PDA

View Full Version : Eps.II



Arcome
29 November 2002, 02:38 PM
I was watching it the other day, then I watched the old ones. The # 4, 5, and 6 are so much better. In ep II I think that they used way too much computer generation in the movie. The cool thing about the old ones is that all the stuff made was stuff you could make a home. Too much money has messed everything up. The irony, the irony.

dgswensen
29 November 2002, 02:50 PM
Huh? You can make computer graphics at home. Get yourself a copy of Lightwave and network up a little render farm and you're ready to go.

And yes, the original Death Star was a big piece of styrofoam and model battleship parts that Lucas filmed by driving a van past it. That doesn't mean that filmmakers should still be using that kind of technique. Not when much more powerful tools are available.

Special effects have always had limitations, and probably always will. To me, the computer effects of the prequels look significantly more realistic than the stop-motion and puppets of the original trilogy. Give me the Acklay over the rotoscoped Rancor with its mismatched color any day of the week. Does it look indistinguishable from reality? Of course not. But neither do the old effects.

I do think, however, that the story and scripting for the original movies is much tighter, and that is where its true strength lies.

Grimace
29 November 2002, 03:44 PM
Be careful this doesn't turn into a big bash fest, please.

I'm also going to move this to Rants and Raves, as that's a more fitting area for it.

Arcome
29 November 2002, 05:16 PM
I think that having everything computer generated looks like crap.
It looks good, but it doesn't look star wars. There are also too many boring parts in the movie. Like when Obi-Wan went to ask about the poison dart. Also when they would show all the crap with Anikin and Amidala falling in love. It just wasn't enough of the old movies, they tried to change it too much.

Computer generation looks like crap, compared to real around the house stuff.

dgswensen
29 November 2002, 05:48 PM
[deleted]

Corr Terek
29 November 2002, 06:17 PM
There are also too many boring parts in the movie. Like when Obi-Wan went to ask about the poison dart. Also when they would show all the crap with Anikin and Amidala falling in love. It just wasn't enough of the old movies, they tried to change it too much.

Hey, Arcome, I bet you liked the fight between Obi and Jango. How about the arena battle? Or the whole Clone Wars thing? And, I bet seeing Jango vs Mace was pretty cool too. Anikan, man, that tremendous anger. Anger that would make him Darth Vader, who we all know and love to hate. And Yoda vs Dooku, wow, that was neat. Right?

Well, guess what: None of that stuff would've happened if it hadn't been for those "boring" shots you mentioned.

Obi vs Jango? Well, without searching for the origins of the poison dart, Oni would've never found Kamino. And that means no fight.

Arena Battle? Well, after the aforementioned fight, Obi trailed Jango to Geonosis. Which led to his being captured, which led to Ani and Amidala coming to rescue him, which led to the arena.

Clone Wars? Hey, those Clones came from Kamino, didn't they?

Anakin/Vader Tranfromation? Well, he needed that anger from somewhere. Between losing his mom and losing Padme (which will prolly happen) Ani's path to Vadership is pretty well set. Besides, they have to fall in love, or no Luke and Leia, and that means no Episodes 4,5, and 6.

My point is, sometimes boring stuff is necessary to move the plot along. If you want action, go watch a Japanese anime where the story never makes sense.

Sometimes stupid characters and scenes are necessary for a good story. That's what Jar Jar and the Ewoks exist for. They may be kinda stupid (I actually like them) but they serve a necessary purpose.

I may sound a little harsh. If I do, it's not directed at you personally, Arcome. I just get annoyed when people bash a perfectly good movie because it doesn't have what they want.

And what makes this really sad is, I haven't seen Episode 2. I've read the novelization, but haven't seen it.

*end rant

evan hansen
29 November 2002, 07:37 PM
Something that I think Ep I and Ep II share with Empire is that they're primarily story-telling films. Their importance is telling the story and setting up the next film. Empire was a dark, dark, dark film/story because everything was happening during dark and abysmal times.

