REVENGE OF THE SITH - Anyone else agree with me?

pingu said:
Maybe it gets better in subsequent viewings - I might notice more hints at what's happening to him.

All the Prequels get better on repeated viewings. The Phantom Menace and the other prequels acually pretty good because you start to notice things that you may not notice the first time. I was happy with the prequels at the cinema and on DVD they have got better.
 
I'm fonder of the prequels than most people seem to be. I think there's a lot of bandwagon-jumping with thse films - it's fashionable to hate them, so people condemn them for (say) being absolutely lacking in depth and complexity without stopping to check whether or not they actually are. People also want to enjoy them as much as they remember enjoying the original trilogy - but this can't happen, partly because the original trilogy was (from a technical perspective) simply years ahead of any other film that had been previously made (Lucas and ILM basically invented the motion-contorl camera), and partly because nostalgia makes everything seem very rose-tinted.

The new films are not exactly Shakespeare, it's true, but they don't try to be; they are primarily visual experiences, stories told in images rather than words. AOTC is quite stunning from a visual perspective: almost every shot looks like it belongs in a futuristic art gallery, beautiful composition, colours, use of light.... Check out the chase over Coruscant, for instance (the sequence that begins with Obi Wan hanging from the assassin droid, and ends with the sequence in the bar). Notice how the chase goes through several quite distinct sectors of the city - residential, industrial, financial, etc. Then notice how every single indoor shot in the film where the room has a window allows you to see something strange out of that window - no opportunity is ever wasted to flesh out the visual world. An awful lot of effort went into that.
 
I think lucas and his team need to be praised for their effort and high production values on their films. The detail of planets, cities, ships are just amazing. And great use of colour too like you say. I know they have won awards, well i assume so. There is not much out there that can really touch the whole star wars universe in terms of visuals and countless creatures and planets created by lucas and his team.
 
I'm glad this isnt just a one sided Star Wars bashing thread. Despite his shortcomings I do hope that Lucas receives the same acclaim that Peter Jackson did for the Rings Trilogy after all Lucas is the father of modern cinema.

Waits for the bashing to start. :p
 
NicolasB said:
I'm fonder of the prequels than most people seem to be. I think there's a lot of bandwagon-jumping with thse films - it's fashionable to hate them, so people condemn them for (say) being absolutely lacking in depth and complexity without stopping to check whether or not they actually are. People also want to enjoy them as much as they remember enjoying the original trilogy - but this can't happen, partly because the original trilogy was (from a technical perspective) simply years ahead of any other film that had been previously made (Lucas and ILM basically invented the motion-contorl camera), and partly because nostalgia makes everything seem very rose-tinted.

The new films are not exactly Shakespeare, it's true, but they don't try to be; they are primarily visual experiences, stories told in images rather than words. AOTC is quite stunning from a visual perspective: almost every shot looks like it belongs in a futuristic art gallery, beautiful composition, colours, use of light.... Check out the chase over Coruscant, for instance (the sequence that begins with Obi Wan hanging from the assassin droid, and ends with the sequence in the bar). Notice how the chase goes through several quite distinct sectors of the city - residential, industrial, financial, etc. Then notice how every single indoor shot in the film where the room has a window allows you to see something strange out of that window - no opportunity is ever wasted to flesh out the visual world. An awful lot of effort went into that.

Totally agree. I like both trilogies and for diffferent reasons. I grew up on Star Wars and so the original trilogy will always be part of my childhood. I have seen four of the six films at the cinema and wished I was old enough to seen them all. I now can see all six films on a big screen which for me duplicates it very close.
 
NicolasB said:
Then notice how every single indoor shot in the film where the room has a window allows you to see something strange out of that window - no opportunity is ever wasted to flesh out the visual world. An awful lot of effort went into that.

Hmmm. Someone pointed out to me that the ships in the background during the Chapter 4 of AOTC (the Chancellor's office) are on a very short repetitive cycle. There is a very distinct long thin ship with a tail fin that keeps on flying past with two small ships travelling underneath it. This sequence repeats almost everytime the camera features a window and is a poor example of cost cutting IMO.

