And the title for Star Wars: Episode III is... [Archive]

Honolulu_Blue

07-25-2004, 05:47 AM

bleh.

FWIW, Revenge of the Jedi was the original Return of the Jedi title. It was even on early promotional materials (my local theater has a Revenge of the Jedi poster displayed, doubtlessly oblivous to its geek value since it sits alongside posters for Backdraft, Batman, and Home Alone 2.

It made sense to change it for that film. I think I heard Lucas explain that Jedi's wouldn't seek revenge. It's not really their thing. I buy that. They aren't supposed to be in the revenge business. That's all about anger and such and we all know where that leads...

I don't mind the title. It's a nice throwback. I am not exactly sure what the Sith have to be vengeful for. I am sure it was or will be explained.

I'll see it. The odds of it sucking are immense. :(

Raiders Army

07-25-2004, 06:48 AM

As long as there are some good lightsaber battles, I'm allin.

judicial clerk

07-25-2004, 08:50 AM

This movie is so horrible I'll only watch it 4 more times.

...today.

SFL Cat

07-25-2004, 09:25 AM

After the last two lame Star Wars flicks, I think Georgie-boy has gotten his last eight bucks outta me to see a theatrical release of a SW movie...Revenge of the Sith....what a stupid title.

DanGarion

07-25-2004, 09:33 AM

Oh good an update to the classic "Revenge of the Nerds" I can't wait!

Fritz

07-25-2004, 09:37 AM

If he wanted to add a former Virginia Tech running back with an axe to grind, he could call it Revenge of Stith.

Coder

07-25-2004, 09:45 AM

Get out of this thread, man. This is geeks only. Now go away or I shall taunt you a second time-a! (If you don't know the movie reference, you are not geeky enough for this thread).
:)

Your mother was a hamster, and your father smelled of ELDERBERRY!

PsychoCop

07-25-2004, 12:02 PM

It made sense to change it for that film. I think I heard Lucas explain that Jedi's wouldn't seek revenge. It's not really their thing. I buy that. They aren't supposed to be in the revenge business. That's all about anger and such and we all know where that leads...

I don't mind the title. It's a nice throwback. I am not exactly sure what the Sith have to be vengeful for. I am sure it was or will be explained.

I'll see it. The odds of it sucking are immense. :(

From what I've gathered... the Sith were nearly exterminated... and in fact, the Jedi thought they had exterminated the Sith by the time Episode 1 was shown... and then they discover Darth Maul, and that sith always worked in pairs.... blahblahblah.

It really is funny, since Anakin really did bring balance to the force... the universe was full of Jedi... and he evened things out... leaving Yoda and Obi Wan as the only known remaining in Episode 4, to Darth Vader and Palpatine as the only known remaining sith.

PsychoCop

07-25-2004, 12:04 PM

Your mother was a hamster, and your father smelled of ELDERBERRY!

I fart in your general direction! ;)

Darkiller

07-25-2004, 01:16 PM

I guess it "had" to be that...
after the failed "Revenge of the Jedi" last time, turned into "Return of the Jedi".

Ragone

07-25-2004, 01:37 PM

If he wanted to add a former Virginia Tech running back with an axe to grind, he could call it Revenge of Stith.

Ooh.. or how about a borderline nba player from the denver nuggets

Revenge of the Bryant Stith

VPI97

07-25-2004, 01:48 PM

If he wanted to add a former Virginia Tech running back with an axe to grind, he could call it Revenge of Stith.Heh. Shyrone needed to take revenge on the agent who told him coming out after his junior year would be a good idea.

WSUCougar

07-25-2004, 02:18 PM

I guess they decided against

SITH HAPPENS

JeeberD

07-25-2004, 02:30 PM

Ooh.. or how about a borderline nba player from the denver nuggets

Revenge of the Bryant Stith

Worst. Shooting Guard. Ever.

Troll

07-25-2004, 06:32 PM

Don't bring up Monty Python movies, I had 3 stolen about a year ago. All I ask is who would steal those?

The_herd

07-25-2004, 06:35 PM

Don't bring up Monty Python movies, I had 3 stolen about a year ago. All I ask is who would steal those?

Someone that didn't have them?

EagleFan

07-25-2004, 07:22 PM

I thought this was the title...

http://www.simleague.net/rotsb.jpg

CamEdwards

07-26-2004, 09:59 AM

eh. even as bad as a large portion of Episode II was, I'll still go see Episode III. Probably will even see it on the first day. And I like the title. It's obviously a nod to the first movies, and perhaps the "revenge" that the Sith take will be disemboweling Jar Jar Binks.

cthomer5000

07-26-2004, 10:07 AM

perhaps the "revenge" that the Sith take will be disemboweling Jar Jar Binks.
We can dream.

judicial clerk

07-26-2004, 10:26 AM

I guess they decided against

SITH HAPPENS

This was the funniest post I've read in a while. I laughed so hard I almost sith my pants.

sabotai

07-26-2004, 02:34 PM

I liked Episode I and II

*ducks*

Suicane75

07-26-2004, 02:42 PM

Whatever it's called, It just doesn't matter anymore. So sad.

primelord

07-26-2004, 02:52 PM

I liked Episode I and II

*ducks*
Don't worry I did too. They didn't live up to the hype, but overall I thought they were ok.

Franklinnoble

07-26-2004, 03:01 PM

Don't worry I did too. They didn't live up to the hype, but overall I thought they were ok.
I dunno... Episode II was OK, but Episode I was just horrible. Liam Neeson basically mailed in his role... and Jar-Jar... dear God, why? I wasn't a big fan of the kid who played Anakin, either. I mean, was Haley Joel Osmet not available or something?

sabotai

07-26-2004, 03:32 PM

I'm not sure if it was even possible for any movie to live up to the hype of Episode I.

I liked II better than I, but aside from a few obviously horrendous things (Jar Jar, some of Anakin's ultra-chessy lines), I thought Episode I was decent. Maybe I don't mind the little kid too much after seeing some of the auditions for Anakin on the DVD. There were 3 kids, I think, and the other 2 were just terrible compared to the kid who got the part. I don't fault the kid as much as I fault the dialog and directing. I'm sure Lucas didn't give the kid much to work on (or just gave him bad advise)

Jar Jar was incredibly terrible, but I guess I learned to just ignore him. :)

cthomer5000

07-26-2004, 03:38 PM

I and II were horrible. don't get me started again.

rkmsuf

07-26-2004, 03:45 PM

I and II were horrible. don't get me started again.