Part of the potency of Episode III will come from the contrast between the happy-happy land that was the New Republic in Episode I -- where a mere blockade was a big deal -- and the ominous rise of the Empire in Episode III.

Essentially, you have to always try to remember that only A New Hope was crafted with the intent of being a single film. All the other films are meant to be taken within the story and context of a larger picture. Sometimes that means a lot of action (eg, the Clone Wars), but sometimes it means establishing a story.

No good film is devoid of a good, solid story. Does George always present it as perfectly as possible? Probably not. The original films were, in so many ways, just awful. But in so many ways, they were the most perfect realization of what a great movie should be.

In the end, it's all balanced, and you're left with a Star Wars film. And ALL five Star Wars films have action, romance, humor, special effects, and, most importantly, epic story telling.

Some folks might find the balances of those things out of whack in some of the films versus the others. But ultimately, I believe that there's something for just about everyone in all of them. :-)

MassassiC
30 November 2002, 03:39 AM
The main 'gripe' I have about the prequals in general is that there is no "lovable scoundrel" character for the audience to wonder if they will or won't be of any help in a certain scene.
With it missing that dynamicism, I personally feel that there's less character interaction and more of a reliance on fighting and effects.
To put it more into game terms, in the original trilogy there are 3-4 PC's (Chewbacca can easily be shifted to an NPC if needed, and the droids and Obi definately were NPCs... Leia definately starts as an NPC, but then could be an PC in Ep's 5 and 6).
The Prequels have 2-3 PC's (Amidala still feels like an NPC, even with a more active role in Ep 2, but could still be seen as a PC)
Just my thoughts on it all :)

Anikka Nesson
30 November 2002, 11:04 PM
I agree with Mr. Hansen, the movies must be taken in as a whole. I'm a SW movie junkie, i'll blow an entire day watching the original trillogy and 1 and 2, do I care that I can see the strings on the speader bikes on endor? does it matter that the whole fight scenes on hoth and endor are jolty 'cause of period graffics? NO.
on the flip side I cannot find it in my heart to condem Mr. Lucas for using the best tools available. If you want to go with the line that he went overboard, well sure, but how much did you eat at Thanksgiving, because it was there and you could? I cannot justly say that Mr. Lucas was wrong or that the new movies are not worth watching, but i woulden't anyway.
I love epic stories, Lord of the Rings, Hiawatha, Oddesy, Illiad, and Star Wars. they all have their boring parts but without them they would no longer be epic.

Blaid
1 December 2002, 06:36 AM
As a professional writer of both prose and script, I have to agree that the "so-called" boring parts are necessary to continue the flow of the narrative and lead into the action scenes that all of us love. Have one action scene after another and it quickly breaks down into the grade-b sci-fi movie of your choice from the 1980's. In any action movie there needs to be periods of stillness or the audience quickly becomes desensitized to the action, whether they realize it or not.
As for there being no "lovable scoundrel" etc. for the audience to love . . . well, it doesn't fit into the prequel style of story. For those of you not young enough to remember as far back as the original release of Star Wars Episodes 4-6, Lucas had stated as far back as then that when he finally did the prequels they would have a darker form of story-telling, be a lot more political, and have less humor than the second (first released) trilogy. That was one of many, many reasons (other reasons being studio decision, budget, F/X technology available, etc.) that he started with Episode 4 in an era that suffered Veitnam and Watergate. Likewise, however, in the second trilogy you have the Emperor who is: well, the Emperor. You know who the villain is. In the prequels we have the question of: are Palpatine and Sidious the same physical person, is one a clone of the other, etc. I find it a real mystery if they are the same person how a Supreme Chancellor of a Galactic Republic can sneak off to Coruscant's Industrial Sector to meet with Dooku at the end. With a War going on, you can bet he is under strict protection from assassination.
Just as I have heard complaints elsewhere that the prequels have lost their magic because we know what is going to happen, I can see likewise arguments had he actually released them in order. Some of us would be complaining because we would have already known that Yoda exists before Luke does, that Vader was his father, that Leia was his sister, etc. And there would be complaints about it all because we would have already known all the surprises of Episodes 4-6.
Yes, we know what happened by the end of Ep 3, but we don't know "how" exactly it happened. And for me, finding that out is part of the magic. How did Vader and Sidious manage to eradicate thousands of Jedi? How did Padme die? What actual events lead Anakin to the Dark Side? Who really built the Death Star? How did Palpatine name himself Emperor and solidify his power? What effect did the Clone Wars have on the birth of the Empire? Et Cetera.
Episodes 1-3 are a different story than Episodes 4-6. The first is a political story about the corruption of the Jedi Order and the Republic, the same said fall of both, and the rise of the Galactic (Sith) Empire. It should deal with the politicians and Jedi that played a role, in one way or another, in that era. The Second trilogy is about the Rebellion to topple the Empire and bring about the rebirth of the Republic. It is about the tyranny imposed by the New Order and the actions of the Alliance to depose of that tyranny. In this case, Scoundrels and Gamblers and Farm-Boys (even if they are destined Jedi) fit into the story because the Empire has oppressed so many galactic citizens--- any one of them can have a voice. Most of those character archetypes aren't going to have much of a voice in the first trilogy as they aren't really involved in the innerworkings of the Republic or Jedi.
Just my thoughts.

