The acting in all of them is not very good. In ROTJ Hamill seems to mail it in and there are corney lines in all of the movies. Maybe it is becasue I was 7 by the time ROTJ came out I really don't know. I loved the ROTS and even AOTC. So why do you think the orginial ones are so much better. Of all six Star Wars movies I would have to rate "Star Wars" and "The Empire Strikes Back" as the best from the first trilogy. As for "The Return of the Jedi", I have only one word to say: "EWOKS"! I almost left the theatre. Fortunately, the scenes between DV and Luke were so good I stayed. In the second trilogy, it sounds like episode III is the best. In the first films Lucas focused more on the characters. In subsequent films he went manic with special effects... Did I happen to mention there were "EWOKS"!? [8\|]

Warfare1 -> RE: Off-topic: NY Times says Episode III is better than Star Wars (6/24/2005 2:17:29 AM)
Here's a downloadable fan made movie called: Star Wars Episode III: A Lost Hope: http://www.sequentialpictures.com/moviestarwarsepisode3.html

ShermanM4 -> RE: Off-topic: NY Times says Episode III is better than Star Wars (6/24/2005 4:13:06 AM)
quote: Of all six Star Wars movies I would have to rate "Star Wars" and "The Empire Strikes Back" as the best from the first trilogy. As for "The Return of the Jedi", I have only one word to say: "EWOKS"! I almost left the theatre. Fortunately, the scenes between DV and Luke were so good I stayed. In the second trilogy, it sounds like episode III is the best. In the first films Lucas focused more on the characters. In subsequent films he went manic with special effects... Did I happen to mention there were "EWOKS"!? I have to agree with you completely. I am a rabid Star Wars nut! I have spent a lot of time watching the movies, playing Tie Fighter and Rebellion, and reading some of the books. By the way, the Timothy Zahn series called "Heir to the Empire" was probably the best of all of them. For anybody wondering why Episodes VI, I, and II were terrible, here is my two cents worth. There is nothing especially unique about Lucas' screen play. The diologue and acting in Episodes IV-VI was nothing different than any of the conventions of the time. Here are some examples. One, Han Solo is plain cool. He's a rogue on the run, and he's got the ride to do it in. He's quick on the blaster, and yes he did shoot first in the Mos Eisley Cantina. Even though he is somewhat of a thief and smuggler you want to keep watching him and see what he will do next. Another memorable scene from Empire Strikes Back, the best in my opinion, you see sweaty, greasey, tired Princess Leia trying to fix something on the Millenium Falcon. Enter Han Solo, he puts his big manly arms around her to help her with her trouble. Booyahh! She doesn't need him, and bats him away. You know she wants him, and the underlying love tension is romantic and sappy. Again, a conventional mode of the day. Stuff like this makes you want to keep watching to find out what will happen next. Several years later Revenge of the Sith comes out. Many Star Wars fans are very optimistic about this new frontier, but they are shocked and not sure about Star Wars after seeing it. Lucas tries to pass a conventional mode by making Anakin a sweet blond and innocent child. Who would ever suspect he would become Darth Vader? The problem was why should we care? The ultimate climax scene which was the only good part of the movie was the Pod Racing scene. Though very cool, I don' think anybody was sure what this had to do with the Star Wars Galaxy. Anakin and Amadala was not cute at all. You wanted to see Han and Leia, but Annie and Amadala was just gross and stupid. There was nothing enticing about it at all. It, also, displayed terrible acting. Star Wars aciting in the original films was nothing legendary. After seeing Episode I and II, I thought to myself that was some of the worst acting I have ever seen in my life, and how could it be worse than the original when it was not that great to begin with? It kind of seemed like Lucas was just filling time and getting us there. After seeing Star Wars Episode III I was pleasently surprised. It showed the clone battles, how the Jedi all died, dilemmas between good and evil, power and authority, Anakins transformation to the dark side, the rise of the Galactic Empire, the seeds of Rebellion, and the splitting of Luke and Leia. Why did it take two movies to get to this? Lucas said in an interview that "everybody wanted too see a story about Vader killing people, but that was not the story I wanted to tell. No body wanted to see the story I wanted to tell." I think everybody just did not understand what he was trying to do because it was flawed, and no one was sure what it had to do with the Star Wars universe established in Episdoes IV-VI.

