logo Sign In

For me...it all came out in the end... — Page 2

This topic has been locked by a moderator.

Author
Time
Post link
I have no problem at all discussing it. And I thought you were saying that your preference for the classic trilogy had to do with having higher standards.
I am proud that I will not call bad acting good or just ignore poor writing or direction. The classic trilogy had all of these qualities as well yet you seem to think they are great movies despite having poor writing, direction and acting.If you can honestly say that you will take any old crap just because you want to be able to enjoy it, then I feel sorry for you. I have high standards when it comes to cinema and, for me, the most enjoyment I get is from seeing films made well.
I just don't see any point to holding the prequels to a higher standard than I held the classic trilogy to. If those were good enough for me to enjoy myself, then so are the prequels.

Your focus determines your reality.
Author
Time
Post link
What you're talking about is having low standards for the quality of a film.


This interests me quite a bit....why do a lot of people accept low standards for films these days? Movies that made it to the theater were usually pretty damn good. Sure, there were some stinkers every now and then....but I can't readily name movies from today that compare to the great films of the 60s and 70s or even from before. Nearly EVERYTHING that comes out in the theater is utter shit....even the movies that honestly should be good aren't that great.

When did low quality become so accepted? Probably when Jerry Springer became popular and it was okay for a President to lie to a grand jury and not be accountable for it. Shit is so ass backwards nowadays.

Stuff like Firefly get cancelled, but garbage like Dukes Of Hazzard gets made....go figure. Too many people accept low quality, so that's what they're going to get.

With all apologies to Gomer, but most of us here grew up in a more exciting time when films were made by filmmakers who loved making quality films. Sorry if we don't blindly accept the shit that's handed to us. Pardon the fuck outta us for expecting something more....
Author
Time
Post link
Apology accepted. I am 35 years old and remember the movies from back then too.

Have movies gotten worse over the years or have you become less accepting?

You can't tell me that kids were holding the classic trilogy to the same standards of acting, directing, or craft back then.

Our critiques were all more along the lines of "Cool" or "Wow" or "That's awesome!".

We certainly weren't looking for plot holes, continuity issues, acting proficiency or even contemplating what a Director's role was in all of it.

To tell you the truth, I also feel that movies today aren't what they used to be when Lucas and Speilburg ruled the box office with things like Star Wars and Indiana Jones.

But I do feel that the prequels uphold that tradition rather well.
Your focus determines your reality.
Author
Time
Post link
SW set the bar for making high quality films.....

And you're 35 years old my ass....
Author
Time
Post link
I was referring to the wider implications of your remarks. I actually said something about it in the 'What do u think of the PT' thread, but it got lost and you never responded.

I've heard these arguments you put forward so many times. That the films are for children or for "open-minded" people and that, because I "fell in love" with the OOT when a child, I couldn't see the flaws in it. Not only that, but that I still can't see the flaws in it and that that means that my expectations were so high for the PT that they could never live up to them.

Bollocks.

I can distinguish between what is good or bad in what I used to watch as a child. Some things I appreciate as good children's entertainment, some things I recognise as crap and some things I enjoy as an adult, with no qualification of what that means. The OOT, for me, fall into that last category. I do not claim that they are perfect. I wouldn't include them in a top-ten of the best films ever made. But they definitely occupy a priveliged place in my favourite films I've seen and probably always will do.

Why should the OOT be treated as such a special case?

As I asked in the other thread (and I'm still waiting for an answer), I still watch Labyrinth and The Princess Bride now. Is that because I can't see the flaws in them? And I enjoyed Superman and Superman II as a child. Does that mean that I won't be able to watch Superman Returns with my adult mind? Do I have to regress to the level of a child to enjoy films, Go-Mer-Tonic?
Don't you call me a mindless philosopher...!
Author
Time
Post link
No, I just suggest you allow yourself to roll along with the imperfections as you did for the classic trilogy.

I think what happens is when we are younger we see movies without contemplating the behind the scenes. We take the stories at face value and we either enjoy them or we don't. As we grow older, we develop more advanced critical faculties, but we never bother to hold our childhood favorites to this higher standard.

To me, the prequels were made with at least as much love and care as the classic trilogy, if not more. I don't understand why suddenly when an actor isn't the best, it's such a huge deal to so many people who had no trouble with Luke in the classic trilogy.

The only difference I can acertain from the many discussions I have had with people who think the prequels are leagues below the classic trilogy is the simple matter of preference.

That the classic trilogy was "good" to you (the good outweighed the bad) and that the prequels weren't so good to you (the bad outwieghed the good).

It's hard for me to relate to it, because to me the prequels are every bit as substantial as the classic trilogy was to me.
Your focus determines your reality.
Author
Time
Post link
I stillcan't see the flaws in it


Yeah....no shit. I wanna hear about these "flaws", Gomer.......and just leave ROTJ out of it. We all know that one is a little off center. Give me the "flaws" in SW and ESB.....I'll bet whatever you bring up is all Mickey Mouse bullshit.
Author
Time
Post link
The acting, despite what you say, is of a much poorer standard in the PT than in the OOT.