Blaid
1 December 2002, 07:09 AM
I personally didn't have a problem with the amount of CGI in Episode 2. Heck, it was necessary. You have to take into account the logistical and financial nightmare of trying to do the Coruscant chase or the Clone Wars with stop motion, actors in alien costumes, etc. Those types of special effects are not cost productive any longer if a studio expects to make money on a film. And owning the company(ies) does not give Lucas an unlimited amount of money per film. There is still a budget to consider and what can be done on that budget.
As for overdoing it-- that is a double edge sword. In the F/X audience circles Star Wars has always been the innovator of film F/X. On the one hand one circle claims he over did it. Yet had he not made Star Wars F/X bigger than anything else, the other circle would complain that he lost his touch and Star Wars is no longer the measuring stick.
When you have a world-wide audience as large as Star Wars it is impossible to cater to everyone. Lucas made a decision based upon the OT and history, I am sure: go with remaining the measuring stick. I will be honest, of all the awards the OT won, I never saw it take home one for best screenplay, best actor/actress, best supporting actor/actress, etc. Let's face it, you don't have to be a writer to know that Lucas really needs to develop an ear for dialogue. You don't have to be a director to know that he needs to learn how to develop a scene a little more before he cuts to another. You don't need to be an editor to know that he doesn't always understand that cutting a 5-minute scene that 1) establishes character and 2) gives some credit to Padme later acknowledging her love for Anakin, is a good cut. All the awards the OT won (unless I am forgetting one or two) were based upon F/X, musical score, etc.
Despite our personal opinions and what Lucas has always said about story over F/X, Star Wars became popular because of the F/X. If not for the special effects, most the movie-going audience of 1977 would not have gone to see the film 10+ times.
Sad but true.
And a big difference between Star Wars and something like say . . . Star Trek (of which outside of ST: TNG I am not a huge fan).

Bombaatu
1 December 2002, 09:04 AM
Where Lucas is a genius is in crafting the story, blending familiar elements in a non-familiar way, and pushing the limits of available technology to tell that story.

Where he is not good, however, is in writing dialog, directing and getting the best out of his actors. The love scenes between Padme and Anakin, while they were necessary to the story, fell absolutely flat because of the bad dialog and wooden performances. That is a shame too, because by all accounts, both Natalie Portman and Hayden Christensen can act a lot better than they did - this can especially be seen in Anakin's face when he goes DV on the Tusken raiders.

Empire is the best of all of them because, IMO, altho GL wrote the story and had control over the look-and-feel, he neither wrote the screenplay nor directed it. This resulted in *much* better dialog and character interactions.

Kobayashi_Maru
1 December 2002, 09:19 AM
Originally posted by Bombaatu
Empire is the best of all of them because, IMO, altho GL wrote the story and had control over the look-and-feel, he neither wrote the screenplay nor directed it. This resulted in *much* better dialog and character interactions.