But yes the lighting is beautiful in AOTC. However TESB is even more memorable; the lighting on Hoth, Bespin and even the cockpit of the Millenium Falcon was stunning.
 
as i posted in another thread

"i never actually liked the original starwars 4-6(I do like 4-6 now btw), thought the acting was very poor (Well except harrison) I saw episode 1 on a crappy pirate vcd when it came out to cinema, it looked ok but was boring, saw episode 2 the other night on itv missed the first half hour but looked fantastic even for a portable hotel tv so i went out and bought episodes 1-3 the other day, watched episode 3 and have mixed feelings

lots of detail in the pictures, sometimes a little too much

heads of characters looked odd when on CGI bodies... it was laughable in fact id expect much better from a DVD as important as this one

anakin/vader turn was very odd, i dont see how he would switch to the dark side how he did, it made me feel as if it was a story of its own, he realises he has done wrong and is remorseful then all of a sudden george goes "0h XXXX" he is supposed to be a bad guy in 4-6 better make him just flip out for no reason..... this part had so much potential to sum up all the other 5 films but just seems empty, rushed and not really bothered with. Anakin grew up like a sheep being told what to do and fair enough he needs to find someone to look upto again... but it just doesnt flow like it "

still think ep3 is good tho
 
godzilla said:
But yes the lighting is beautiful in AOTC. However TESB is even more memorable; the lighting on Hoth, Bespin and even the cockpit of the Millenium Falcon was stunning.
True. I think TESB actually benefits significantly in places from having the special effects redone digitally. If you ever get a chance to watch the original version again, look carefully at the snow-field as viewed from the cockpit of a snow-speeder - the frame of the cockpit is actually slightly transparent (you can see the background through it). They did this deliberately to reduce the impact of a malalignment (different components of the shot being slightly out of alignment). Doing it digitally and making the cockpit properly opaque really does help.

There are so many scenes in AOTC that are just beautiful to look at, though: the scene were Anakin is riding through the Tatooine desert to find the sand people, for example - fascinating use of colour.... The tableau in the palace on Naboo with Anakin looking out over the lake.... The flying whale thing on Kamkino.... There are lots more. :)

To be fair, it isn't even just visuals: the use of sound is very imaginatie too. I think those bombs (seizmic charges?) that Jango Fett launches against Obi Wan are a delight - wonderful moment moment of absolute silence just as the explosion begins.
 
Here's an interesting thought: how much better would ROTJ have been if Lucas had been able to do what he originally wanted to do and have Steven Spielberg direct it? Given how successful their collaboration was on Raiders Of The Lost Ark (and people always seem to forget just how intimately Lucas was involved with that when they're bashing him) I think it would really have been something.
 
NicolasB, the key point is that Spielberg directed Raiders, Lucas had no directorial input. I can only imagine how the Raiders trilogy would have turned out had Lucas directed. It would not have been pretty, unless one was to say, pretty stilted, wooden and hammy. He is undoubtedly a good ideas man, but he should always have got somebody on board to both direct, and script his stories. I totally agree with you that if he had got Spielberg to direct the Star Wars films, they would probably have been masterpieces.
The Empire Strikes Back is IMHO the best of the six Star Wars films, directed by Irvin Kershner, screenplay by Leigh Brackett and Lawrence Kasdan, story by George Lucas. For me this pretty much proves the point I make earlier in this post regards direction and script tasking.
 
Will Scarlet said:
NicolasB, the key point is that Spielberg directed Raiders, Lucas had no directorial input. I can only imagine how the Raiders trilogy would have turned out had Lucas directed. It would not have been pretty, unless one was to say, pretty stilted, wooden and hammy. He is undoubtedly a good ideas man, but he should always have got somebody on board to both direct, and script his stories. I totally agree with you that if he had got Spielberg to direct the Star Wars films, they would probably have been masterpieces.
The Empire Strikes Back is IMHO the best of the six Star Wars films, directed by Irvin Kershner, screenplay by Leigh Brackett and Lawrence Kasdan, story by George Lucas. For me this pretty much proves the point I make earlier in this post regards direction and script tasking.

