| Star Wars Prequels - Why the hate? (FREAKIN' AWESOME NETWORK FORUMS) [message #23031] |
Sat, 03 November 2012 01:28 |
TMC
Messages: 22
Registered: February 2012
Karma: 0
|
Junior Member |
|
|
http://officialfan.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=offtopic&am p;action=display&thread=455314&page=1
« Reply #10 on Nov 1, 2012, 10:48pm »
1. George Lucas is a great storyteller, but one of the worst writers
of dialogue to ever grace Hollywood.
2. George Lucas is a great visual artist, but a horrible director.
3. 90% of the trilogy was shot on green screen, which led to very
stilted performances.
« Reply #14 on Nov 1, 2012, 11:19pm »
Episode 1 was way too cute.
I liked 2, but it did have some terrible acting.
3 was pretty cool the first time. But subsequent viewings just showed
how poorly it was made. All CGI, with terrible writing, acting, and
directing.
But highlights:
Jake Lloyd being the worst Anakin ever imagined until Hayden
Christiansen.
Over explaining of things that didn't need it: miticlorians.
Weird racial stereotypes.
I hate sand.
Anakins descent to the dark side being the easiest coup by an evil
force in the history of evildom.
« Reply #16 Yesterday at 4:09am »
Episode 1 was just too childish and lame.
Episode 2 was too convulted and some bits didn't make much sense.
Episode 3 I actually enjoyed
« Reply #19 Yesterday at 4:53am »
Where to begin?
1. The acting is wooden.
2. The dialogue is laughable.
3. The story is boring.
4. The scenes are often cluttered.
5. The characters are unlikeable, emotionless, or inconsistent.
6. Yoda fighting Dooku.
7. The needless shoehorning in of characters like R2D2 and C3P0, in
particular the ridiculous idea that Anakin built C3P0.
8. Midichlorians.
9. YODA FIGHTING DOOKU.
http://officialfan.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=offtopic&am p;action=display&thread=455314&page=2
« Reply #28 Yesterday at 8:23am »
They were the most highly anticipated movies of all time, movies that
continued a franchise with the most devoted fan base imaginable. It
was likely impossible for them to fulfill expectations. The films made
an enormous amount of money and had an unbelievable cultural presence
when they were released but it wasn't enough, right or wrong, for many
fans. They had to live up to three incredible movies that changed film
history that just happened to have been THE childhood movies for a
generation of people that had just reached adulthood.
On a personal note, I feel that the things that made the Original
Trilogy great: good actors that played off each other well, characters
that you could emotionally connect with, a fantastic storyline twist,
detailed worlds with one specific trait (a swamp world, a desert
world, an ice world, etc.), high adventure, etc. were conspicuously
absent in the newer movies. Pound for pound, you probably had a better
assembled crew of actors but their characters and their performances
just didn't gel in the same way.
« Reply #34 Yesterday at 11:58am »
Yesterday at 11:54am, A Nuclear Error wrote:
Nov 1, 2012, 10:07pm, Koda89, Master Butt Stallion wrote:
For one the acting was HORRIBLE in the prequels. Even great actors
like Natalie Portman, Ewan McGregor, and Samuel L. Jackson did badly.
And of course I blame the bad acting on the even worse script
(seriously, there was a lot of bad lines in the prequels).
They were pretty to look at, sure, but that's about it.
The OT had some bad dialogue too as well didn't it?
The OT had some bad dialogue and acting, but I think overall the pros
outweighed the cons, and the story was paced and told in a way that
allowed the films to overcome these faults.
No such thing exists in the prequals. It's either bland, wooden acting
and dialogue surrounded by obviously fake CGI and broken up by some of
the most soulless and boring action scenes filled with more s*** than
Honey Boo Boos toilet after her Mom ate Mexican.
« Reply #35 Yesterday at 12:42pm via the ProBoards Mobile App »
Nov 1, 2012, 11:19pm, Cela wrote:
Episode 1 was way too cute.
I liked 2, but it did have some terrible acting.
3 was pretty cool the first time. But subsequent viewings just showed
how poorly it was made. All CGI, with terrible writing, acting, and
directing.
Pretty much sums up my feelings as a whole. There was way too much
over-reliance on CGI, and it takes a special kind of awful to get such
poor performances from Liam
Neeson, Sam Jackson, Ewan McGregor and Natalie Portman. Ian McDiarmid
only escaped because he played it so completely over the top, and I'll
grant Christopher Lee a pass as he basically played himself.
I consider George Lucas the Vince Russo of Hollywood - full of ideas,
but needs a strong-minded filter, like Vince McMahon, to say no to the
unnecessary fluff. In the original trilogy the studio execs and Gary
Kurtz played the McMahon role. The prequel trilogy was George's WCW
years.