I completely agree. That is also what makes the Jones movies so great. Lucas has great ideas but does not always communicates them in the best ways.

As for the FX, after watching some of the making of AotC, I realized how much of the movie I took for granted as real and how much was CGI. I have no real problems with the FX of todays movies. Then again I liked the FF movie.

ALFRED_THE_EWOK
1 December 2002, 12:10 PM
Originally posted by Corr Terek

I just get annoyed when people bash a perfectly good movie because it doesn't have what they want.


Did you ever think that lots of people don't consider Episode II to be a good movie, and that's why they bash it. Personally, I consider Episode II to be sub-par at best. And I'll bash it for not having what I want, which was good acting, natural sounding dialogue, consistent good special effects, etc...

Blaid
1 December 2002, 01:16 PM
I am not defending Ep2, here, but I would like to know which of the 5 Star Wars films had natural sounding dialogue? Now, I am a major fan of Empire Strikes Back, but even I have to cringe at some of the dialogue.
As for consistently good F/X . . . again, none of the films were totally consistent in the F/X department. As a matter of fact, I have yet to see a consistently good F/X film, and I will include both LOTR and Spiderman in that opinion. That is a matter of technology and budget, not just the studio/movie-maker.
As for the acting. Once again I question which of the 5 Star Wars films ever let the actors shine? Harrison Ford is even a far better actor than his appearances as Han Solo in the OT would assume. I've listened to Mark Hammil (not a great actor by far) do hundreds of Cartoon episode voices. Where was his voice-inflection in the OT? I always thought Luke was rather flat.
There are many things that attract me to Star Wars, but "consistently good F/X, natural sounding dialogue, and good acting" are not among them. Not to any of the current 5 films.

Corr Terek
1 December 2002, 05:12 PM
Did you ever think that lots of people don't consider Episode II to be a good movie, and that's why they bash it. Personally, I consider Episode II to be sub-par at best. And I'll bash it for not having what I want, which was good acting, natural sounding dialogue, consistent good special effects, etc...

And I can freely admit I haven't seen the movie, so I could be way off base. However, lots of people I know -- most, in fact -- that have gone to see Ep 2 have liked it. We're talking non-Star Wars fans here, and believe me, non-Star Wars fans can be extremely critical.

Besides, in my opinion, it's not fair to bash someone's story. I mean, if I were writing fan fiction, I'd appreciate constructive criticism. But somebody telling me that my story is terrible and giving a list of reasons a mile long? That's going a little bit far, don't ya think?

For me, each episode in the Star Wars mythos -- book, comic, movie, or even television series -- simply opens up a new panorama into the galaxy we all know and love. Maybe this is just me, but when I watch the movies, I can put aside the fact that it's all fake and CGI and simply enjoy the story. I've found myself discussing tactics and whatnot with my friends. Because, for me, the actors and effects don't really matter. The story matters most.

Natural sounding dialogue? Well, let's put you or me in the place of Anakin or Obi-Wan. Could we even manage the lines they spin off? I doubt it. Natural dialogue in unnatural circumstances is kinda a bit much, huh?

George has a story to tell. Yes, he's the richest man alive (metaphorically speaking) but he has a story to tell. And I say, let him tell it. Let him make the calls. It's his baby. Not ours.

I, for one, won't complain.

Grimace
1 December 2002, 07:59 PM
Originally posted by Corr Terek


Besides, in my opinion, it's not fair to bash someone's story. I mean, if I were writing fan fiction, I'd appreciate constructive criticism. But somebody telling me that my story is terrible and giving a list of reasons a mile long? That's going a little bit far, don't ya think?


People all have opinions, Corr Terek, and not everyone will provide constructive criticism to things. Since Lucas doesn't visit this site, nor do I suppose he accepts constructive criticism, I think it's perfectly acceptable that some people will simply say that something "sucks" and be done with it. Not that I think that's a good thing, but you should expect people to say that, as that is there opinion, which has just as much validity as yours or mine.

