What is the general consensus?

nunew33

Standard Member
Just seen this for the first time as an R2 DVD xmas present. Have avoided reading anything to prevent spoiling it.

Was it worth the wait?

By God no!!!!!

Am I the only one to think there was little more to this film than a filler between films. And the only 3dimensinal character with any acting abilaty was Yoda? (Spot the irony)


There appeared to be 80 minutes of nothing but a clunky attempt at romance by two actors, who if cut would have bled sap (ie wooden). Followed by 40 minutes of pretty good CGI.

the whole film seemed to be devoid of script and acting, which although minimal did exsist in the first(middle) 3 films. I mean Jango Fetts line of "Im just an ordinary man trying to make his way in the universe" is of soap opera quality, raising a cringe rather than a smile. WHat happened to the incisive one liners of Han Solo???

This film seemed to have copied from every other cgi film of the past year, but then again Star wars IV was a thinly veiled copy of any world war 2 film.

I cannot see any redeeming features of the ROTC except that it was mildly better than Episode 1.

I wish I was 10 again then I could wear those rose tinted specs through whch I saw the first star wars film
 
S

Sgt.Colon

Guest
I watched AOTC for the first time over Christmas and I really enjoyed it. Heaps better than TPM and thought it more like parts 4,5 and 6 :)
 

nunew33

Standard Member
Thinking about it another bug bear is that I felt everything was shot in studio or was cgi. There wasnt that reality factor that you got from 4,5 and 6 where there was little cgi and a lot of location.

It may lose a lot by being on the small screen. Maybe I need to accelerate the projector business case to my wife!!!!
 

BadAss

Banned
Originally posted by nunew33
Thinking about it another bug bear is that I felt everything was shot in studio or was cgi. There wasnt that reality factor that you got from 4,5 and 6 where there was little cgi and a lot of location.
Your right, I think the time has gone where you feel your watching real for real. What I say to that is take it for what it is. Watch the extras and youll appreciate what they have created from using CG.

Originally posted by nunew33
It may lose a lot by being on the small screen. Maybe I need to accelerate the projector business case to my wife!!!!
Cant agree more. The shear scale of this movie means you can enjoy the film time and time again and still see something new each time. And to see the detail thats been poured into this movie means large screen. I use a 46" RPTV and still dont get the scale of the cinema. This is one film where projectors come into their own, aslong as theirs a increase in picture quality to match the size increase.
 

nunew33

Standard Member
Well argued Groundy. You are right, I was dellusional.
 

Lex

Novice Member
I had fairly low expectations about AOTC following TPM, but still I was disappointed... As people have said, embarrassing script, poor acting, and unsatisfying plot. Really didn't like it. :(
 

nunew33

Standard Member
I tried the "talk through" for it last night to see what they were saying. And they seemed to suggest that there was a lot of post production fiddling to get it right. The simply kept going on about this effect and that, rather than clever use of plot, script and actors. It seems the focus was very much on the visual and sonic impact and not the content. I think there was more plot and acting in Plan 9 from outer space.


Maybe he'll have another go at Howard the duck now he has the technology for the duck to be realstic, the fact that it was a poor film is irrrelevent
 

Demon Luci

Distinguished Member
Got to agree with most of the above posts. I remeber how excited I was when I heard another 3 Star Wars films where to be made. A major major disappointment.

Totally agree with nunew33 regarding the films looking unreal because of the sheer volume of CGI. It's fine for space scenes and the odd exotic location, but the whole thing looks like it's been done in front of a blue screen.

Moan over. At least we have the LOTR trilogy to compensate.

RDB
 

Lex

Novice Member
Originally posted by Rock Da Bass
It's fine for space scenes
That was something else that I found disappointing - there were so few scenes set in space. When you think of all the great ships and battle scenes they had in the first three films, there is just no comparison. :(
 

nunew33

Standard Member
Originally posted by Rock Da Bass
Totally agree with nunew33 regarding the films looking unreal because of the sheer volume of CGI. It's fine for space scenes and the odd exotic location, but the whole thing looks like it's been done in front of a blue screen.

