Akwat Kbrana said:

Asteroid-Man said:

Akwat Kbrana said:

So regarding the PT as badly-acted is elitist, but asserting with equal dogmatism that the entire saga is badly-acted is...what, fair & balanced?

 they're incredibly cheesy - people take their love of the original universe created and blow it out of proportion.

See, in my opinion this is far more elitist than the manifold complaints about the PT's poor writing, acting, and execution. You're basically saying that those who prefer the OT over the PT don't have valid opinions because their opinions have been distorted by nostalgia. And that's a lot more elitist than anything RLM and his fans are saying.

First of all I never said the saga was "badly-acted", I said the acting wasn't it's strong point - for example, look at an ensemble cast like that of in BB/TDK and even LOTR and compare it to SW. Saying "the acting in SW is amazing" is just naive and biased. Look, I LOVE Star Wars, but even I can admit Hamill's acting in the SW and ESB wasn't anything special... ESPECIALLY his reaction to Vader's revelation.

That's not what I'm saying, I'm saying those who unconditionally see the OT as perfection and the PT as pure dribble have their opinions distorted by nostalgia - so if you think everyone at OT unconditionally loves the OT and sees it as perfect then I guess you would take it that way, but most people on these forums can point out the flaws to even the OT.

Ok, so you're talking mainly about the haljordan28 types, who really do assume that the OT is utterly flawless and the PT is utterly flawed. Well that makes a bit more sense then; I just thought you were being hyperbolic. In that case, your charge of elitism is probably pretty accurate. Then again, that mindset is really only displayed by the kook fringe, both in terms of Star Wars fandom at large as well as on this site in particular. I'd say the kind of knee-jerk OT = good / PT = bad mentality has so few adherents on this forum that you could count them on one hand. Most of the members here would be considered "bashers" by TFNers, but are actually pretty rational in approaching the SW saga and criticizing the PT. So why focus on the few loonies whose poorly-expressed ramblings are (in my opinion) not really even worth reading?

As for the acting merits of the OT...well, as Bingowings said we're obviously going to have to agree to disagree. I'll confess that the OT's acting may not be quite on par with, say, LOTR, but I wouldn't agree that it's inherently weak. Obviously what makes acting good or bad is partially subjective, but my criterion is this: good acting is that which effectively portrays characters as real people, and thus succeeds in suspending disbelief. Are some of Han's one-liners cheesy? Perhaps. But at no point in SW or ESB do I find the characters to be unconvincing or artificial. (ROTJ is admittedly a good deal weaker in this area.) When I'm watching Han, Luke, and Leia in these films, I see Han, Luke, and Leia. Quite to the contrary, when I watch the PT, all I can see is a group of actors trying valiantly to portray some poorly-written characters, and failing in that endeavor. In Ep. 1-3, the characters don't feel real to me. This, at least as far as I'm concerned, makes the PT acting incredibly bad.

Even at its weakest point (ROTJ), I don't think the OT approaches the level of poor acting that the PT evidences throughout its run. Carrie and Harrison do seem to be "phoning in" on this one, though its more noticeable in Carrie's case since Harrison's natural charisma allows him to coast a little without too much collateral damage. Moreover, Mark really pulled out all the stops in this one and delivered such an impressive performance that it almost makes up for the weak performances of his co-stars. IMO, at least.

/completely agree.

Additionally to that, the most impressive feat ROTJ pulled off was introducing this utter cartoon of a monster uber villain, complete with bad, black teeth, forced evil laughter and saying things like "foolly oparatayshanal battl stayshannn!" all while cackling like the witch from Snowy White or something, and making him come off as a CHILLINGLY MENACING IMPERSONATION OF EVIL that can make you feel like burning in the eternal flames of hell for millenia just by looking at you.

Jesus H. Christ... when I see the Emperor in that movie, I don't see a cackling cheesy cartoon that relies too much on overemphasized speech patterns and evil make-up to drive home the point that this character is EVIL... I get fucking scared.

Quite a feat.

Now EpIII is a whole other story... but I guess McDiarmid is just a really cool guy :D

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AuL8aWWGUTQ

He looks a bit like Martin Short there...

TV's Frink said:

bkev said:

Wall of quoted text makes me a sad panda.