Seriously, no hate intended, but I don't get this sentiment. A New Hope was intentially campy yet anything other than a masterpiece is sucky. I think the series is what it is.

primelord

07-26-2004, 04:12 PM

I dunno... Episode II was OK, but Episode I was just horrible. Liam Neeson basically mailed in his role... and Jar-Jar... dear God, why? I wasn't a big fan of the kid who played Anakin, either. I mean, was Haley Joel Osmet not available or something?
Don't get me wrong all the problems you mentioned were certainly there. I just didnt get the feeling that I was ripped off after seeing it. I know a lot of people feel that way. I agree II was better than I.

Franklinnoble

07-26-2004, 04:38 PM

Don't get me wrong all the problems you mentioned were certainly there. I just didnt get the feeling that I was ripped off after seeing it. I know a lot of people feel that way. I agree II was better than I.
Oh, I didn't feel ripped off. Hell, I saw it three times in the theater, and bought the DVD the day it came out. I just thought it could have been a lot better.

cthomer5000

07-26-2004, 07:17 PM

Seriously, no hate intended, but I don't get this sentiment. A New Hope was intentially campy yet anything other than a masterpiece is sucky. I think the series is what it is.
We've all been through this before. There is a MAJOR, MAJOR, MAJOR, MAJOR, MAJOR, MAJOR, MAJOR, MAJOR, MAJOR, MAJOR, MAJOR, MAJOR, MAJOR, MAJOR, MAJOR, MAJOR, MAJOR, MAJOR, MAJOR, MAJOR, MAJOR, MAJOR, MAJOR, MAJOR, MAJOR, MAJOR, MAJOR, MAJOR, MAJOR, MAJOR, MAJOR, MAJOR, MAJOR, MAJOR, MAJOR, MAJOR, MAJOR, MAJOR, MAJOR, MAJOR, MAJOR, MAJOR, MAJOR, MAJOR, MAJOR, MAJOR, MAJOR, MAJOR, MAJOR, MAJOR, MAJOR, MAJOR, MAJOR, MAJOR, MAJOR, MAJOR, MAJOR, MAJOR, MAJOR, MAJOR, MAJOR, MAJOR, MAJOR, MAJOR, MAJOR, MAJOR, MAJOR, MAJOR, MAJOR, MAJOR, MAJOR, MAJOR, MAJOR, MAJOR, MAJOR, MAJOR, MAJOR, MAJOR, MAJOR, MAJOR, MAJOR, MAJOR, MAJOR, MAJOR, MAJOR, MAJOR, MAJOR, MAJOR, MAJOR, MAJOR, difference in the quality between "A New Hope" and "Empire Strikes Back" versus the super-shit these prequels have been. They've driven me from hard-core nutso fan to hater of George Lucas. Like a bad dream, I just want these prequels to be over with.

P.S. - and if one can't tell the difference in quality between the first set of films and these new waves, then they have no ability to logicially critique film of any kind.

I've spoken my mind, now I'm slipping out of here.
</SW rant over>

Honolulu_Blue

07-26-2004, 11:27 PM

Don't get me wrong all the problems you mentioned were certainly there. I just didnt get the feeling that I was ripped off after seeing it. I know a lot of people feel that way. I agree II was better than I.

Pay no mind to Primer's comments in this thread. This is merely a bad side-effect of being a St. Louis Blues fan for so many years. His perception of what is "good" and what is "bad" is all skewed. He is all like "just because the Blues had a $60 million dollar pay roll I just didn't get the feeling I was ripped off after seeing the Blues get knocked out in the first round." And then he's like "Sure they didn't live up to the hype, but I thought they were ok!" :D

rkmsuf

07-27-2004, 07:37 AM

We've all been through this before. There is a MAJOR, MAJOR, MAJOR, MAJOR, MAJOR, MAJOR, MAJOR, MAJOR, MAJOR, MAJOR, MAJOR, MAJOR, MAJOR, MAJOR, MAJOR, MAJOR, MAJOR, MAJOR, MAJOR, MAJOR, MAJOR, MAJOR, MAJOR, MAJOR, MAJOR, MAJOR, MAJOR, MAJOR, MAJOR, MAJOR, MAJOR, MAJOR, MAJOR, MAJOR, MAJOR, MAJOR, MAJOR, MAJOR, MAJOR, MAJOR, MAJOR, MAJOR, MAJOR, MAJOR, MAJOR, MAJOR, MAJOR, MAJOR, MAJOR, MAJOR, MAJOR, MAJOR, MAJOR, MAJOR, MAJOR, MAJOR, MAJOR, MAJOR, MAJOR, MAJOR, MAJOR, MAJOR, MAJOR, MAJOR, MAJOR, MAJOR, MAJOR, MAJOR, MAJOR, MAJOR, MAJOR, MAJOR, MAJOR, MAJOR, MAJOR, MAJOR, MAJOR, MAJOR, MAJOR, MAJOR, MAJOR, MAJOR, MAJOR, MAJOR, MAJOR, MAJOR, MAJOR, MAJOR, MAJOR, MAJOR, difference in the quality between "A New Hope" and "Empire Strikes Back" versus the super-shit these prequels have been. They've driven me from hard-core nutso fan to hater of George Lucas. Like a bad dream, I just want these prequels to be over with.

P.S. - and if one can't tell the difference in quality between the first set of films and these new waves, then they have no ability to logicially critique film of any kind.

I've spoken my mind, now I'm slipping out of here.
</SW rant over>

you really need to learn to open up more.

HornedFrog Purple

07-27-2004, 09:20 AM

They should rename this movie "The Sandpeople f*** the universe".

1. If they hadn't killed Anakin's mom he wouldn't have gone dark side crazy.

2. They helped rig the pod race so Anakin wins by blowing away some of his competition.

3. They knock Luke senseless and Obi Wan comes out of nowhere. Luke and Obi Wan never would have met if it wasn't for the Sandpeople.

4. You wait and see... they will do something to turn the tide in the Empire's favor in this next movie.

The Sandpeople are the real evil in the Star Wars universe and the entire reason it almost was ruled by the Empire. They are the Phantom Menace!!!!!