Moan over. At least we have the LOTR trilogy to compensate.

RDB
Just what I was thinking last night. Id just finished the talk through and it really came across that the acting was very stage like where there are less visual props for the actors than there are in films. This means most of the acting is disengaged from the environment making it wooden, or better suited to a stage. The first (middle 3) didnt fall into this as the technology wasnt there so most shots had sets exceot for the space scenes.

The other thing I found amusing was Lucas saying that he used lots of reference points from the other films. So he would say I put this scene in because there is a similar one in new hope and I wanted to create a theme, doesnt this mean "I have no new material and there is a new generation of audience who wont have seen the original (middle 3)."

Also couldnt help noticing the console game type action. I could even feel my fingers twitching on the factory conveyer belt scene. Call me cynical but I could see exactly where the next set of lucas arts PC game plots were.

But "Rock Da Bass" you are right this generations star wars is LOTR, original, visually stunning, well acted and not as much of a merchandising medium. Lets hope Jackson doesnt get tempted to make a trilogy prequal based on the hobbit!!!!
 

Lex

Novice Member
Originally posted by nunew33
Lets hope Jackson doesnt get tempted to make a trilogy prequal based on the hobbit!!!!
Lets hope he does!! :eek: :)
 

nunew33

Standard Member
:eek:

LOTR was an epic. The hobbit was a pamphlet in comparison.


A one hour special maybe, but 3x3 hour films means a lot of padding. In fact you could most probably read the book quicker!!!!


Sad though it is you can just picture some movie mogul some where touting LOTR "the next generation" scripts about how frodo settles down to family life, but then his wife is kidnapped and he has to nip off for just one more mission, in the next film its his children, ad infinitum, until the theme has been bled to death on a brazilian made for TV sitcom.
 

Britcitchris

Standard Member
Blimey, and I thought I was sceptical.

Jackson is nothing like Lucas. Because of Lucas's visual ideals, I just do not see Jackson heading that way. I would be sorely upset if he did!

We have to accept that the Star Wars films of now are good entertainment but not the classics we know and love like their predecessors. ATOC was a great improvement over Phantom Menace. The story is better and the action and visuals, first rate. It is not a patch on Wars, Empire or Jedi and as we all probably suspect, the next one will not be either, but I am still looking forward to the next one, as the new Star Wars films still contain a visual and action style that I greatly enjoy.

Just my 2cents.
 
U

unrealnils

Guest
I thought this was easily the worse out of the 5 star wars movies
 

nunew33

Standard Member
So 5 people disappointed and 3 not so the general consensus is a film that doesnt live up to expectations.
 

Britcitchris

Standard Member
I think all would probably agree that no recent s.wars film has or will be up to it, anymore. We have grown up and technology has changed Lucas to a different style of directing.
 

nunew33

Standard Member
Couldnt have put it better myself regarding Lucas. As regards growing up, isnt the fact that we endlessly debate starwars and spend all our pocket money on AV toys, grin when our av amps get it right a sure sign that maturity is left at the door when we enter the AV world.
 

Britcitchris

Standard Member
You are quite right. We are still kids when it comes to our new toys and gadgets but we are no longer able to look at things through those rose coloured spectacles of innocence and THAT is the difference. Our years naturally make us judgemental.
 

godzilla

Novice Member
I am more of a fan of The Empire Strikes Back than the rest of the saga, but AOTC comes closer than any of the rest.
Return of the Jedi was easily the worst of the 5 so far. Ewoks saving the galaxy, pah!
 

DaveH

Active Member
I feel I have to say something...

TPM and ATOC are dire.

The effects are to blame but the scripts are awful.

The problem is Gary Kurtz is not involved. Which is why ROTJ was not up to TESB and Star Wars, but still good nonetheless.

Rick McCallum in my eyes is to blame he does not stand up to Lucas goes along with Lucas' crap ideas. and McCallum is not a star wars fan. he should not produce in my eyes.

Also, take the space battle scenes from these new films. They are too dynamic that they actually become static. Whereas in Star Wars (before being changed) the battle scenes are static but become dynamic.