Spot on :thumbsup: Lucas is good at stories and technology. He is just rubbish at telling the stories.
 
Why would anyone read the novelisation before seeing the film?

And a complaint that there were too many special effects? In a Star Wars film? Okaaaaay.
 
quarry2006 said:
Why would anyone read the novelisation before seeing the film?

And a complaint that there were too many special effects? In a Star Wars film? Okaaaaay.

I agree that after 28 years, why spoil things by reading the novel 6 weeks before the movie comes back??? Having said that, I agree that the book does a better job than the movie at bringing Anakin along the path to evil. Granted, books have an advantage, but it was still too quick in the movie IMO. And I have tried and tried to give HC the benefit of the doubt, but in the end, his performances are too one-dimensional. Ian McDiramid is a perfect example of taking the dialog given you and MAKING it great. Notice no one ever accuses him of bad acting or of his dialog being poor. He knows how to deliver a line and uses his skill as an actor to make the line come off the right way. Hayden read the lines and all the nuance and subtlety that the actor portraying this pivotal role should have had just wasn't there. In its place, furrowed brows, mean looks and monotone delivery. I want to like him, but in the end, his performance really hurt II & III. I do think he's better in more conventional roles....
 
quarry2006 said:
Why would anyone read the novelisation before seeing the film?

And a complaint that there were too many special effects? In a Star Wars film? Okaaaaay.

You've brought this old thread back to life.

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
 
Yes, but we're replacing parts of the threads with new digitally created footage and there's also comic relief posting from Jar Jar Binks.
 
Scott Wallace said:
I agree that after 28 years, why spoil things by reading the novel 6 weeks before the movie comes back??? Having said that, I agree that the book does a better job than the movie at bringing Anakin along the path to evil. Granted, books have an advantage, but it was still too quick in the movie IMO. And I have tried and tried to give HC the benefit of the doubt, but in the end, his performances are too one-dimensional. Ian McDiramid is a perfect example of taking the dialog given you and MAKING it great. Notice no one ever accuses him of bad acting or of his dialog being poor. He knows how to deliver a line and uses his skill as an actor to make the line come off the right way. Hayden read the lines and all the nuance and subtlety that the actor portraying this pivotal role should have had just wasn't there. In its place, furrowed brows, mean looks and monotone delivery. I want to like him, but in the end, his performance really hurt II & III. I do think he's better in more conventional roles....

Ian McDiarmid was absolutely fantastic....if it wasnt for him there definitely would have been a lot less reason to like the films at all.....lol......

I have to say, its worth reading a few of the books written around (and just after) the clone wars era, some of them definitely give you some brilliant insight to the struggles going on in Anakin that hayden couldnt have shown on film if they told him they'd shoot him for real if he didnt do it decently!
 
Even as a MEGA Star Wars i also have mixed feelings about the Prequals

Some of the actors were perfect for their roles.

Ewan McGregor as Obi-Wan was probably the best. He pulled it off well in all 3films ( maybe not Episode 1)

Ian McDiarmid as Sidious was also seemed to play the part pefectly

Temeuera Morrison as Jango Fett (and the Clone Troopers)was cool and one who i though was killed off to soon or should have appeared in Episode 1

Christopher Lee as Dooku was good and had the right amount of screen time, although a small appearance in Episode 1 would have been cool

Jimmy Smitts as Bail Organa. Mainly as i am a fan off this guy and it was a shame he was cut out of most of Episode 3


While some i felt werent that good

Liam Neeson. I just felt for some reason that he wasn't convincing enough and really made an effort at the role.

Natalie Portman. She should have swapped roles with Kiera Knightly and had her as Padme. Would have been much better. Portman is crap at acting

Samual L Jackson. I know i'll get slated for this but in Episode 1 and 2 he seemed very boring. It wasn't until Episode 3, that Samual pulled off mace really well
 
i'd go along with pretty much everything you just said especially the first part about S Jackson but i disagree on the 3rd film part with him, sorry but he was a silly bit of casting, he can never be anything but S Jackson when he plays a role.....he tries bless him, but its the same each time....a character actor he aint...lol....

not sure who could have been a better choice....shame he wasnt younger as you just know Morgan Freeman would have lapped it up...lol.....or perhaps Louis Gosset Jnr......
 
lee_c00per said:
Even as a MEGA Star Wars i also have mixed feelings about the Prequals

Some of the actors were perfect for their roles.