« Reply #36 Yesterday at 1:11pm »
The short version:
The original trilogy was Lucas' brainchild, but it had contributions
and enrichment from many other participants. While it's good that
Lucas maintained some level of creative control, films have to be
group accomplishments, not individual ones - you fire on all
cylinders, not one - and the trilogy stands the test of time and
enjoys worldwide appeal today because of the effort put forward by
such a talented cast and crew.
In contrast, the reins of the prequels all rested securely in the
hands of an amateur storyteller who can only do technique, not
characters, and his technique was lazy after twenty years of soft
living and an assurance of unchallenged direction. Do the math.
The other short version, coming from a guy who never forgot Alec
Guinness' delivery of Obi-Wan's recollection in A New Hope:
There is more genuine emotion in Han and Luke's simple goodbye in The
Empire Strikes Back than in any scene shared by Anakin and Obi-Wan in
the prequels, including the operatic shoutfest at the end of Sith.
Imagine how much more profound that scene would have been had they
been consistently portrayed as best friends during a time of war,
instead of two guys who got on each others' nerves like they were
being paid to.
I don't possess the venom for these films' existence that so many do,
but I sure don't contest it. There are so many basic storytelling and
filmmaking mistakes which Lucas should have moved past years ago, and
they deserve criticism just as he needs it (or needed, now that he's
hung up the lightsaber for good).
http://officialfan.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=offtopic&am p;action=display&thread=455314&page=3
« Reply #41 Yesterday at 3:36pm »
I could never rate ROTJ below any of the prequels. The Luke/Vader
lightsaber fight, the space battle at Endor, even the stuff with Jabba
places it far above anything in TPM, AOTC, and ROTS.
I still don't get the love for Sith. The dialogue is still atrocious,
Anakin's turn/subsequent killings feel abrupt, whatever intimidation
with Palpatine is lost as he's completely turned into a cartoon
character, and the battle with Kenobi/Skywalker gets boring.
« Reply #45 Yesterday at 6:06pm »
I don't grasp putting Return of the Jedi below any of the prequels.
Jedi was certainly the most flawed of the original trilogy, there's
very little denying that. However, as far as I'm concerned the first
half of it, the Jabba storyline, is about as strong a start for a sci-
fi action adventure as you'll get anywhere. Absolutely love it.
It goes off rails in some ways after that, but those flaws are covered
up by the absolute climactic tension of the Death Star scenes between
Luke, Vader, and Palpatine.
PLUS, because it could draw upon characters and relationships already
established in the first two films, Jedi gets the benefit of the doubt
in some of its flaws.
The prequels are too hollow, and none of them leave enough goodwill
behind so that you'll grant a break or two to the next ones.
Again, you're telling the tragedy of Anakin Skywalker, the heartbreak
of him losing his love and betraying his best friend...but we have no
reason to care about their relationships. At all. Obi-Wan and Anakin
are great friends, "brothers", who's final battle is meant to be
exceedingly sad? That's great, but we've gotten almost no screen time
showing us how and why they got to be "brothers".
« Reply #47 Yesterday at 6:43pm »
Yesterday at 11:02am, ratedrnightwing wrote:
I have a theory that guys from our generation wanted three very dark
films. Heads being cut off limbs flying everywhere and when we got
pretty much three kids movies with some dark undertones people were
bitter. I like all 6 films. When I saw ep 1 in 3d last Feb with my
friend and his kids they loved it. They loved Jar Jar they were scared
of Darth Maul. To me that was what star wars is about. I hope to show
it to my kids some day.
That's what I think too, the movies many of us wanted could never
happen, in some cases they'd be like Taxi Driver.
Plus in we had years to map it out in our heads, filling in the gaps
about what the jedis were like at the peak of their powers and how
they fought heroically in the clone-wars (whatever they were).
Then we barely saw those clone-wars (in the movies), instead we got
some rubbish about taxes or trade blockades and the midichlorians
damaging the mythology.
If only episode 1 had been condensed to a 10 minute prologue things
could have been different.
That's not to say they weren't without their highlights though.
« Reply #49 Yesterday at 7:46pm »
Big thing to me was Anakin was so unlikeable in 2 and 3 to the point
where him turning into Darth Vader meant nothing. Throughout the Star
Wars Universe, all you heard was how Anakin was a great man and a
great Jedi who got corrupted by the Dark Side. All we saw was a
whiney, angry teenager who looked pretty incompetent 99% of the time.
I actually remember liking the Phantom Menace.
|
|
|
|
Members
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