There are always critics of both written and motion picture stories. Some people like things that artists put out, some people don't. I've always considered someone saying something I have written (as I used to a dozen years ago) is lousy because of X,Y, and Z to be good enough explanations of what they felt I could have done better. It's those that simply say "it sucks" and don't give me any reasons why, or simply say "cuz I didn't like it." that make me shake my head in wonder.

So don't be too hard on people who don't like something that you do. Everyone's opinion is different.




George has a story to tell. Yes, he's the richest man alive (metaphorically speaking) but he has a story to tell. And I say, let him tell it. Let him make the calls. It's his baby. Not ours.

I, for one, won't complain.

It's true that it's George's story to tell, but that doesn't mean that we have to like it, just because he's doing it. I could write a story up made completely from my own thoughts and ideas. It doesn't mean that everyone I know is going to like it. Same can be said for Lucas. Just because he's rich, and just because he created Star Wars, doesn't mean we have to take everything he does and gobble it up as wonderous. We all are individuals, with individual tastes, wants and desires. I've always felt that if you're an artist with the exposure that Lucas has, he should have to craft things along the line of what WE (the movie going populace) want to see, not necessarily what he WANTS us to see. That, of course, is my opinion.

So let's just go easy on telling people what they can and cannot think about the movies. We've all got opinions, and we're not likely to sway others to fit our opinions no matter how much squabbling we do here. So please keep it pleasant.

Kesh
1 December 2002, 08:20 PM
Well, as was stated before, FX do not make the movie. They can break it (see any number of B movies), but even the best FX can't save a bad script.

That being said: EpII wasn't such a bad script. The pacing felt way too slow overall, then dropped straight into the action at the end... and then turned into a far too long battle scene. Even cutting two minutes of the CGI battle would've helped the pacing tremendously at that point.

I have to agree with other posters who stated that the 'boring' parts are absolutely necessary to the story. In fact, I rather enjoyed the dialogue regarding the dart, even if it was pretty typical of any mystery movie. (Guy visits his streetwise friend at a cafe/bar/strip-joint/wherever, and gets the lead he needs to find the bad guys.)

Overall, it was a better movie than EpI, even with its flaws. Not up to par with Empire, but still a fun popcorn flick.

ALFRED_THE_EWOK
1 December 2002, 08:40 PM
Originally posted by Blaid
I am not defending Ep2, here, but I would like to know which of the 5 Star Wars films had natural sounding dialogue?

Probably none of them, but it's been awhile. That still doesn't make Episode 2 good just because the others in the series were also lacking in that way.


As for consistently good F/X . . . again, none of the films were totally consistent in the F/X department. As a matter of fact, I have yet to see a consistently good F/X film, and I will include both LOTR and Spiderman in that opinion.
No, none of the Star Wars films were consistently good. I have seen movies that were though. The Thing has awesome and believable special effects throughout, and it's 20 years old!



As for the acting. Once again I question which of the 5 Star Wars films ever let the actors shine? Harrison Ford is even a far better actor than his appearances as Han Solo in the OT would assume. I've listened to Mark Hammil (not a great actor by far) do hundreds of Cartoon episode voices. Where was his voice-inflection in the OT? I always thought Luke was rather flat.
OK, none of the originial trilogy acting performances were oscar worthy, but everytime Hayden Christiansen opened his mouth I wanted to jam forks in my ears. Same with Natalie Portman, but to a lesser extent.


There are many things that attract me to Star Wars, but "consistently good F/X, natural sounding dialogue, and good acting" are not among them. Not to any of the current 5 films.
Fair enough, that's why you wouldn't find any Star Wars movies on my top 5, or probably even a top 10.