Hayden Christensen is not a good actor. I'm sorry, but he just isn't. He consummately fails to portray any depth whatsoever in his performance. It's all unsupported mugging, pretending to be feeling emotions that he has no thought of the reasons for. And his performance in the Darth Vader suit is ridiculous. There is no better word to describe his failure.

And Jake Lloyd comes across as what he is. A stage school brat.

Natalie Portman manages to come up with one of the worst performances she's ever given, lacking any hint of thought behind her vacant girl-who's-in-a-boy's-film pouting.

Ian McDiarmid is at his hammiest, lacking any of the creepiness or hint of the horrible threat that distinguished his performance in ROTJ.

Samuel L Jackson actually manages to be boring. He never seems at all connected to what's going on around him.

Ewan McGregor does his best, but is clearly struggling to maintain his focus at times.

Liam Neeson and Christopher Lee trot out their standard routines.
Don't you call me a mindless philosopher...!
Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: Go-Mer-Tonic
... but we never bother to hold our childhood favorites to this higher standard.
Sorry, I thought you'd actually bother to read what I posted. Obviously I was wrong.

Fuck this.
Don't you call me a mindless philosopher...!
Author
Time
Post link
Aura, I did read what you said, I just disagree that it's bullocks. I think there is a grandfather clause for the movies we fell in love with before our critical faculties were fully armed and operational.
Originally posted by: Cable-X1
I stillcan't see the flaws in it Yeah....no shit. I wanna hear about these "flaws", Gomer.......and just leave ROTJ out of it. We all know that one is a little off center. Give me the "flaws" in SW and ESB.....I'll bet whatever you bring up is all Mickey Mouse bullshit. That would of course match the Mickey Mouse BS you would bring up about the prequels.

ANH: "Not this ship sister." A clear use of contemporary 70's slang in a movie that was crafted to be timeless. This is no better than Jar-Jar saying "Exqueeze me".

ANH: "But I was going into Toshi Station to pick up some Power converters!" A tad on the hammy side. This delivery is no better than Anakins: "It's all Obi-Wan's fault, he's holding me back!"

Empire: Emperor: "Look at me, I'm a monkey woman!" This is a clear breach of continuity by the time ROTJ rolls around. The only thing that even comes close in the prequels is Yoda in TPM, which still looks more like Yoda than the Monkey Woman looked like the Emperor.

I don't have time to come up with a full sized list, but believe me I could go on like this for a while.
Originally posted by: auraloffalwaffle
The acting, despite what you say, is of a much poorer standard in the PT than in the OOT.

Hayden Christensen is not a good actor. I'm sorry, but he just isn't. He consummately fails to portray any depth whatsoever in his performance. It's all unsupported mugging, pretending to be feeling emotions that he has no thought of the reasons for. And his performance in the Darth Vader suit is ridiculous. There is no better word to describe his failure. I don't see his performance as being any worse than Mark Hammils. I wouldnt' call either ridiculous. I thought they both did a decent enough job.
And Jake Lloyd comes across as what he is. A stage school brat. He seemed like a regular kid to me. Mission accomplished.
Natalie Portman manages to come up with one of the worst performances she's ever given, lacking any hint of thought behind her vacant girl-who's-in-a-boy's-film pouting.
I thought it was of a much higher calibur than Carrie "Guess what I'm sniffing this week" Fisher. What some of you see as a soulless performance, I see as an admiral portrayal of restraint. To me the acting lies in her eyes, while the rest of her exterior exuded an inflappableness that would befit a Queen. I thought it was very well rendered.Ian McDiarmid is at his hammiest, lacking any of the creepiness or hint of the horrible threat that distinguished his performance in ROTJ.
I don't see any difference. To me the Emperor was also a pretty hammy performance. Evil Cackling? Check, turning words around on the heros to appear smart: Check.

It is you who are mistaken! Am not, are so, am not! Samuel L Jackson actually manages to be boring. He never seems at all connected to what's going on around him.
He's a Jedi and like all Jedi he tries not to let his emotions control his actions. Seems like he did a bang up job of it, even by your account.Ewan McGregor does his best, but is clearly struggling to maintain his focus at times.
I thought he did a very good job of living up to what Alec had already put forth. Certainly that has to be aknowledged.Liam Neeson and Christopher Lee trot out their standard routines.
Well that's certainly why one would hire Neeson or Lee now isn't it? I loved both of their performances, and aside from a few eyeline issues with CG characters on Liam's part, I thought they both fit the bill well.
Your focus determines your reality.
Author
Time
Post link
[ANH: "Not this ship sister." A clear use of contemporary 70's slang in a movie that was crafted to be timeless. This is no better than Jar-Jar saying "Exqueeze me".

Oh please....Mickey Mouse bullshit. Writing off the movie as a product of its time is so retarded, it's not worth commenting on....


ANH: "But I was going into Toshi Station to pick up some Power converters!" A tad on the hammy side. This delivery is no better than Anakins: "It's all Obi-Wan's fault, he's holding me back!"


Intentional whiny vs. hokey angst.....no contest.