For example in TPM the space scene is instantly forgettable as there is too much going on. Can anyone actually remember what the hell was going on in that battle? Noe compare the more static approach in Star Wars. Excellent. Dog Fights realistic looking battles where the dynamics of each fighter become realistic. The static battle becomes exciting thus dynamic.

In ROTJ there was so much going on but it still was enjoyable in the battle scenes as they models moved more realistically..

That's my moan over with...
 

bowenjones

Well-known Member
Originally posted by godzilla
I am more of a fan of The Empire Strikes Back than the rest of the saga, but AOTC comes closer than any of the rest.
Return of the Jedi was easily the worst of the 5 so far. Ewoks saving the galaxy, pah!
At least the whole cast put some effort into acting
their parts in ROTJ, unlike AOTC where I've seen better
acting in a school play (Haydn Christianson WAS absolutely
awful!).
Has George Lucas lost the plot when it comes to being
able to see if an actor has put in a good performance in
a scene or is it that to compensate for the cost of the cgi
they decided to save some money and time by doing just
one take?
Just imagine, you AOTC lovers, how much better it would have been if the acting had been of a higher standard.
If that had been the case then there wouldn't have been
half as many critics of the film as there are now.
I love the original trilogy and have watched them on
countless occasions and not once have I switched any
of them off when viewing. But I tried watching AOTC for
the third time last night (second time on dvd) and I just
couldn't watch it all the way through simply because of the
cringingly bad acting by HC and to a lesser extent, Natalie
Portman (who looked ashamed at times).
I really do hope that ep. 3 turns out to be a good film and
that Lucas spends a little more time analizing the actors
performances instead of the cgi creatures like he so obviously
did in ep. 2.:(
 

nunew33

Standard Member
Ive just finished the AOTC talk thru and its evident where George lucas comes from. Its with Glee that he says that no clone outfits were made as all the clones were cgi. Most of dooku action shots are cgi etc. Not once in the movies does he comment on acting other than how effectice Haydn and the chick were in the love scenes(!). All he talks about was the post production fiddling 2 get effects right.Lucas needs 2 see more movies. I still think that the character Yoda is the only convincing actor in the movie, but thats only because he gets the best lines.0

This is in stark contrast to a movie I watched last night, Monsters Ball. The directors walk thru was all about giving actors time and space to act emotion and use that emotion for tension. Its with absolute shpck that Halle Berry a prom queen can be seen acting a million times better than Ewam Mcgregors attempt in AOTC
 
R

ronsealdeath

Guest
All this cgi is a bad thing, in a few years time we won't need actors to act in front of a camera, they'll just record their voices and render them in a computer to look however they want to.
Be way cheaper than paying say arnold Schwarzenegger a heap of money for T3 even though he's old and rubbish now, just record some bum actor for 2p an hour and do CGI arnie as he was in 1984.
Anyway, AOTC was my baby simply cos you get to see Yoda in full Jedi hard as mode, I wouldn't have cared even if the rest of the film was Jar Jar binks singing Take That hits for 2 hours.
 

BadAss

Banned
Originally posted by ronsealdeath
All this cgi is a bad thing, in a few years time we won't need actors to act in front of a camera, they'll just record their voices and render them in a computer to look however they want to.
You havent seen Final Fantasy then?
 

Similar threads

The latest video from AVForums

Podcast: Samsung HW-Q950T Soundbar Review, Filmmaker Mode, Disney+ $30 for Mulan, AV news and more

Trending threads

Latest News

AVForums Podcast: 9th August 2020
  • By Phil Hinton
  • Published
Linn announces Majik DSM digital streamer upgrade
  • By Andy Bassett
  • Published
Sony announces WH-1000XM4 noise cancelling headphones
  • By Andy Bassett
  • Published
McIntosh launches C22 Mk V preamp and MC1502 power amplifier
  • By Andy Bassett
  • Published
Marantz unveils 12 Series Special Edition models
  • By Andy Bassett
  • Published
Top Bottom