KenobiJim
1 December 2002, 09:57 PM
I think I have gotten to the point in examining SW that I don't want to look too deep into anymore. I don't want to lose the magic I felt when I saw it at nine years old in 1977. It's still a fairy tale to me and the story elements that exist are important and I don't want to be critical anymore. I still want to feel like I can be a Jedi Knight, a slick Starfighter pilot or nefarious scoundrel. That's one reason why I roleplay. Being too critical of the films is going to remove my disbelief and make it feel "cardboard." It would ruin it for me to wonder too much why Jettster Dexter is all CGI or not or if Yoda is a rubber puppet or a pile of organized electrons (that really school old Dooku!). There is a certain reality I feel in the SW universe because it has aspects of our real life in it. There is history, culture and philosophy. It's kind of funny but that rubber puppet with Fozzy Bear's voice says some really cool and poignant things. Makes me almost want to start a Real Jedi Order. The philosophy of the Jedi would make a decent doctrine to live by I think. No worse than any other.

Anikka Nesson
1 December 2002, 10:55 PM
KenobiJim is right, in that when we look at something to deeply we loose the magic
that said i think Mr. Lucas needs an acting consultant. Why was Mr Christansen's performance so aweful, he's not a seasoned actor, he didn't know how to be in love with someone on screne and hate them off screne.
The young man who plays Wood in HP1 would have made a better Anikin (sp?) thn Hayden. Get a better actor in the slot and the whole movies loosens up. McGregor outshines him in every scene, it's sad.
that's my rant I guess, the only girl in my city who dosn't like Hayden.
the Rancor in jabba's palace had more acting talent and animation.

Codym
1 December 2002, 11:23 PM
Okay, I'll probably be hit up for this, but I actually enjoyed Hayden's preformance as Anakin, and thought it was easily the best out of the main three (Natalie seemed too detatched, and I've never seen Ewan McGregor give anything resembling a decent preformance.) Though I thought his delivery was a little flat at the theatre (it seems much better on the dvd, so it may have been a sound thing,) he at least invested something into the performance (twitches, grins, lip trembles,) and made the character identifible.

As for George, I don't think he can win. He can tell the story that needs to be told, well and excitingly (Phantom Menace) or he can give in to fan expectations and try to temper it with visual imagination (Clones), but either way, he gets roasted. Either way, he seems to lose. (I notice when people go on about dialogue, no mention is made of Jonathan Hales, the co-writer.)

For the record, I wasn't overly fond of Clones, as it was a huge step down from Phantom, and an even bigger step down from the orignal trilogy. It was too sloppy on its plot points, had too many bad puns (shame on you Mr Hales) and kept missing story oppotunities (like Anakin having given up one life of slavery for what could be seen as another.) But it was still better than many other films that came out this year, and it entertained me and gave me food for thought for the overall trilogy. I trust George enough excite my eyes (the CGI in both prequels, while not perfect, are still beyond many other films in quality and imagination,) and not insult my brain like many Hollywood blockbusters.

Long live the Saga.

VixenofVenus
2 December 2002, 09:58 AM
I didn't read much of this ... but in response to the bash fest that cometh or has arrived due to the first few threads ...


Ep II is my favorite movie of all time (which for me is a hard distinction) ... I keep an ever-expanding, ever-changing Excell file of movie ratings (my own system) that changes after each viewing of a movie basically.

My top 30 are (but they change alot below 10)
1. Clones
2. Empire
3. Signs
4. Moulin Rouge!
5. Jedi
6. Forrest Gump
7. Twelve Monkeys
8. A Time to Kill
9. The Ring
10. Band of Brothers
11. Se7en
12. A New Hope
13. Phantom Menace
14. Thirteen Days
15. C'era una volta il West (Once Upon a Time in the West)
16. A Bugs Life
17. Traffic
18. Toy Story
19. Monsters INC
20. E.T (re-release)
21. Tora! Tora! Tora!
22. Toy Story 2
23. A Christmas Story
24. Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country
25. Spaceballs
26. Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade
27. Fight Club
28. Requiem for a Dream
29. Star Trek: First Contact
30. When Harry Met Sally


So you can see that those with CGI do have a little boost ... but those with story and enjoyment are much higher rated ... I love EpII so much though ... the X-Factor or your personal Enjoyment of a movie ... on my ratings is worth Double that of anything else ... so just for your info, the top three movies are the only movies on my 528 movie list (sofar ... I add about 10 a day of ones I've seen in the past and one's I watch) to have a perfect 10 in the X-Factor category.