Glad I'm not the only one.

Makes me a very sad Borg, too... well, I cryalot in that dreamland with the horny Klingon, then I come back and remember nothing :DD

nvm - it was a (lame) inside-joke only for the smart ones who are in *the* know :P

TV's Frink said:

twooffour said:

nvm - it was a (very shitty and lame) inside-joke, certainly referring to something godawaful anyone who'd understand it would be probably ashamed of even knowing, anyway; so yea, no one cares about your, *ahem* mine, I said mine, er, my lame in-joke, because no one's lame enough to look at shitty stuff like the kind I watch! Yea.. !! 

fixxx0rt

Hey, you can't just go around quoting my posts and changing the text like that!

Plus, it's spelled "fixed", not "fixord" - we're not on some kind of silly geek forum here, you know...

Who... ME???

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9xuvbAhYlx4

NNNNNeevaaaar!

Thanks :)

Thing is, though, the source of that reference is pretty lame, and so is my screenname :DD

Asteroid-Man said:

 

NO ONE watches Star Wars because of the acting... [/QUOTE]

 

Um, what?? Whenever I happen to feel like rewatching parts of the OT just for the sake of it, I do it pretty much exclusively for the actors' scenes.

 

James Earl Jones and his physical counterpart(s) just amount to such a glorious piece of ham... there's a reason he's so famous, you know.

McDiarmid... WOW. Again, there's a reason Mike Stoklasa from RLM keeps impersonating the Emperor voice whenever he can, and it's not about to get old any soon.

Ford is just a glorious bad boy swashbuckler, certainly so in the first two movies - not only did he come up with some of his own one-liners, he's actually FRICKIN' ENJOYABLE TO WATCH. He carries Indiana Jones, and does the same with Han Solo, as well.

Mark Hamill is perfect for his role, and every stage of character development he goes through the entire trilogy - he holds the series together. Be it the somewhat whiny farmerboy, the campy "I'm here to rescue here" Flash Gordon cutout, the doubting and learning apprentice in Empire, the struck by fate hero, or the calm badass from ROTJ.

 

Carries' acting in ANH was pretty cheesy (but then again, I'm not sure whether by accident, since she, after all, did get to play the "space princess" with the slug hairdo), and not always sure about ROTJ, but she contributes to the chemistry and fun of the Solo/Leia interaction in ESB just as much as Ford.

 

Daniels pulls off his role perfectly - again, there's a reason he's become so iconic.

Then, there's all the whacky monsters and robots, like Greedo, Jabba, Yoda, the pink slave guy, or even the "condemned criminal" with the broken nose - all of them extremely creative and fun creations, but all of them highly memorable through their VOICE ACTING.

 

There's a reason why Yoda comes off as wise and believable in ESB, no matter what he says, and as cheesy and silly in the prequels, and it ain't just the dialogue.

Greedo and Jabba are so damn rewatchable at least 50% due to the voice acting.

 

Then, to add to that, each Imperial in the series has a different personality, and contributes to the "Empire scenes" ending up so memorable and impressive not just due to Vader and Cushing.

 

 

The last reason I ever put on the OT DVDs are the action scenes. Sure, they're fun and well-made, and look "real" and all, but I'd much rather watch Luke and Han bickering in the DS control room than sit through the somewhat dull dogfight.

Can't really find myself caring for the giant robot camels, as well. WTF?

 

 

twooffour said:

 

You know, by this point I feel the need to askyou  the question directly: do you understand the difference between "bad" (or "not good") and "cheesy"? Because they ain't the same thing.

As for my previous response, I never said those movies were bad because of all the cheese, did I? Fact remains, there's a whole shitload of cheese and narm in LOTR, ST09 and Batman. And you said "virtually cheeseless"

No I understood that, but you were prepared to put the cheese of Star Wars in the context of the film, but you didn't do it for LOTR or ST.

 

Um what? That's precisely why I asked you the question above: You denied all those other films being "cheesy". I spoke out for the OT's QUALITY OF THE ACTING.

 

If a character is made of pure unadulterated "cheese" like C-3P0, I'm gonna judge his performance by how well he pulls off the "cheesy role". Get it?

