fumanstan

A question for you guys... do you think that the success of the first two new Star Wars movies are based on the legacy of Star Wars rather then being good movies? Re-watching AotC, i can't believe how poor the acting was in many scenes with Hayden Christiansen and Natalie Portman. Without the backstory of the earlier trilogy and the storyline that was created, it doesnt seem to me like the Phantom Menance or Attack of the Clones would come even close to a success without any of the star wars backstory. I know its impossible to judge something since Star Wars has become a large part of culture and almost everyone knows the story. But without the original trilogy, to me the current movies fail to stand on their own. While the effects are top notch and Lucas continues to amaze (i don't think anyone would argue that Yoda was anything but spectacular), the acting and parts of the plot seem thin to me.

Of course, these movies are being released under the presumption that you know about the history(future?) of the star wars universe, and seems to provide more background and explanation rather than create the world and the story. But do you think if someone were introduced to the movies beginning with the first 2 movies that they would enjoy them as much? I'm not bashing the two movies, as i do think they're decent flicks, but many times it feels like they kind of cheat their way through scenes based on the audience knowing the material rather then establishing other points. For instance, the love story between Anakin and Padme is just so unrealistic and put together so poorly, but the film is able to get away with it since the audience knows that the love of the two will result in Luke and Leia. What do you guys think?

Robert

It never ceases to amaze me, the number of people who hate Star Wars with a passion and yet cannot stop talking about the movies themselves.

fumanstan

I guess the bigger point in my post is whether the quality of certain scenes are of secondary importance to the attempt to continue the story. Another example is Anakin's rant about being the most powerful... again to me it feels "fake" but knowing what Anakin becomes in the later movies seems to help justify it and let the poor acting slip by

fumanstan

I don't hate star wars, i never said i did. I specifically said i thought the movies were decent. The original trilogy is great, but the recent releases are not up that level. I'm just asking a question on how people percieve the new movies and their success. Please don't thread crap

Robert

Where were you when Episode II arrived in theaters??? If you would simply do a search you find a numerous threads with people discussing Episode II.

Pants

Robert don't crap so hard you might blow an O-ring.

I think this is an interesting topic. I think you are right on fuman, about some of the story "cheating" because we (the audience) know the future.

As far as bad acting... The star wars films are a great story, told well, with great visuals. Unfortunately all the films have been mired down by bad acting, often resulting in rubber puppets and CGI creatures stealing the show. Yoda is by far the best actor in the original trilogy. Despite the fact that the visuals are the best part of the films and tell most of the story, Lucas has always made the scripts REALLY talky. I wish he could be more like DePalma and have long, silent passages. The visuals are strong enough to do it, but Lucas always wants everyone running their mouth. The dialogue has always been the weakest link in the star wars universe.

Robert

I'm so sorry! Please accept my sincerest apology! God forbid, I should ever disagree the voice of reason in the DVDTalk forum, Pants!

Pants

You don't seem to be disagreeing with anything, you're just complaining that the topic was discussed before.

El-Kabong

The thing that people seem to overlook is that the acting in the first 3 wasnt exactly Oscar winning material either. The only good points were Sir Alec and Peter Cushing. Everyone else was wooden and stilted and really bad. Its only looked on in affection due to the rose tinted glasses of time.

Jackskeleton

the first three have just as bad acting as the prequels like el-kabong said.

joeydaninja

It is quite clear, imho, that these two films wouldn't stand on their own if not for the earlier trilogy. now if these two films were released without any prior knowledge of the trilogy, would it have made money? perhaps. it is not much worse that the other no-plot megabusters that Hollywood has been releasing again recently.

anyway, back to george lucas. i love the guy. i think the Star Wars trilogy is among the best trilogies ever (if not the best). but these two movies after plainly, imo, suck. the acting is indeed horrible, the script is bad, the effects are great, but i've seen better. there are some great situationer shots that they put in the trailer, but hardly add anything to the movie (kind of like showing the digital movies in video games, but aren't in the actual game play). Natalie Portman, who was once a great actress is quite dry. And Hayden Christiansen is ho-hum.

The being said, of course I will watch Episode 3, but I sure as heck probably won't buy the DVD's. I do wish Lucas handed the directing (and writing) jobs to somebody else. but it is his prerogative. sigh. i wish i, or somebody else could re-direct the first 3 episodes again, in a more proper way, but that isn't the case. so i guess we'll have to wait for someone else to bring the magic to the movies, like the way the original trilogy did.

wendersfan

I think fumanstan is right. "Branding" is very important, probably the only important factor in the success of the last two installments. Speaking for myself, I have seen all five of the movies, in theaters, but I've only really liked one of the films (Empire) and I've pretty much hated the last three! Yet I keep going... I guess it's mostly because I want to see how everything turns out, no, wait, I know that... Hell, I don't even know anymore.