Marc Vaughan

07-27-2004, 09:23 AM

I personally didn't mind the new films at all - watchable enough, but to be frank not aimed at me (or the majority of the board) ... they seemed to be aimed at young teenagers and so weren't really for hardcore Starwars fans who've drifted towards middle age like myself.

PS. If you enjoyed the original films then I'd suggest reading the 'sequel' novels - some of them are fantastic ... definitely worth a go and much better than the prequel films.

ISiddiqui

07-27-2004, 11:14 AM

Seriously, no hate intended, but I don't get this sentiment. A New Hope was intentially campy yet anything other than a masterpiece is sucky. I think the series is what it is.

Exactly. It is all nostaglia. Hey, they are fun movies, but not even close to being good moviemaking. The original trilogy had wooden dialog, an hokey, unoriginal story, and a lackluster plot. But it had the force and lightsabers are was super cool.

Franklinnoble

07-27-2004, 11:17 AM

Honolulu_Blue

07-27-2004, 11:46 AM

Exactly. It is all nostaglia. Hey, they are fun movies, but not even close to being good moviemaking. The original trilogy had wooden dialog, an hokey, unoriginal story, and a lackluster plot. But it had the force and lightsabers are was super cool.

No. It's not all nostaglia. The first two and a half films were good. The last two have sucked.

See C-5000's email above. The long one with all the "MAJORS" in it.

Sure there was some wooden dialogue (nothing like the "romance" scenes in Ep II), the story wasn't original but it was better than that, it was a classic, touching on all sorts of mythology, and the plot? Lackluster? No. It was rather straight-forward, but at least it made sense on some level. The plot of Ep I was just stupid and the plot of Ep II made no sense.

The Ewoks were the begining. Then you saw signs of it during the re-issued trilogy back in 1997. Sight gags, goofy CGI humor, and all that started creeping in. It all culminated in Jar Jar Binks, but that droid factory scene in Ep II was ridiculous and stupid. Don't even get me started on the C-3PO humor (I'm beside myself!).

Dismissing the quality of the first two and a half (Ewoks sucked) movies as nostalgia is lazy and just not right. The quality of the dialogue, story, characters, all of that was infinitely better.

Come now.

HornedFrog Purple

07-27-2004, 12:35 PM

I think the last two movies have been ok but they haven't been as good as the original trilogy. I think part of the problem has been the acting but when all you have is a blue screen for every scene you shoot it is harder to act. Even the Lord of the Rings trilogy had some huge sets they built. It really is CGI overkill.

I agree about the dialogue, it needs to be "cheesier" to fall in line with the original three. The midichlorian thing was the stupidest idea that Lucas could have possibly come up with. Notice he got as far away from that as he could in Episode 2. But it is still in there like a sore thumb.

I think part of the problem is there hasn't been a true villian in these last two. We all know who is pulling the strings, but he does everything covertly. The original three we had Darth Vader kicking ass and taking names. Of course these three movies deal with how Darth Vader came about in the first place but still...

I don't think these first two have been horrible but they haven't been great either.

cthomer5000

07-27-2004, 12:51 PM

"Star Wars" and "The Empire Strikes back" were good movies, period. Not good Star Wars movies, but good fucking movies.

The difference between something like ESB and Phantom Menace is mind-blowing.

cthomer5000

07-27-2004, 12:52 PM

Dismissing the quality of the first two and a half (Ewoks sucked) movies as nostalgia is lazy and just not right. The quality of the dialogue, story, characters, all of that was infinitely better.
Those are my long simmering feelings perfectly expressed in one sentence, and with less cursing than I usually use when George Lucas is mentioned.

sabotai

07-27-2004, 01:00 PM

I think part of the problem is there hasn't been a true villian in these last two.

I think you're right here. In the original trilogy, it was Luke Skywalker vs. Darth Vader, the Rebel vs. the Empire. The sides were obvious and the battle lines were drawn from the beginning. The new trilogy, even though we know what will happen generally, it's a bit more ambiguous than that.

ISiddiqui

07-27-2004, 01:29 PM

"Star Wars" and "The Empire Strikes back" were good movies, period. Not good Star Wars movies, but good fucking movies.

Um... no they weren't. An unoriginal plot, wooden acting, tied together with special effects and coolness are NOT good 'fucking' movies. They were B-movies with A-movie production values.

ISiddiqui

07-27-2004, 01:32 PM

It's not all nostaglia.

No, it's ALL nostalgia. The original trilogy in terms of moviemaking was no better than 'The Mummy' trilogy or the 'Evil Dead' trilogy. It had that 'WOW' factor (or, rather than coolness factor) and pretty special effects. The dialogue was crap, the story unoriginal, and the character stereotypes. I had a lot of fun with it and I'll get the DVDs and watch them over and over again, but to say the quality of the dialogue, story, and characters was infinetly better than the prequals is lazy and just not right.

cthomer5000

07-27-2004, 01:36 PM

Um... no they weren't. An unoriginal plot, wooden acting, tied together with special effects and coolness are NOT good 'fucking' movies. They were B-movies with A-movie production values.
Most movie fans, critics, and I disagree. FWIW, Star Wars and Empire Strikes Back and rated #10 and #13 all-time on IMDB.com. I would say that's a pretty definitive statment on how movie fans feel about those films.

rkmsuf

07-27-2004, 01:41 PM

No, it's ALL nostalgia. The original trilogy in terms of moviemaking was no better than 'The Mummy' trilogy or the 'Evil Dead' trilogy. It had that 'WOW' factor (or, rather than coolness factor) and pretty special effects. The dialogue was crap, the story unoriginal, and the character stereotypes. I had a lot of fun with it and I'll get the DVDs and watch them over and over again, but to say the quality of the dialogue, story, and characters was infinetly better than the prequals is lazy and just not right.

This is true. It was groundbreaking in terms of movie making and effects but otherwise a bunch of B level performances. The technology and space war themes were the stars.

The prequals "suck" because it's impossible to live up to groundbreaking nature of the first ones. You can cite Jar-Jar or whatever but even the originals, in their own way, tried to appeal to the teen generation. Looking back had I been older when the first ones came out I'd have probably had the same reaction as the older folks today regarding I and II. It's worse today because you remember the awe of when those first ones came out and the resulting hysteria.