MY OVERALL POINT IS THIS:

A person's X-Factor is what determines primarily their favorite movies ... and you can't dictate or describe why ... you can say something, but it never comes out quite right why ...

The fact is, people like movies because of who they are inside, and it is connected to what is on the screen and coming out of the speakers of the stereo ... but often the magic between the viewer and the movie is indescribable in words ... so why argue about which one is better ... everyone has a different opinion ...

evan hansen
2 December 2002, 10:14 AM
Interesting idea, Vix. Pretty cool.

I think that "X Factor" that you speak of is why Star Wars rates so high in my own kind of list of top films. I rank the whole saga together up at the top because I just love the story so much.

It's such a grand story that just engages me. Love, treachery, death, loss, pride, fear, relationships. It touches on all the big things, and it uses all the tools to get there. Whether it uses them perfectly or not is always up for debate since it's so subjective. But it's all there.

I just kind of enjoy things of that scale. It's fantastical and imaginative and forces you to think in those lines. It lets me be 8 years old and kind of sit there and dream without thinking, "Hey, you know, it would be more realistic if..." because it's not about realism or science fiction.

It's simply about a tale about a kid from Tatooine and his rise, his fall, and his redemption.

And it's a hell of a ride.

So anything that's part of that ride really does it for me. I've *never* viewed the SW movies as standalones. When I first saw them (when we got our ancient BetaMax VCR as a little kid), I rented ANH and then made my parents drive me back THAT NIGHT to get the other two. Why?

Because there had to be more. It's such a grand tale that I knew there was more to the story... and that's what kept me coming back and wanting more.

So that's what my opinion of all SW movies are based on. It'd have to be pretty awful for me to dislike it because the story's already there. All George has to do is tell it. And how he tells it is his business, and I could really care less. :)

ElfBoyM
2 December 2002, 12:31 PM
My friends and I have had numerous hour long conversations on the Star Wars films- all of them. We all love the OT much more than the newer trilogy. We also came to the conclusion that we like them more bvecause the OT was revolutionary- it helped to change the way sci-fi/action movies were made (in some respects).
Now we never said that the OT was flawless; there were a few mistakes but hey, that's life. My compatriots felt that the new movies were less of a stand-alone- they were meant to be viewed in the larger context of the Star Wars Universe (we already have plans to sit down one weekend after Ep 3 comes out forhome release and watch all 6 straight through).
Yes, we all felt that the newer movies could have been alot better, but they were not all bad. Most of our gripes came from certain actors acting horribly and the fact that the ships didn't seem to have any depth. Go back and compare a Naboo fighter witrh and X-Wing- the X-Wiong appears to have substance. This was one of my major turn offs from the new trilogy, but I understand why it was done: economic reasons/time constraints.

I feel as if I can't judge the movies until I watch them as one-like an epic novel (as has been mentioned before on this thread).

dgswensen
2 December 2002, 02:21 PM
I never found the Naboo fighters to have any less substance than the X-Wings. They're very different fighters, most notably very shiny and well cared-for, while the X-Wings are more gritty and dirty, which might make them seem more "real."

But I never had a problem with the N-1s -- in fact, I like that they're very distinctive from the Rebel ships. And all that shiny surfacing means you get lots of light reflection and "mirroring", which you most definitely did not get much of in the old motion-control days (note that all the rebellion-era ships have barely a reflective surface to be seen anywhere).

I invite anyone who carps about the realism of the CGI fighters to look at the cockpit close-ups of any of the fighters. The glass over the cockpit is done with computers. None of the cockpits had any glass in them for those shots. And I would never have guessed that in a million years had not the DVD commentary revealed it. Not a "wow gee whiz" kind of CGI moment, but one easily mistaken for real IMHO.

ElfBoyM
2 December 2002, 03:08 PM
I never meant to mean that the CGI fighters didn't look real, because they do. They look real in a different way than the OT fighters. To me.. ther OT starships just look heavier than their New Trilogy coutnerparts.