But you get my point - these movies would be failures if they weren't tied to a franchise. They probably wouldn't even get made if it weren't for that. Can you imagine someone going to a producer and pitching Attack of the Clones?

raithen

Really? While I tend to agree that Star Wars contained some "hammy" acting - the sequels that followed were supremely better performed. Both Empire and Jedi have much stronger narratives and reveal much more depth of character, and as a result we have some marvelous performances by the cast. I hate to use the word, but the last two episodes of the old trilogy seemed a lot more "mature" in all aspects compared to the other 3 films. Agree? Disagree?

Also, it is interesting to note that the acting seems to be stronger in the films that Lucas didn't direct. Now whether this is for lack of strength of material in films he directed, or rather that George doesn't have the ability to evoke the best performances by his cast is the ultimate question.

Personally, I feel that Lucas is far more interested in the "look" and "style" of a film above the relative substance of it all. A fantastic microcosm of this theory is on the TPM DVD where we see the finalists for the role of young Anakin. IMHO, Jake Lloyd is blown off the screen by one of the other boys but inexplicably lands the part. I guess he conveyed some kind of cute, naive charm because he sure as hell had a difficult time remembering his lines and seemed amateurish and lost even by amateur kid actor standards.

Now on the other side of the spectrum. I find it uncanny that Lucas has the ability to make fine actors look rather clumsy and wooden (Sammy Jackson, Natalie Portman, et al.). Perhaps this has to do with a combination of script and direction - but there's no doubt in my mind that Marquand and Kirschner hit the mark with their actors and their direction far better than Lucas has.

Strictly all opinion... but there you have it...

-matt

fumanstan

I honestly didn't think the acting in the first 3 movies were that bad, although i really need to rewatch Empire and Jedi and pay attention to it. None the less, from what i can remember the actors seemed to be more in character, at least giving a stronger attempt at conveying the emotions of the character rather then just delivering the line. The acting in Episode II just seemed so forced. And i agree that even great actors like Sam Jackson's lines just feel out of place. I thought Natalie Portman did a much better job in TPM, but maybe distractions like the elaborate make up and costume helped hide the fact. Of course, i'll also watch Episode III since i'm eager to see the conclusion of the story arc, but i hope Lucas gives a little more attention to the acting, especially with Anakin's turn.

sherm42

I agree that if the original trilogy did not exist and Episode 1 was a new release with no prior history that it would have tanked. It would have been pounded by the critics and seen as a very boring film with very little that happens.

Jason

The final sequence of AOTC (troops leaving Courscant/the wedding) is very moving without a single word being spoken. One of the best dramatic sequences of the series, right up there with the end of ESB. Using the two best themes John Williams has come up with for the entire series (outside the title theme) doesn't hurt it either.

Lucas really needs to have someone punch up the dialogue, but I'm hesitant to just dismiss the performance of the adolescent Anakin. He's a young actor playing a very difficult character. Essentially good, Anakin is overly driven by pride and a reliance on a power he doesn't fully comprehend. He has pined away for a decade for two impossible loves, his mother and Padme, and he is slowly heading down a path that will turn him into a murderous madman. Couple this with being raised by an order that both respects him and distrusts him, and I'm not too surprised that he doesn't know how to talk to girls.

Terrell

Oh God, another thread bitching about Star Wars. What does this make, about 50 threads whining about Star Wars? People, give it a rest. If you don't like it, then move on to something you do like.

I agree. It is ridiculous. I have no desire to discuss films I don't like. That's why it amazes me people don't like these Star Wars film, yet they can't shut up about them. It's as silly as people saying they hate these films, then they go out and spend money on them by giving some lame excuse that makes little sense.

Now, the acting in the original trilogy was nowhere near bad. The acting in Star Wars was solid. Not award winning stuff, but still solid. The acting in ESB and ROTJ is very good indeed. The acting in TPM was a bit stiff, except for Ian McDiarmid and Liam Neeson. The acting is AOTC is solid. Ewan McGregor, Ian McDiarmid, Christopher Lee, and Hayden Christensen were good. Natalie was decent, but far better than her performance in TPM. Sam Jackson was the same as he is in every movie. He was typical Sam Jackson.

As for the opinion on whether these films could stand on their own, a lot of people are giving a lot of ifs. I'll just say what my father told me when I would give him those lame "if" excuses.

If a frog had wings he would bump his ass when he jumped.

By the way, the search function is a very useful feature. It keeps the board from getting clogged up with threads of the same nature. And there's no doubt Star Wars is the most talked about film on the internet. But it does get tiring to see Star Wars threads littering the board, even for Star Wars fans. It gets tiresome because these threads containt the same thing as the 50 that came before them.

calhoun07

I think that if Lucas felt that episodes 1-3 were the best place to start telling his story, that is where he would have started. He started with episodes 4-6 because that is the back bone of his story, so obviously those episodes are going to stand out more than the first three episodes. So, no, they don't stand alone well, because they are meant to be considered as part of a longer piece, one movie that is approximately 12 hours long in six parts.