Perhaps I and II aren't as good as IV and V but they aren't light years behind.

ISiddiqui

07-27-2004, 01:49 PM

Most movie fans, critics, and I disagree. FWIW, Star Wars and Empire Strikes Back and rated #10 and #13 all-time on IMDB.com. I would say that's a pretty definitive statment on how movie fans feel about those films.

Uh huh... they are fun films, so what? Titanic has the record for most money made for a movie, is that a classic in your book as well? After all, critics and a lot of movie fans (it is #1 in the box office all time) loved it!

If we look at the IMDB.com Top 250 we'll find moviemaking classics like "The Matrix" (34th all time) beating out movies like "Das Boot" (46) and "Fight Club" (41) beating out "Alien" (60). Not to mention "Kill Bill, Vol. 1" (65) beating out "The Great Escape" (76). The Top 250 on IMDB is the kind of place where "Midnight Cowboy" (219) gets beaten out by "Groundhog Day" (203).... GROUNDHOG DAY?! And "Gandhi" (198) gets smoked by "Terminator 2: Judgment Day" (112).

Sorry, appealing to that measure won't save you.

I still want to know how Mark Hamill and Carrie Fisher are examples of good acting. I can't wrap my head around that. Alec Guinness and Harrison Ford were good, but they were secondary characters in the drama that played out (though I guess Ford was in the original trilogy as much as Ewen McGregor is in the prequals - and both are equally talented). Perhaps there is no one like Guinness in the prequals, but Guiness was not in the film for that long (in fact he disliked the film afterwards anyway).

It's just fun which is why it is remembered so fondly. Which is why "The Matrix" destroys an Oscar winning film like "Gandhi" in the IMDB Top 250.

cthomer5000

07-27-2004, 01:56 PM

So you're arguing that shitloads of people enjoying a movie (insert any movie) doesn't help validate it as being a good movie?

It may not be a high-brow Oscar darling film, but it doesn't mean it isn't an enjoyable 2 hours, which is what a movie is really supposed to be.

And even if you want to isolate the 5 Star Wars movies, the prequels do not come close to measuring up to the original 2 1/2 in quality. If you think the first wave were B movies, these new ones are D-.

ISiddiqui

07-27-2004, 02:04 PM

So you're arguing that shitloads of people enjoying a movie (insert any movie) doesn't help validate it as being a good movie?

In terms of the craft of movie making? Of course not. Movies which are works of art and stand the test of time usually fall in second place to the blow-em-up action flicks these days.

It may not be a high-brow Oscar darling film, but it doesn't mean it isn't an enjoyable 2 hours, which is what a movie is really supposed to be.

WHICH IS MY FREAKING POINT! It's just a fun movie, but not some masterpiece of moviemaking. And likewise, I enjoyed, greatly, Attack of the Clones (The Phantom Menace? Not as much, but I knew that movie would be almost totally exposition). AtoC, at least, is very close to ANH in terms of entertainment value (and beats down ROTJ).

Just because you don't think so means that it can't be so? It's why I consider the almost deified love for AHN, ESB, and ROTJ to be nostalgia to the point where people consider them moviemaking masterpieces while ignoring the faults.

ISiddiqui

07-27-2004, 02:05 PM

Perhaps I and II aren't as good as IV and V but they aren't light years behind.

Indeed. And I agree with your reference to groundbreaking. That made AHN and ESB into the stratosphere.

Honolulu_Blue

07-27-2004, 06:01 PM

No, it's ALL nostalgia. The original trilogy in terms of moviemaking was no better than 'The Mummy' trilogy or the 'Evil Dead' trilogy. It had that 'WOW' factor (or, rather than coolness factor) and pretty special effects. The dialogue was crap, the story unoriginal, and the character stereotypes. I had a lot of fun with it and I'll get the DVDs and watch them over and over again, but to say the quality of the dialogue, story, and characters was infinetly better than the prequals is lazy and just not right.

Wrong.

Simply wrong.

The quality of the dialogue (especially Empire), story (medicholarians? planets wiped off the map? a trade federation of asian accented aliens? the droid factory? the pod race?), and characters (who's better: Young Obi or Old Obi, Anakin or Luke, old Yoda or young Yoda, Jar Jar or Chewie, Amadala or Leia, Han Solo or, uh, there isn't even a character in the same stratosphere as FUCKING HAN SOLO, Count DUKU/Darth Maul or Vader, Jango or Boba, Wedge or Amadala's body guard). Dude, it's not even the same ballpark. It's not even the same fucking sport.

Stop the insanity!!!!

Note I am coming up with these simple comparisons after 6 pints. It's not rocket science, it's just common sense and good taste, people.

SFL Cat

07-27-2004, 08:19 PM

As a script, Star Wars was B-movie space opera. What really made it special was the FX...which were wildly ground-breaking at the time. Unlike most cheapie space movies, you didn't have to suspend belief to enjoy the universe that was presented...you immediately bought it. Yes, we later got all the nerd-speak about fighters making impossible banks in space, but the visual presentation was beyond anything we'd ever seen before (except maybe 2001: A Space Odyssey). It's true, Mark Hamil and Carrie Fisher will never be confused for great actors. However, along with Harrison Ford, they created characters we cared about...we wanted the good guys to win...and that is the vital ingredient for any film.

I have yet to care about any of the characters in the prequels -- who are these pompous asses, and would I really care if someone blew their heads off with a blaster? So far the answer is no (I think the Lucasfilm marketing people missed out when they didn't put a Jar Jar dart board in the stores). As far as FX go? Still ground-breaking I suppose...but way overdone. Someone needs to let George know that sometimes...less is more...especially after he bastardized the original triology with his friggin' special editions.

Sorry, the prequels just don't match the originals in either "quality" (there's that subjective word again) or just plain "fun."

ISiddiqui

07-28-2004, 12:22 AM

Dude, it's not even the same ballpark. It's not even the same fucking sport.

Ah, more nostalgia. Dialogue - same (both crappy). Story - slight edge to original. Characters - just about the same (McGregor is the Ford of this trilogy, while Anakin and Amadala are no worse than Luke or Leia; everyone else is a minor character - Vader is a better villian than anything in the prequal so far [but if Maul didn't die in TPM, I may have a different view], but the whole point in the prequal is the growing menance who everyone avoids, and Palpatine is wonderful in that role).