Jedi_Staailis
2 December 2002, 03:11 PM
I thorougly enjoyed Clones. There were parts that I would have liked to have seen done differently. I think Anakin and Padme needed more screen time to build the relationship. When I watched the cut scenes for the DVD, I saw quite a few that I thought should have been in the final movie, no question. A few days later, I talk to my 15 year old brother online, and he tells me he hated the cutscenes because there wasn't enough action.

I saw AotC on opening night with my family, and just by picking out four of us, you can see the variety Mr. Lucas had to please. I'm a huge Star Wars fan, so I'll pick up any slips or
inconsistencies in the story and its connection to the other episodes. Worse, I shoot and edit films as a hobby, so he can't be sloppy with his cinematography without upsetting me. I'm also a college student who appreciates a well written story with good characterization.

My brother also saw the film. He's 15 and a big Star Wars fan, but he wanted the action. Any time there wasn't fighting, he wasn't particularly interested.

My eleven year old sister knows who the characters are, but can get lost in political maneuvering. She likes the action sequences to some extent, but also likes the funny characters. If I had a dollar for every time she imitated Jar Jar's voice, I'd be rich.

My father has seen the OT a time or two, but doesn't remember much of it. He comes out of the theater happy that he remembered that Palpatine will become Emperor.

If you've ever been in a movie store trying to find a movie a disparate group will enjoy, you'll have a very tough time. But when it comes down to it, just about everyone I know is willing to watch and enjoy Star Wars. That's an accomplishment in itself.

Now on to a couple of side points.

Okay, I'll probably be hit up for this, but I actually enjoyed Hayden's preformance as Anakin
I did also. He played the part perfectly. Sure he wasn't smooth and suave, but he's playing a former slave Jedi student. He's supposed to be confused and awkward around Padme, but cocky and self assured as a Jedi. He nails the performance.


I invite anyone who carps about the realism of the CGI fighters to look at the cockpit close-ups of any of the fighters. The glass over the cockpit is done with computers. None of the cockpits had any glass in them for those shots
Exactly. Many people gripe about the unrealism of the special effects, but they almost invariably point to shots that could only be done on computer. Why? Because in many cases they don't even see the CG when it could be another method of effects. The effects in Clones are superb, and (in my opinion) surpass anything out there today, period.

Corr Terek
2 December 2002, 03:16 PM
I never meant to mean that the CGI fighters didn't look real, because they do. They look real in a different way than the OT fighters. To me.. ther OT starships just look heavier than their New Trilogy coutnerparts.

There's a simple explanation for that -- the OT fighters were weapons of death and destruction, planned to be used in war and heavy combat.

Naboo fighters, on the other hand, are more of a work of art. They are really very lightly armed -- they're only built to take on pirate and smuggler ships. You don't equip cops in RL with M-16s -- that's the military's stuff. By the same token, Naboo pilots aren't given heavy war-making machines because that's not their job.

Anikka Nesson
3 December 2002, 04:33 PM
I really really feel that this movie and especally the one before it, are not out there for the action-only SW folk, I am glad someone enjoyed Hayden's performance, even though I didn't.
If you need to see McGreggor doing a really wonderful bit of acting watch Trainspotting. But If you see that and don't like him then you don't, I'm cool with that.
I did like Hayden in Life as a House, I just think he was a bad choice as Anakin. IMO
:D

Thanks a bunch for the explanation on the ships, I appreciated it.

KreGoete
3 December 2002, 05:44 PM
personally, I think that Ep2 is on par with Empire... why? same reason Empire is generally agreed upon as the best of the OT - character development. we see Anakin go from his loveable 8 year old demeanor to touching on the dark side, to the way he won't let rules interfere with his desires...
with Boba Fett, we see where he comes from, we learn why he is the way he is later on...
we get a better picture of the hubris of the Jedi Council...
I could go on, but i can't really think strait right now...
oh, and BTW - the acting was dead-on for what was needed, in my opinion