Ewan McGregor as Obi-Wan was probably the best. He pulled it off well in all 3films ( maybe not Episode 1)

Ian McDiarmid as Sidious was also seemed to play the part pefectly

Temeuera Morrison as Jango Fett (and the Clone Troopers)was cool and one who i though was killed off to soon or should have appeared in Episode 1

Christopher Lee as Dooku was good and had the right amount of screen time, although a small appearance in Episode 1 would have been cool

Jimmy Smitts as Bail Organa. Mainly as i am a fan off this guy and it was a shame he was cut out of most of Episode 3


While some i felt werent that good

Liam Neeson. I just felt for some reason that he wasn't convincing enough and really made an effort at the role.

Natalie Portman. She should have swapped roles with Kiera Knightly and had her as Padme. Would have been much better. Portman is crap at acting

Samual L Jackson. I know i'll get slated for this but in Episode 1 and 2 he seemed very boring. It wasn't until Episode 3, that Samual pulled off mace really well

Interesting take. Here's mine...

Great: Ian McDiramid
Very Good: Ewan McGregor
I'm very good when directed well. Can you actually DIRECT me :lease: : Natalie Portman
We thought he was like James Dean? :oops: : Hayden Christensen
Good: Liam Neeson
THIS....is the result of a global search :eek: ?: Jake Lloyd
Saying you want to be in it does not obligate you to put him in it George: Samuel L. Jackson

Alternatives:

Padme: Keira Knightly, Rachel McAdams
Anakin: An unknown with range or somebody like Ryan Gosling
Young Anakin: If 'Sling Blade' could find Lucas Black, 'The Sixth Sense' Haley Joel Osment, then there was a great young Anakin to be found. They didn't.
Mace Windu: All due respect to SLJ, it was hard to see him as anybody but.....SLJ. Maybe Gabriel Byrne, Kenneth Branagh. Someone with gravitas.

Hardly the only point of view and again, I LOVE THE MOVIES. But one wonders if, with better casting, the tone of the PT might have been radically changed for the better???
 
Samual L Jackson wasn't great in Episode 3 but it was the best out of the 3 films. Not a good choice for the role.

Jake Llyod i reckon did a good job considering he was 8 years old. Hayden was AWFUL in Episode 2 and a tiny bit better in Episode 3 but not alot.

Episode 3 was good and really does follow the Originals BUT

1. The wookies were not in it enough for me
2. Anakin Turned to the dark side far too easily
3. The end of the film where Vader shout's 'NN0000000000' just spoilt the film for me
4. Wayne Pygram sadly didn't look anything like Grand Moff Tarkin
5. General Grievous didn't have enough sceen time. He should have been in Episode 2 for sure and had a better death than just being shot, as he was a really cool character
 
lee_c00per said:
2. Anakin Turned to the dark side far too easily

It wasn't quick. It started in episode II with the Sand People and episode III is years after episode II. What you saw in episode III was the end of the transformation. He did have a big reason to finally turn completly.
 
lee_c00per said:
Ian McDiarmid as Sidious was also seemed to play the part pefectly

Natalie Portman. She should have swapped roles with Kiera Knightly and had her as Padme. Would have been much better. Portman is crap at acting

Ian Mcdiarmid has an advantage after all he played Sidious 20 years earlier.

Natalie Portman wasn't that good in this role but "Portman is crap at acting" Have you seen Leon ?
 
T800 said:
Natalie Portman wasn't that good in this role but "Portman is crap at acting" Have you seen Leon ?

Or "Closer"
 
Why did they kill off Darth Maul?
I thought he was the best baddie since Vader.
 
Steve.EX said:
Why did they kill off Darth Maul?
I thought he was the best baddie since Vader.

Obi-Wan fell out with him.:D
 

The latest video from AVForums

Is 4K Blu-ray Worth It?
Subscribe to our YouTube channel
Back
Top Bottom