ROTJ is the best Star Wars film... discuss! — Page 21

xhonzi said:

imperialscum said:

Bingowings said:

Planet Killing Space Station CHECK

Of course there was a planet killing station. Should imps start to build refrigerators instead?

?

WRONG SHIRT!

I don't want to argue the EU side... they don't even have a name or full biography of the force kick guy but they have Daleks in Star Wars???

Bollux to that.

Puggo - Jar Jar's Yoda said:

ROTJ is a poorly-conceived movie with ridiculous plot holes and a shoddy structure, that is totally rescued by the wonderful additions of two memorable characters: Jabba, and the Emperor.  Every scene with those characters in them are marvelous, and the juxtaposition of a wrinkly old evil sorceror with this high-tech space battle is fabulously done. The climactic scene with Vader, Luke, and the Emperor is on a par with anything in the OT. So despite its flaws, I still rank it close to SW and ESB.  I think anyone who puts ROTS even close to ROTJ must be looking through strange glasses - it's not even close.  My ratings:

SW - 10
ESB - 9.5
ROTJ - 8.5
TPM - 3
AOTC - 2
ROTS - 2

ANH - 9.8
ESB - 9.9
ROTJ - 5

TPM - 5
AOTC - 5
ROTS - 6.5

I'm feeling generous. Ask me later and my scores for the PT may have lowered, but the OT scores are concrete.

ANH 9

ESB 9.5

ROTJ 5

TPM 4

AOTC 3.5

ROTS 3.5

AntcuFaalb said:

ANH: 8

TESB: 8

ROTJ: 9

I wish to understand.

Reegar said:

AntcuFaalb said:

ANH: 8

TESB: 8

ROTJ: 9

I wish to understand.

You're one to talk :P Seriously, the prequels are a crime against filmmaking and they get every single thing about Star Wars and cinema itself wrong, aside from maybe the casting choice (and only the choice. Maybe) of young Obi-Wan Kenobi. Why would you rate them so ridiculously high? In fact, why would you rate them at all since they're basically anti-movies? Soft spot, nostalgia? I'm genuinely curious.

edit: somehow I managed to miss Bingowings' post. I guess I'd have to ask the exact same thing. I knew a person once who started with AotC and liked that one the most out of all of them, because she thought Anakin was cute. Is that why you people like the PT so much? ;)

3.5 and 4 compared to 9 is that ridiculously high?

Star Wars (1977) was amazing and it still holds up well now. It's a masterclass in editing alone.

ESB (for me) is a better film, almost perfect (ergo 9.5).

ROTJ is a major let down not quite half the film as the original.

TPM is slightly worse and AOTC and ROTS slightly worse still.

I have no nostalgia for the PT I can assure you.

m_s0 said:

Reegar said:

AntcuFaalb said:

ANH: 8

TESB: 8

ROTJ: 9

I wish to understand.

You're one to talk :P Seriously, the prequels are a crime against filmmaking and they get every single thing about Star Wars and cinema itself wrong, aside from maybe the casting choice (and only the choice. Maybe) of young Obi-Wan Kenobi. Why would you rate them so ridiculously high? In fact, why would you rate them at all since they're basically anti-movies? Soft spot, nostalgia? I'm genuinely curious.

edit: somehow I managed to miss Bingowings' post. I guess I'd have to ask the exact same thing. I knew a person once who started with AotC and liked that one the most out of all of them, because she thought Anakin was cute. Is that why you people like the PT so much? ;)

Let's place it in a different context for clarity. In primary school, my PT scores equal...

TPM: F- (fail)

AOTC: F- (fail)

ROTS: D+ (pass, but barely, and my view of it may be deluded by the novelization) 

I can almost guarantee you that I've watched Mr. Plinkett's reviews more times than anyone on this forum. I know exactly where you're coming from when you rate them 1's and 2's. The PT's flaws and Lucas' poor decisions brought about those reviews. And those reviews helped me become a better writer with a firmer grasp on character and plot. I borderline like them for that alone. They're entertaining and educational, and left a vast world of entertainment and education in their wake.

A film like Garbage Pail Kids gives nothing to the viewer. As Doug Walker said, it takes away. It's pain for the sake of pain.

There are destructive films, and then there are bad films that can add to people's lives.

Bingowings said:

3.5 and 4 compared to 9 is that ridiculously high?

That's how I see it. Seriously, the scripts are utterly incomprehensible, the storytelling is non-existent, the acting is abysmal, the special effects are overabundant, pointless and distracting, the editing is so bland it's surreal, and so on. I'm not exaggerating: there's not a single element in these movies that's not poorly conceived and executed so horribly it's almost fascinating. That's not what I'd rate 3,5 and 4.

Oh, by the way, I'm not attacking you or anything, so don't take it personally ;)

Star Wars (1977) was amazing and it still holds up well now. It's a masterclass in editing alone.

ESB (for me) is a better film, almost perfect (ergo 9.5).

ROTJ is a major let down not quite half the film as the original.

TPM is slightly worse and AOTC and ROTS slightly worse still.

I agree with the above completely. However, as disappointing as RotJ may be, it still feels like it was made by human beings who just happened to screw up. The PT is clean and bland to the point where it feels like it was made by Data from Star Trek. He's seen some movies, he managed to get from them that there's people talking and action from time to time, but has no clue why any of that is there and what purpose does anything serve.