 

When did I ever put anything "into context"??? Heck, SW has its own "narm page" on TV Tropes. For Fuck's Sake....

 

 

 

And Batman isn't cheesy - at all. The one thing you might not have liked was the voice, but that was a poor choice on the audio editor's fault, not the director or the actor or the writer.

 

Umm.. WHWWWATTTT??!!!! Christian Bale did the voice himself, he even talked about having an easier time with it in Dark Knight.

Then, I don't fucking care, because it ended up in the movie. Twice. And also how he moves his mouth while doing that voice.... also the audio editor, huh?

 

And yea, if you look at BB with all its cheap patronizing one-liners, and all those whacky "witness scenes" (like them kids playing with the toy guns in the car... WTF??), a lot of it is, indeed, very cheesy.

Then, TDK has some craptastic dialogue during the Two-Face climax, too.

 

Sorry to break it to you.

 

I can't care for the "patronizing one-liners", but I certainly get the humor of those short witness cuts - sure they're kinda fun and whacky, but ultimately I felt they didn't fit and took me out of the movie.

It's like, "omg we can't leave it this dark, come on, let's shoehorn a Baat-maaaan! into the movie once in a while, uh? Like, these two shits are playing with the toy guns for no reason, and then they see the explosions, and boom boom!!! LOL! Then, like, they say "oh, it's not the bikers, it's not the hikers... it's BATMAN!!!".

 

And LOTR was meant to show the dark moments very dark and the light moments very light to reflect the feelings people got reading the books at the time which were meant to reflect peoples REAL emotions at the time of the Second World War.

 

I'm not talking about the light moments in the Shire, though. I'm talking about how fucking narmtastic and hammy some of Gandalf's, Saruman's, and other supposedly "serious climactic moments" come off in the movie.

Also the fact that they made cheap, easy comic reliefs out of Gimli and Pippin, where originally, they actually weren't.

 

I get there's a lot of "lightness" and "humor" in those movies, but somehow I doubt those elements were designed to be as silly as they ended up.

And that's a key difference to Star Wars - Star Wars, and certainly so the first movie, was designed as a "whacky space adventure" from the start on.

 

Star Trek 2009 wasn't cheesy...

 

By cheesy, I'm talking about those truly *face-palm* worthy scenes.

 

So how about that time where Spock just sends away Kirk on a dangerous, deadly ice planet, and then he meets Fanservice Spock, and then Scotty and that FUCKING GREEN THING THAT CONSTANTLY SITS ON THINGS... that's not "face-palm", to you?

 

Anyway, yea, ST09 wasn't "cheesy".... DREAM THE FUCK ON.

 

[QUOTE]Star Wars has a few in every film - denying this is foolish. It's the aspect that draws in kids. Star Wars has elements of film targeted for all audiences and ages, obviously they have to implement cheesy one liners and predictable outcomes (ESB aside) to appeal to them.

Oh, and how.

Oops, teh quote fail,

Asteroid-Man said:

That's some confusing shit... and you just seem like you want to argue for arguments sake...

Yea yea, right on... when you can't be bothered to read, or start realizing that you're being kinda seriously rebuked, don't politely bow out of the discussion by just posting nothing.... no, make like a defiant face and say something dismissive like "ohhh you're just arguing because you can, right??!! ha!"

Oh, and you don't, yea? Just give us all another completely random list of movies ranging from cheesy fantasy spectacles to dead-serious holocaust movies, and insist on how others use some sort of double standard when comparing those to Star Wars which they claim to be not cheesy, when they don't, and I might just try explaining to you how Star Trek 09 is an incredibly silly movie.

Yea, arguing just for argument's sake, right... ohh, boo hoo, I guess I really just watch the OT for the action scenes, and just made all that up... you know, for argument's sake... so your point still stands.

Way to go, asteroid, way to go!

skyjedi2005 said:

You could argue star Trek 2009's sillyness.  Since it is basically a remake of star wars 1977, with a bit of empire strikes back thrown in for good measure,lol.

You could also point out that the design seems like a ripoff of the remake of Galactica, and that a lot seems to have been borrowed from the bad movie adaptation of starship troopers.

No.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M67nnd8FjLk

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VL_nHrYPxNw

It was silly because it was silly.