Once again, all this nostalgia for what was really (as SFL Cat put it) a B-movie space opera with great special effects. The prequals (so far) may be a shade lower, but not by much.... though I'm not sure why you wouldn't care about Obi-Won. McGregor does a great job in playing him.

Marc Vaughan

07-28-2004, 04:08 AM

Regardless of the overall quality of the prequels - the light saber duel involving Yoda rocked :D

Honolulu_Blue

07-28-2004, 04:24 AM

Ah, more nostalgia. Dialogue - same (both crappy). Story - slight edge to original. Characters - just about the same (McGregor is the Ford of this trilogy, while Anakin and Amadala are no worse than Luke or Leia; everyone else is a minor character - Vader is a better villian than anything in the prequal so far [but if Maul didn't die in TPM, I may have a different view], but the whole point in the prequal is the growing menance who everyone avoids, and Palpatine is wonderful in that role).

Once again, all this nostalgia for what was really (as SFL Cat put it) a B-movie space opera with great special effects. The prequals (so far) may be a shade lower, but not by much.... though I'm not sure why you wouldn't care about Obi-Won. McGregor does a great job in playing him.

I just don't understand some people... :confused:

KeyserSoze

07-28-2004, 06:03 AM

Honolulu_Blue

07-28-2004, 07:22 AM

It´s just my opinion.

1- All is about esthetic. All the opinions are valid. If someone says that the Groundhog Day is better film that the Godfather, maybe I wont agree, but it is a respectable opinion.
2- A good film (at least for me), is a film that I like. I prefer Star Wars to a lot of "better" movies (better directed, better actors..), so for me it´s better.
3-A film is a personal experience. I cant see a movie with all the personal experience that it has. The original trilogy is a special movie for me.
4-I like Episode I and II, but they are not like IV and V. I wont talk about the ewoks.
5-I cant talk about Episode III since I just know the title. I will wait. But it´s a name with endeless jokes...

You raise many good points. And a lot of this is true. But there are certain objective criteria one can use to judge the quality of a film. Though in the end it does usually come down to personal taste.

Also, all opinions aren't valid. For example, if someone were to say, and mean it, "Showgirls is a better movie than the Godfather because it had better characters, story, plot, dialgoue, and acting" that would be their opinion, but it certainly wouldn't be valid! :)

KeyserSoze

07-28-2004, 08:52 AM

You raise many good points. And a lot of this is true. But there are certain objective criteria one can use to judge the quality of a film. Though in the end it does usually come down to personal taste.

Also, all opinions aren't valid. For example, if someone were to say, and mean it, "Showgirls is a better movie than the Godfather because it had better characters, story, plot, dialgoue, and acting" that would be their opinion, but it certainly wouldn't be valid! :)

Well for me all the opinions are valid :)

Eyyy Of course Showgirls is better than the Godfather. Showgirls is the top of the western culture!!! :D :D :D

Honolulu_Blue

07-28-2004, 09:00 AM

Well for me all the opinions are valid :)

Eyyy Of course Showgirls is better than the Godfather. Showgirls is the top of the western culture!!! :D :D :D

NO SOUP FOR YOU!

ISiddiqui

07-28-2004, 09:01 AM

I just don't understand some people...

Likewise.

Well for me all the opinions are valid

Well ok, all opinions are valid in that sense. But we can discuss and try to change others opinions as well, and that's valid too :D.

cthomer5000

07-28-2004, 09:02 AM

I just don't understand some people... :confused:
He's clearly someone who dislikes the whole series, so I don't think he cares to make an honest comparison. I would love a panel of experts to grade episodes 1, 2, 4, and 5 against each other. It's not even close. At all.

Honestly, I question anyones ability to seriously critique a film if they can't see the massive difference in quality between these new moveis and the older ones. The new ones are worse in every single element that makes up a film.

Honolulu_Blue

07-28-2004, 09:08 AM

He's clearly someone who dislikes the whole series, so I don't think he cares to make an honest comparison. I would love a panel of experts to grade episodes 1, 2, 4, and 5 against each other. It's not even close. At all.

Honestly, I question anyones ability to seriously critique a film if they can't see the massive difference in quality between these new moveis and the older ones. The new ones are worse in every single element that makes up a film.

Preach on, brother! Preach on!

Honolulu_Blue

07-28-2004, 09:12 AM

Likewise.

Well ok, all opinions are valid in that sense. But we can discuss and try to change others opinions as well, and that's valid too :D.

You know what...

NO SOUP FOR YOU!

Either, pal!

In the immortal words of that Storm Trooper...

"Move along... Move along..."

Note: Why is that no one ever drops quotes from the new movies? Why? Because they all suck! You have, what? That Yoda "Fear leads to anger" speech. That's all right. Then, um, "There's always a bigger fish"? "We can only protect you. We cannot fight a war for you"?

What else? What else is there? "Meesa love you long time? Meesa horny?" Oops, mixed up my movie quotes there.

Anything quote worthy?

ISiddiqui

07-28-2004, 09:22 AM

He's clearly someone who dislikes the whole series

LOLOLOLOL!

Oh yes, that tired old canard! Since he doesn't agree with me he MUST be anti-XXX. Because that is the only explination! Man, I'm really scared at the education they are no handing out at my alma mater if we get logical fallacies like this going on!

Honestly, I question anyones ability to seriously critique a film if they can't see the massive difference in quality between these new moveis and the older ones.

Honestly, I question anyone's ability to seriously critique a film if they see a massive difference in moviemaking quality between the prequals and the original trilogy.

Why is that no one ever drops quotes from the new movies? Why? Because they all suck! You have, what? That Yoda "Fear leads to anger" speech. That's all right. Then, um, "There's always a bigger fish"? "We can only protect you. We cannot fight a war for you"?

What else? What else is there? "Meesa love you long time? Meesa horny?" Oops, mixed up my movie quotes there.

99% of the quotes are from Yoda, well, because he's kinda strange. Also it doesn't discount my nostalgia hypo.

Though I do like the aggressive negotiation line (ie, negotiation with a lightsaber) in AotC. And Yoda rebuttal to Obi Won: "Victory? Victory you say?.. " line.