fumanstan

Why do people seem to jump to the conclusion that any discussion analyzing star wars is automatically composed of people bashing star wars? No one that has posted has said that they "hate" star wars or even dislike the films except for one person, and even he wasnt really bashing the films. I don't even consider anyone whining, except you and Robert whining about "star wars bashing" that isn't even here. The point of my thread was simply to compare the original trilogy with the new films and whether people thought that a lot of the content is being overlooked because of the star wars legacy. Honestly i don't think the other Star Wars threads concentrated on this topic, and i'm glad a few other people agree with my thoughts on the recent movies.

dave955

rennervision

Overall, I enjoyed AOTC, but I was probably more critical of it when I saw it (for the third time) after my DVD arrived in the mail. As others have observed in this thread, the characters (with the exception of Yoda) do seem pretty wooden. For instance, I swear in the original trilogy even R2-D2 seems so three dimensional with a genuine personality - but that just isn't the case this time around.

I think what I realized during my third viewing is that there is a shortage of likeable characters as opposed to episodes 4-6. Anakin is whiny. Padme seems bored. Obi-Wan is cranky. Can anyone honestly say we know a single piece of information about Mace Windu's character? And so there you have it. I love Star Wars, so this DVD will be watched over and over and over. But without the chemistry similar to that of Luke Skywalker, Han Solo, and Princess Leia, there is a huge empty hole in this new trilogy.

To not be completely critical, some scenes in AOTC are surprisingly better than others. Christopher Lee's Count Dooku is fine. I think the scenes showing Jango and Boba Fett interracting with each other are quite good. Boba seemingly claiming his destiny by holding his father's helmet is a great shot. It almost makes me wonder if George improved as a director as production of the movie progressed, and these scenes were shot near the end.

By the way - and I REALLY want to know the answer to this. Has there EVER been a Star Wars thread that didn't at some point turn hostile??? If so, could someone please provide the link to that one for my own curiousity??? Thank you.

wendersfan

For now on I'll only post in threads about movies I like... Sheesh.

It seems to me the underlying issue here is that the Star Wars movies have become, for better or worse, more than just movies. We have (bizarrely) turned them into a national institution, so if Lucas makes one we don't like it's tantamount to screwing up the flag or the Star Spangled Banner or something.

The original concept for Star Wars, original or not, was brilliant and compelling. Since then, Lucas has, depending upon your view, either betrayed the original premise with lackluster scripts and indifferent direction, or has taken the series in directions many fans dislike. This is not to imply that no one is happy with the recent movies, but I doubt anyone can honestly say they acheive the level of fun and excitement the first three had.

As for me (again), I'm amazed at how personally some people respond to criticisms of a series of movies that (a) were never designed to be anything other than entertainment and (b) take most of their cues from disposable pulp sci-fi and serials from the mid-20th Century. But I guess it beats arguing about sports or politics, eh?

joeydaninja

wait, why can't we bash a movie if we want to?
unless the starter of the thread asks for no negative reviews, we can express how we feel about it right?
the reason why we post in a thread about a movie we didn't like is because we we're disappointed. i don't see anything wrong with that. it's our prerogative.

pbone

If you listen to his dvd commentary on TPM Lucas gives some insight into what is
right (wonderful visuals and special effects) and what is wrong (stilted
dialogue, wooden acting and some woeful casting) with the prequels. He says
something along the lines that his approach to movie making is to see his movies
as almost silent pictures with dialogue almost superfluous. He also is much more
enthusiastic about the effects and barely mentions the actors and the acting.

Pants

The following is very stream of conciousness. I'm sorry.

Lucas says things like this on the AOTC commentary and docs too. But the truth is his movies are WAY TO TALKY. The characters just talk and talk and talk. Lucas always says he is a "visual filmmaker", and he is. The problem is that he isn't a "visual storyteller". DePalma can tell a story without the characters opening there mouths for passages of up to 15-20 minutes (I havn't seen it yet but I hear Femme Fetal has nearly 40 minutes with no dialogue). That's silent filmmaking. Someone else here mentioned that the final montage of AOTC was beautiful and didn't use dialogue, but gimme-a-break, that was like 30 seconds with no dialogue, wow.

I don't hate AOTC, but I get tired of Lucas calling himself a visual filmmaker. His last two films have been the most talky action movies of all time. The OT didn't have nearly so much banter. And the worst part is that much of the dialogue is unfunny quips and alien jargon. Half of it could be cut with no effect on story. He likes to engage in visual filmmaking so much that he then strands us in a scene like the Dooku/Obi-Wan interogation, where we get 5 minutes of non-stop dialogue that is too much, too fast, and too hard to make sense of. He most famously did this in ROTJ, where Obi-Wan gives the whole history of the Skywalker family in a 5 minute campfire soliloquy. That's not visual story telling or movie making, it's just talking.

Good visual filmmaking is ESB. The scene where the door opens, vader is standing at the head of the table, solo draws his gun, fires, vader takes his gun, and Lando says "I had no choice they arrived just before you did". 9 words tells us everything we need to know about the rebel's betrayal. That's it.