Star Wars: The Last Jedi (Rian Johnson, December 15, 2017) Movie • Page 33

I loved Phantom Menace when it came out, as well as Attack of the Clones. Granted, I was 8 and 11 years old respectively.

 

I hated Attack of the Clones sooooo bad the first time I saw it. I was 12.

It might be in the top 5 worst high profile blockbusters ever

 

Rotten tomatoes says differently :)

 

The only reason I liked the prequels as a kid was for the cool lightsaber fights but honestly the only good one anymore is Qui-gon + Obi vs. Maul in TPM. I still think Williams' score is fantastic in all 3 prequel films, though.

 

the scores were beyond fantastic

hope we get a good one for TLJ

 

OK teebs you win this one

sidenote: whoa this sites cool! It's got a bunch of trailers. I bookmarked it

 

I honestly think I hate Revenge of the Sith the most. Anakin's turn is just so unbelievable and sudden that it makes me hate that movie so much.

 

haha wait, are you just now learning about Rotten Tomatoes?

 

I think as far as basic filmmaking competency goes, ROTS is the best of the trilogy. There are a handful of scenes that are handled/shot very well, even artfully. (the scene with Anakin and Padme in separate locations looking out over the same Coruscant skyline contemplating everything that's about to go down, for example.) But yeah, Anakin's conversion feels rushed and shoehorned into the plot simply because that's what HAS to happen.

That said I do think Palpatine's method of persuasion to cause Anakin to turn makes a lot more sense than Palpatine's method with Luke in ROTJ.

 

Yeah I bookmarked it!

 

Oh, I agree with you. I was in 6th grade and Darth Maul was just the coolest thing ever. Only later did I realize that he was such a wasted character :(

 

Clones is the worst for me by a large margin. The Anakin/Padme stuff is PAINFUL.

 

What acting is better in the originals? It's only really Harrison Ford who excelled (outshining a Jedi). The prequels had Ewan McGregor and Ian McDiarmid killing their roles. Mark Hamill doesn't even watch the originals cos of his acting (which is definitely worse in episode 4). Carrie was poor in episode 4, constantly slipping into a British accent and giving half-assed reactions when Alderaan is destroyed, etc.

Frankly, prequels has better acting than the originals. Both trilogies have good and bad.

 

Yeah I'll never understand people who hate Phantom more than Clones. They're both awful but Phantom actually has some real sets and the best fight of the prequels. Aesthetically it feels the most like Star Wars out of I-III

 

Peter Cushing, Alec Guinness, and James Earl Jones all have great performances in episode four.

 

Personally, I grew up appreciating the prequels more. I didn't understand the political backstory as a kid (found it boring), but when I did, I found the films far more ambiguous than the originals. Wouldn't rate them as highly, but I certainly appreciate the story that was there. Just a shame no one else would direct the films, despite Lucas asking several directors.

The originals are more "fun", but that makes sense as to why Lucas wanted to start the saga in the middle anyway (more fun/commercially successful than an origins story).

 

Peter Cushing was good for the one film.
Alec Guinness did no better than Christopher Lee or Liam Neeson. Far from his best role too.
James Earl Jones is a voice actor. So I don't really consider him.

 

Hence me specifying episode four.

I never said it was his best role, but I think he did a great job. He did a great job at playing the old mentor and you actually feel something when he dies in the film.

This is pretty dumb. If you don't think his performance was vital to the success of the character, you should probably look at the tapes of Vader without Jones. You can't just discount a performance just because it's convenient to your argument.

EDIT: For the record, I agree that the acting isn't anything to write home about in either. But I don't think the prequels have an advantage there. Though, they were also handicapped by scripts that were much worse.

 

I am much more forgiving of bad acting in older movies, for some reason. It seems like it fits the classic movie era.

Whereas in 1999, we could compare Phantom Menace to Fight Club, American Beauty, The Green Mile...

 

Doesn't say much for the other films. Especially considering Lucas is pandered as a poor director.

Darth Maul killing Qui-Gon Jinn in one of the best fights in the entire saga, whilst Obi-Wan watches in anguish/helplessness isn't "feeling something"? It's not like he faded away of age (ie Yoda). Tensions were high and a lot was at stake.

Sure, David Prowse sounded awful. But no more pivotal than any other voice actors in the prequels, ie Matthew Wood as General Grievous. Plus voice acting can be easily tweaked (especially today). Motion Capturing deserves higher recognition before voice acting does.

 

**backs away from thread**

 

Late 70s isn't too "classic" though. Even then, films like The Godfather, Taxi Driver, Marathon Man showcased exceptional acting. Star Wars had good & bad.

But even so, is that fair to excuse bad acting purely cos of the time period? It's just raising expectations for the prequels that the originals didn't exactly mest.

 

I doubt the technology to tweak voice overs was as advanced in the 70/80's. Also motion capture can be tweaked just as easily as voice acting. Also, how could I forget Billy Dee! He kills as Lando. So smooth.

I dunno, man, there's good and bad performances in both, but I just don't think the evidence is there to say the prequels have better acting than the originals.

 

Right?!

 

There's no performance as good as Harrison Ford's in the prequels, that's for sure.