Honolulu_Blue

07-28-2004, 09:34 AM

99% of the quotes are from Yoda, well, because he's kinda strange. Also it doesn't discount my nostalgia hypo.

Though I do like the aggressive negotiation line (ie, negotiation with a lightsaber) in AotC. And Yoda rebuttal to Obi Won: "Victory? Victory you say?.. " line.

Yoda does hold the majority of quotable material, but Obi Wan has some great lines (Who's more the fool? The fool or the fool that follows him?), as does Han, Leia, Vader, and the Emperor, the lot of 'em!

As for crediting quotable lines to nostalgia, it doesn't hold water. Not at all. At least for me. For example, there are a ton of great quotes for the LOTR series that I use all the time (yes, I'm a horrible geek, but that should come as no surprise as I am arguing about the quality of the original Star Wars triology and the prequels on an internet message board devoted to text-sim computer football game). All the time. These movies have no nostalgic value to me. I have seen them all in the last three-to-four years, two of them well after BOTH prequels. It's not nostalgia. It's quality. Just like the quotes from the original Star Wars trilogy.

I don't run around quoting "Raiders of the Lost Ark" (well, I do sometimes, "It belongs in a Museum!") or "Tron" or "Battle Beyond The Stars" or "Flash Gordon" or countless other movies that I watched over and over as a child and have a certain nostalgia about them. Why? Quality.

ISiddiqui

07-28-2004, 09:38 AM

These movies have no nostalgic value to me.

You aren't getting it. The LOTR movies are examples of good moviemaking, and they have the Oscars to prove it. However, that isn't the point. The point is what lines will be quotable 20 years from now (or more) and that depends entirely on nostalgia. You think 20 years from now people are going to use "Pirate!" as a form of "Duh?!". Probably not, because Pirates of the Carribean won't really have the nostalgia value.

I don't run around quoting "Raiders of the Lost Ark" (well, I do sometimes, "It belongs in a Museum!") or "Tron" or "Battle Beyond The Stars" or "Flash Gordon" or countless other movies that I watched over and over as a child and have a certain nostalgia about them. Why? Quality.

Then you should be quoting "Raiders of the Lost Ark" much much much more than you do. That was a very well made movie. Besides, how many people REALLY quote movie lines on an everyday basis?

Honolulu_Blue

07-28-2004, 09:51 AM

You aren't getting it. The LOTR movies are examples of good moviemaking, and they have the Oscars to prove it. However, that isn't the point. The point is what lines will be quotable 20 years from now (or more) and that depends entirely on nostalgia. You think 20 years from now people are going to use "Pirate!" as a form of "Duh?!". Probably not, because Pirates of the Carribean won't really have the nostalgia value.

Then you should be quoting "Raiders of the Lost Ark" much much much more than you do. That was a very well made movie. Besides, how many people REALLY quote movie lines on an everyday basis?

Raiders is a very well made movie, but it lacks memorable quotes for the most part. "I hate snakes!" is pretty good. "Nazis, I hate these guys." Another solid one. I am sure I will think of a few more.

Well, many of my friends quote movie lines on an everyday basis. But, as noted before, we're horrible geeks.

I don't think all quoteable movie lines are quoted and well known because of nostalgia. That's being too dismissive. Is Brando's "I could have been a contender" line from "On the Waterfront" famous because of nostalgia? Quotes are famous or stick around because they ring true. They sound good. Or they're clever. There is a quality about them that is not based solely on nostalgia.

As for Academy Awards. Don't get me started! "Annie Hall" is still banned! Star Wars was the best picture that year! It was!!

Also note: Star Wars was nominated for Best Picture. The prequels? Not a chance. Was it nostalgia back 1977 too? Or was the Best Picture nomination really just a nod for the effects?

Actually.... Look at this!!

Star Wars
Lucasfilm, Ltd. Production; 20th Century-Fox.
1977 (50th)

ACTOR IN A SUPPORTING ROLE -- Alec Guinness {"Ben 'Obi-Wan' Kenobi"}
* ART DIRECTION -- Art Direction: John Barry, Norman Reynolds, Leslie Dilley; Set Decoration: Roger Christian
* COSTUME DESIGN -- John Mollo
DIRECTING -- George Lucas
* FILM EDITING -- Paul Hirsch, Marcia Lucas, Richard Chew
* MUSIC (Original Score) -- John Williams
BEST PICTURE -- Gary Kurtz, Producer
* SOUND -- Don MacDougall, Ray West, Bob Minkler, Derek Ball
* VISUAL EFFECTS -- John Stears, John Dykstra, Richard Edlund, Grant McCune, Robert Blalack
WRITING (Screenplay Written Directly for the Screen--based on factual material or on story material not previously published or produced) -- George Lucas
* SPECIAL ACHIEVEMENT AWARD
To Benjamin Burtt, Jr. for the creation of the alien, creature and robot voices featured in 'Star Wars.'

Win indicated by an asterisk (*)

Granted the Academy has made some horrible, horrible, horrible decisions in its time, but the number of nominations (note NOT only effects nominations) is telling of the quality of the film, sans nostalgia.

ISiddiqui

07-28-2004, 10:02 AM

As for Academy Awards. Don't get me started! "Annie Hall" is still banned! Star Wars was the best picture that year! It was!!

Have you ever seen Annie Hall? It was a great made flick and deserved to win an Oscar, which is not which film was more entertaining, but which was a better film with respect to filmmaking.

Star Wars was nominated for Best Picture. The prequels? Not a chance. Was it nostalgia back 1977 too? Or was the Best Picture nomination really just a nod for the effects?

Not just the effects, but the impact it had. Remember, it, along with Jaws, started the blockbuster phenomenon. The Acadamy tends to nominate a lot of flims which are seen as 'influencial' at the time. Also, you will note that Lucas got nominated for Best Director. If that doesn't send up and alarm bells, nothing will ;).

Besides, just about every single Star Wars fan out there says ESB was the best. Yet, ESB was not nominated for Best Picture. The only awards it was nominated for "Best Sound", "Best Art Direction", and "Best Music, Original Score".

Honolulu_Blue

07-28-2004, 10:18 AM

Have you ever seen Annie Hall? It was a great made flick and deserved to win an Oscar, which is not which film was more entertaining, but which was a better film with respect to filmmaking.