I know it's been argued to death, but that's my two cents.

As far as rating the movies, I'm not a fan of numbers. I can say that

ESB is both the best and the one I like the most,

SW follows - noticeably flawed, but exciting and fun,

RotJ comes in third. Wasted potential, but there's still enjoyment to be found there.

Too bad they never made more Star Wars movies, right? ;)

Reegar said:

m_s0 said:

Reegar said:

AntcuFaalb said:

ANH: 8

TESB: 8

ROTJ: 9

I wish to understand.

You're one to talk :P Seriously, the prequels are a crime against filmmaking and they get every single thing about Star Wars and cinema itself wrong, aside from maybe the casting choice (and only the choice. Maybe) of young Obi-Wan Kenobi. Why would you rate them so ridiculously high? In fact, why would you rate them at all since they're basically anti-movies? Soft spot, nostalgia? I'm genuinely curious.

edit: somehow I managed to miss Bingowings' post. I guess I'd have to ask the exact same thing. I knew a person once who started with AotC and liked that one the most out of all of them, because she thought Anakin was cute. Is that why you people like the PT so much? ;)

Let's place it in a different context for clarity. In primary school, my PT scores equal...

TPM: F- (fail)

AOTC: F- (fail)

ROTS: D+ (pass, but barely, and my view of it may be deluded by the novelization) 

I can almost guarantee you that I've watched Mr. Plinkett's reviews more times than anyone on this forum. I know exactly where you're coming from when you rate them 1's and 2's. The PT's flaws and Lucas' poor decisions brought about those reviews. And those reviews helped me become a better writer with a firmer grasp on character and plot. I borderline like them for that alone. They're entertaining and educational, and left a vast world of entertainment and education in their wake.

Reegar said:

A film like Garbage Pail Kids gives nothing to the viewer. As Doug Walker said, it takes away. It's pain for the sake of pain.

There are destructive films, and then there are bad films that can add to people's lives.

That's a good point. I agree that there's much to be learned from the PT (I did say I think of them as "anti-movies" and not without reason), but I wouldn't rate it higher because of that. That's not a redeeming factor when judging a movie in my book.

Oh, and 1's and 2's are still too good for them IMO ;)

You're right, and it shouldn't play a part in an objective rating. But I thought of the PT and had a heartwarming sensation. :P

The second time I saw TPM I enjoyed aspects of it, it was still a bad film but I was less bewildered by how awful most it was.

I could salvage some some enjoyment from the design and Ian's performance as Palpatine, from the pod race, the saber duel and the score.

It was a very similar experience to watching ROTJ for me only less lively and lacking the emotional investment in the characters earned from two previous good films.

The first time I watched AOTC and ROTS they felt more like Star Wars than TPM (because of the superficial design similarities mostly) but on further viewings became more and more awful and less and less like Star Wars.

Reegar said:

You're right, and it shouldn't play a part in an objective rating.

The problem I have with this statement is that there's no such thing as an objective rating. Objectively speaking, there's CGI in the PT. Subjectively speaking, it's detrimental to the storytelling. The first one is fact, you really can't argue with that unless you're a solipsist. The second one is an opinion you can disagree with.

It's a pet peeve of mine.

I don't know, I'd have to think on that one for a while.

Good storytelling seems like it should be able to exist objectively, even if it takes a human mind to appreciate it.

Reegar said:

I don't know, I'd have to think on that one for a while.

Good storytelling seems like it should be able to exist objectively, even if it takes a human mind to appreciate it.

Well, I don't think so. Look at the people who consider Empire the most boring Star Wars movie, even though the common view is that the storytelling is masterful in that movie. People have subjective criteria for storytelling and what you may consider objective when it comes to judging storytelling (again, "good", "judging" etc. just sounds weird when used in conjuction with "objective" to me) comes down to a widely accepted convention (which would be an amalgamation of subjective views in this case. Or something). It all depends on your definition of objectivism, I suppose.

My brain hurts. On to complaining about the PT:

Bingowings said:

The second time I saw TPM I enjoyed aspects of it, it was still a bad film but I was less bewildered by how awful most it was.

I could salvage some some enjoyment from the design and Ian's performance as Palpatine, from the pod race, the saber duel and the score.

It was a very similar experience to watching ROTJ for me only less lively and lacking the emotional investment in the characters earned from two previous good films.

The first time I watch AOTC and ROTS they felt more like Star Wars than TPM (because of the superficial design similarities mostly) but on further viewings became more and more awful and less and less like Star Wars.

I'll never forget the first time I saw TPM. It was nothing like the Star Wars I loved. There was no sense of adventure and excitement, no joy anywhere. A soulless husk of a movie, a caricature with a couple of flashy scenes I did not care about anyway. I didn't even see the second until a few years after the third one, but a friend of mine lent me the novelization. Still one of the worst pieces of fiction I've had the displeasure of reading. The third one I went to see because I was curious about how they'd approach bridging the two trilogies.

Basically, all the problems I had with TPM carried over, and many more were introduced in the following movies. AotC is the most offensively bad of the bunch to me.