Warfare1 -> RE: Off-topic: NY Times says Episode III is better than Star Wars (6/24/2005 4:40:54 AM)
It's evident that Lucas is capable of dramatic scenes. In the "Return of the Jedi" the scenes between Darth Vader and Luke, and Darth Vader and "the guy wearing the hood" are riveting. Yet, Lucas also threw in those Ewoks, and made the battle scenes almost comical. [8\|] I heard that originally Lucas was going to use creatures similar to Chew-baca. However, it seems that marketing tie-ins (hey wouldn't every kid LOVE to have an Ewok?) changed his mind. He used Ewoks instead, thereby playing up on Ewok exposure (thus the movie was a big commercial for Ewoks. It is no coincidence that Lucas also owned the rights to the Ewok stuffed animals) [8\|] ahhhh.... it's upsetting to see movies used in that way...

ShermanM4 -> RE: Off-topic: NY Times says Episode III is better than Star Wars (6/24/2005 5:07:04 AM)
Well, I dont really care if he owns the rights and used his movies purely to market his product. I call that savy business. Its just like Starbucks. If you can build four on a corner and they all make money then more power to them. I will say I liked Ewoks much better than Jar-Jar's. As you pointed out, where was the same creativity and story that was present in Star Wars: A New Hope and Empire Strikes Back? I think when a movie is presented people are looking for art and not another way to shop.

Skie -> RE: Off-topic: NY Times says Episode III is better than Star Wars (6/24/2005 9:50:06 AM)
I know most people say Episode III was leaps and bounds better than Episode I and II, but I just can't see how. The only thing III suceeds at is inundating us with CGI battles and light saber duals. It's fine, but Lucas is playing the same tune that we saw in I and II. The plot? Well, as far as Anakin's change to Vader, we're just supposed to fill in the gaps. Somehow, showing Obiwan battle Grevious in a minor side plot was more important. The original trilogy tells a story. Yes, there's bad acting. Yes, there's corny dialog. But, even with the Ewoks, ROTJ is still a stronger movie than any of the prequels.

ilovestrategy -> RE: Off-topic: NY Times says Episode III is better than Star Wars (6/24/2005 10:41:53 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Zeta16 I have wondered this for a long time. Why do people think the original movies are so great. I have watched them many times and esp I and II many times and III twice now. The acting in all of them is not very good. In ROTJ Hamill seems to mail it in and there are corney lines in all of the movies. Maybe it is becasue I was 7 by the time ROTJ came out I really don't know. I loved the ROTS and even AOTC. So why do you think the orginial ones are so much better. When I first saw Star Wars in 1977 I was blown away by the sight of the Star Destroyer at the very beginning of the movie, and also was impressed by how dirty and beat up all the rebel equipment and ships were. It was probably the first Sci-Fi film besides 2001 Space Odessy that wasn't camp and corny. It was all serious and dealt with a son wanting to turn his dad from evil. There had never been anything like it at the time. and the soundtrack! That was revolutionary too.

riverbravo -> RE: Off-topic: NY Times says Episode III is better than Star Wars (6/24/2005 4:34:54 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ilovestrategy When I first saw Star Wars in 1977 I was blown away by the sight of the Star Destroyer at the very beginning of the movie, and also was impressed by how dirty and beat up all the rebel equipment and ships were. It was probably the first Sci-Fi film besides 2001 Space Odessy that wasn't camp and corny. It was all serious and dealt with a son wanting to turn his dad from evil. There had never been anything like it at the time. and the soundtrack! That was revolutionary too. Yea,I was seven when I saw episode 4.My mom had to take me screaming and kicking to it.It wasnt a cartoon or a war movie so I didnt care. But when the star destroyer was pummeling the rebel ship in the opening scene I was totaly sucked in.I ended up seeing episode 4 like 17 times at the theatre.Hell,it ran for a year so everytime mom would load us up to go to the movies no matter what the rest of them went to see I went to see Star Wars. I thought Episode 2 was ok, I little to much with the love BS and well Ep 1...Well I guess you gotta start somwere.

Page: << < prev 1 [2]

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.8457031