Not just the effects, but the impact it had. Remember, it, along with Jaws, started the blockbuster phenomenon. The Acadamy tends to nominate a lot of flims which are seen as 'influencial' at the time. Also, you will note that Lucas got nominated for Best Director. If that doesn't send up and alarm bells, nothing will ;).

Besides, just about every single Star Wars fan out there says ESB was the best. Yet, ESB was not nominated for Best Picture. The only awards it was nominated for "Best Sound", "Best Art Direction", and "Best Music, Original Score".

First off, your views on "Annie Hall" are clearly based on nostalgia. In fact, it's no better than "Curse of the Jade Scorpion" or "Small Time Crooks." You only think it is because of nostalgia. :D

As for ESB being exlcuded from the nominations, like I said, the Academy screws up. Alot. But a film that get nominated for as many awards as Star Wars tends to have some merit to it. It tends to be a decent film.

That said, isn't that a valid point? Star Wars was influential. It was a great movie. You simply can't say that about these last two films. They had every chance to be as impressive as the original. We're still being wowed by films today. Look at what the original "Matrix" movie did. Or what the "LOTR" films did. Those movies are influential. Those movies have made an impact. They are what the prequels should have been. They are examples of quality filmmaking. Like the original trilogy.

The effects, the characters, the dialogue, the story, the plot. All of it.

If you think the story and plot are weak from the original trilogy, I would recommend reading Joseph Campbell's "Power of Myth." You'll see just how deeply engrained those characters (Obi Wan, Luke, Han, Vader, etc.) and stories are in the myths and legends of Western civilization. The same cannot be said of the characters (even those who span both) as presented in the prequels. Again, this goes to quality of story telling, character development/creation, and writing. Not nostalgia.

Cuckoo

07-28-2004, 10:50 AM

Not sure I want to jump into this debate, but I've never been a big fan of Annie Hall. Oh, and the Oscars are a pretty poor test of a film's quality. It's unfortunate that they're as prestigious as it gets.

WSUCougar

07-28-2004, 11:06 AM

I’ve skimmed much of the thread to this point, so forgive me if this has been covered. I think it’s important to emphasize the era in which these respective Star Wars films came out. You can speak of ground-breaking qualities and nostalgia, but I think anyone who saw the original in 1977 can speak about the electric quality you got from it. It was simply an amazing film experience. Sure, the story was a basic fairy tale, but that’s what made it so fun. The 1970s were a pretty crappy decade, and then along comes this fast-paced, good vs. evil sci-fi adventure with likable characters and hot new special effects. It blew the country away. People lined up to see the damn thing dozens of times at their local single or double cinemas with the 150mm capability.

Now we have hordes of movies with very similar premises to the prequels. Ho hum, take away the Star Wars pedigree and they’d be just another sci fi flick at the 20-plex. We give the prequel characters our attention mainly (and almost entirely) because we know them from the original three films. In the end they're rather hollow experiences because they don’t match up to our expectations.

Nostalgia is certainly involved, but you have to have the base experience of the originals to establish that nostalgia.

My two bits.

ISiddiqui

07-28-2004, 12:01 PM

First off, your views on "Annie Hall" are clearly based on nostalgia. In fact, it's no better than "Curse of the Jade Scorpion" or "Small Time Crooks." You only think it is because of nostalgia.

But it isn't. It DOES have good plot, well written and nuanced characters, and is amusing. Nostalgia doesn't enter into it at all, because I don't deify Annie Hall, I just believe it to be a good movie. And the acting is another world. There are no Mark Hamill's in Annie Hall :D.

They are what the prequels should have been. They are examples of quality filmmaking. Like the original trilogy.

The effects, the characters, the dialogue, the story, the plot. All of it.

LOL. You believe "The Matrix" is 'quality filmmaking'? Come on. That, I guess, is a fairly decent comparison to Star Wars, though it won't have the same impact. Coolness factor abounds, but definetly not an example of good filmmaking. Good action scenes, good special effects, but not very good character or dialogue or really even story & plot. Good fun though, well until "Revolutions" I guess.

If you think the story and plot are weak from the original trilogy, I would recommend reading Joseph Campbell's "Power of Myth." You'll see just how deeply engrained those characters (Obi Wan, Luke, Han, Vader, etc.) and stories are in the myths and legends of Western civilization.

Yeah, my point backed by you AGAIN :p. They story is unoriginal and it is weak because it is based on stereotypes. These characters don't go beyond the myths that everyone knows about. It makes it engaging and fun, but not great writing.

ISiddiqui

07-28-2004, 12:11 PM

Honolulu_Blue

07-28-2004, 12:57 PM

But it isn't. It DOES have good plot, well written and nuanced characters, and is amusing. Nostalgia doesn't enter into it at all, because I don't deify Annie Hall, I just believe it to be a good movie. And the acting is another world. There are no Mark Hamill's in Annie Hall :D.

LOL. You believe "The Matrix" is 'quality filmmaking'? Come on. That, I guess, is a fairly decent comparison to Star Wars, though it won't have the same impact. Coolness factor abounds, but definetly not an example of good filmmaking. Good action scenes, good special effects, but not very good character or dialogue or really even story & plot. Good fun though, well until "Revolutions" I guess.

Yeah, my point backed by you AGAIN :p. They story is unoriginal and it is weak because it is based on stereotypes. These characters don't go beyond the myths that everyone knows about. It makes it engaging and fun, but not great writing.

The main point about the Matrix is that broke new boundaries. It showed us something that we had never seen before. It was revolutionary in way. Similar to Star Wars on the special effects level. The prequels? Nothin'. Nada. Zip. They weren't that impressive at all on a techinical level. They could have been. But they weren't. They brought nothing to the table, even on that level.

I'm surprised to hear that you don't think the Matrix has a good story or plot though. I thought the original (I ignore the crapactular sequels) had a very interesting and original story and a decent plot. The dialogue was a bit iffy and the acting, well, the movie was good inspite of his thespian efforts. Actually it's a solid piece of filmmaking. Strong visuals. Good pacing. Beautiful cinematography and editing. Very stylized. I would be interested to hear what qualities you consider when deciding whether a film is a good peice of filmmaking.

Star Wars draws on a number of myths. It combines them, weaves them together and then breathes new life into them. There is plenty original and strong in Star Wars from a plot and story perspective. Yes the characters are based on stereotypes, but the add to these stereotypes. When you think "rogue scoundral with a heart of gold" Han Solo has to be one of the first characters you think of right off the bat. Or "wise old warrior mentor" that's Obi Wan. These characters add to the rich tapestry of myth and legend from which they are drawn. They don't simply borrow. They aren't simply cookie-cutter characters. They give back. They add to the myths. This is a sure sign of strong characters in any medium. Again, can you say the same about any of the characters in the prequels?

As for the writing, the dialogue is fine. A bit wooden sometimes, but by no means cringe enducing. The dialogue in EBS (written by Kasdan) is actually pretty good. There is a lot of witty banter between Solo and Leia. That's where all the cool yoda stuff comes from. It's actually a solid script.

You can't say the same about the prequels. Come on, man! There is nothing comparable in the original series to the horrible dialogue spewed during the wooing of Amadala or the HORRIBLE "jokes" C-3PO drops throughout. Or that crap dialogue between Duku and Yoda. For someone who appreciates a good Woody Allen it's amazing to think you could defend the quality of the script of either prequel or imply that the scripts of the trilogy were as bad as those.

Honolulu_Blue

07-28-2004, 01:00 PM

WSU Cougar, I completely agree. A big factor in SW's deification is the era. It is a basic myth/fantasy story put into special effects heaven of space. It's great great fun, but it ain't the Godfather.

Nobody is saying it is the Godfather. All we're saying that the original three (two and a half) films are INFINITELY better in every aspect than the prequels. It's all relative, yes. But on that relative scale my previous hyperbole aint too far from the truth:

Star Wars Scale of Filmmaking:

First two and a half films: Godfather

Two Prequels: A slight step up from Showgirls. They aren't that bad. Horrible, yes. But not that bad.

cthomer5000

07-28-2004, 01:05 PM

Nobody is saying it is the Godfather. All we're saying that the original three (two and a half) films are INFINITELY better in every aspect than the prequels. It's all relative, yes. But on that relative scale my previous hyperbole aint too far from the truth:

Star Wars Scale of Filmmaking:

First two and a half films: Godfather

Two Prequels: A slight step up from Showgirls. They aren't that bad. Horrible, yes. But not that bad.
On the Star Wars scale, I definitel agree. Honestly, most of EPs 1 and 2 are flat-out unwatchable. The "love" story in episode 2... are you kidding me? Amidala (correctly) reacts to him like the pscyho-stalker he acts like, but then just days later is madly in love with him? Ridiculous. And the kiss during that arena fight scene was one of the most unintentionally hilarious moments in film history. I laughed out loud in the theater, but really wanted to cry.

ISiddiqui

07-28-2004, 01:16 PM

The prequels? Nothin'. Nada. Zip. They weren't that impressive at all on a techinical level. They could have been. But they weren't. They brought nothing to the table, even on that level.

Look at Oscar nominations for technical achievements the year the prequals were both released.

I'm surprised to hear that you don't think the Matrix has a good story or plot though. I thought the original (I ignore the crapactular sequels) had a very interesting and original story and a decent plot.

The idea that the world is a fake and we are basically 'brains in a tank' is not really an original story at all. It's definetly been around. I don't consider it to be very original. Plot was eh, nothing special.

There is plenty original and strong in Star Wars from a plot and story perspective. Yes the characters are based on stereotypes, but the add to these stereotypes.

I don't see it as really adding much at all to the stereotypical mythological characters. They don't really go beyond the cookie-character mold from which they were cast from by Lucas. That isn't to say that Guinness and Ford played those stereotypical roles well (just like McGregor and McDiarmid play their stereotyped roles well), they just didn't add anything to it.

the dialogue is fine

Now you are pulling my leg, right?

ISiddiqui

07-28-2004, 01:19 PM

But on that relative scale my previous hyperbole aint too far from the truth:

On YOUR relative scale, you neglected to point out. On MY scale of the Star Wars universe it goes like this:

(out of 10)
9 - ESB
8 - ANH
7 - AOTC
6 - ROTJ
5 - TPM

Though I guess some of that is off because I guess do like ESB more than that. While I don't think it's good filmmaking, it is one of my favorite movies of all time.

Though I guess neither of us will be able to convince the other. Perhaps we should let whatever shread of the original topic discussion is left to continue on.

WSUCougar

07-28-2004, 01:39 PM

Can we all at least agree that Amidala is a significant hottie?

cthomer5000

07-28-2004, 01:44 PM

On YOUR relative scale, you neglected to point out. On MY scale of the Star Wars universe it goes like this:

(out of 10)
9 - ESB
8 - ANH
7 - AOTC
6 - ROTJ
5 - TPM

Though I guess some of that is off because I guess do like ESB more than that. While I don't think it's good filmmaking, it is one of my favorite movies of all time.

Though I guess neither of us will be able to convince the other. Perhaps we should let whatever shread of the original topic discussion is left to continue on.
So you wouldn't consider a movie being 80% (ESB compared to TPM) better on your scale being a major difference?

ISiddiqui

07-28-2004, 01:53 PM

So you wouldn't consider a movie being 80% (ESB compared to TPM) better on your scale being a major difference?

No, not really. A major difference would be if I rated TPM a 2. And besides, I have AOTC as a 7 compared to a 9 for ESB. I already said I wasn't too fond of TPM (which is why it is a 5 instead of higher), but it wasn't horrible or even really that bad.

ISiddiqui

07-28-2004, 02:04 PM

Can we all at least agree that Amidala is a significant hottie?

It's good to the be the King ;).

primelord

07-28-2004, 03:03 PM

Pay no mind to Primer's comments in this thread. This is merely a bad side-effect of being a St. Louis Blues fan for so many years. His perception of what is "good" and what is "bad" is all skewed. He is all like "just because the Blues had a $60 million dollar pay roll I just didn't get the feeling I was ripped off after seeing the Blues get knocked out in the first round." And then he's like "Sure they didn't live up to the hype, but I thought they were ok!" :D
I would just like to point out that these are more lies being spread by the minions of evil. Due to the Blues $60 million dollar payroll I felt ripped off just watching them on TV! And no team relying on Chris Osgood to win games for them will ever be ok. (The Dead Things were relying on him not to lose games. There is a difference.) :)