Empire: Emperor: "Look at me, I'm a monkey woman!" This is a clear breach of continuity by the time ROTJ rolls around. The only thing that even comes close in the prequels is Yoda in TPM, which still looks more like Yoda than the Monkey Woman looked like the Emperor.


I told you to leave out ROTJ...still looks the same to me....the Emperor in ROTJ had weird eyes just like he did in ESB....

Your prequels stuff is all crap. These were all fine actors with tons of experience and credits to their name, yet they sucked ass in the prequels. The OT actors were all practically unknowns. Your case has nothing but holes, Gomer....pull your head outta your ass.
Author
Time
Post link
You first.
Your focus determines your reality.
Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: Cable-X1
Nanner is right here.....not sure I'd want to be a fan of such hokey crap.

gave the fans what they wanted.


I don't think it was ever about what the fans wanted back then. Lucas and Spielberg were out to impress themselves and make movies that would knock them out as filmgoers. I contend that the fans haven't changed, Lucas has. I didn't have outlandish expectations when I sat in the midnight show of TPM back in '99. I remember thinking that this is going to be different, yet familiar. Other than that, I really had no expectations and I still don't like TPM. Lucas changed...we didn't. We just wanted a STAR WARS movie....and whatever comes with a STAR WARS movie. Those prequels were not STAR WARS movies.

Lucas is older, jaded, unchallenged, obtuse and most of all...comfortable. The rest of us are still the wide-eyed, imaginative and impressionable kids and young people we were back in the glory days, who seek the same thrill, that's all. An ambitious and imaginative storyteller could have satiated our desire for a STAR WARS movie. Lucas is not such a storyteller anymore.

If I may be so bold as to make a comparison here....the OT is like Jaws and the PT is like Jaws: The Revenge. Anyone else agree with this?


And that's why I cut you some slack and think you're a pretty cool guy. Your quote should go on the back of a fan DVD cover...well said.
Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: Go-Mer-Tonic
You first.


Sorry....my focus has determined my reality....and my focus is not on my bowels....which is apparently what you are focused on since your nose is about an inch in it...
Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: TheCassidy
Originally posted by: Cable-X1
Nanner is right here.....not sure I'd want to be a fan of such hokey crap.

gave the fans what they wanted.


I don't think it was ever about what the fans wanted back then. Lucas and Spielberg were out to impress themselves and make movies that would knock them out as filmgoers. I contend that the fans haven't changed, Lucas has. I didn't have outlandish expectations when I sat in the midnight show of TPM back in '99. I remember thinking that this is going to be different, yet familiar. Other than that, I really had no expectations and I still don't like TPM. Lucas changed...we didn't. We just wanted a STAR WARS movie....and whatever comes with a STAR WARS movie. Those prequels were not STAR WARS movies.

Lucas is older, jaded, unchallenged, obtuse and most of all...comfortable. The rest of us are still the wide-eyed, imaginative and impressionable kids and young people we were back in the glory days, who seek the same thrill, that's all. An ambitious and imaginative storyteller could have satiated our desire for a STAR WARS movie. Lucas is not such a storyteller anymore.

If I may be so bold as to make a comparison here....the OT is like Jaws and the PT is like Jaws: The Revenge. Anyone else agree with this?


And that's why I cut you some slack and think you're a pretty cool guy. Your quote should go on the back of a fan DVD cover...well said.


Thank you, sir!!!
Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: Cable-X1
Originally posted by: Go-Mer-Tonic
You first.


Sorry....my focus has determined my reality....and my focus is not on my bowels....which is apparently what you are focused on since your nose is about an inch in it...
Interesting rebuttal. I think I'll counter with...

NA NA NA NA NA I can't hear you!

Your focus determines your reality.
Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: auraloffalwaffle

Ian McDiarmid is at his hammiest, lacking any of the creepiness or hint of the horrible threat that distinguished his performance in ROTJ.


To be honest, the Emperor from Return of the Jedi wasn't that great if you ask me. The only thing that was amazing about him was the creepy makeup job and the perception of frailty. Other than that, the character was cliche. The Emperor from Empire Strikes Back seemed more compelling.

"Now all Lucas has to do is make a cgi version of himself.  It will be better than the original and fit his original vision." - skyjedi2005

Author
Time
Post link
That's interesting. I don't think I have heard from anyone who prefers the ESB emperor over the ROTJ emperor.

I thought all the people who had a problem with the update in the SE's were more concerned with the dialogue used.
Your focus determines your reality.
Author
Time
Post link

NA NA NA NA NA I can't hear you!


You can do better than that....

Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: Go-Mer-Tonic
That's interesting. I don't think I have heard from anyone who prefers the ESB emperor over the ROTJ emperor.


I prefer the ESB Emperor....there's something much more sinister about him than in ROTJ. Something grotesquely evil...

Author
Time
Post link
Well, the emperor from ESB had a smooth voice and seemed self-assured in an extremely calm way. He had no need for boisterous taunting or cackling like some cranky old pervert. It was very cool. Then Jedi changed that dramatically. We got the cliche asshole who was took fiendish delite in spreading evil. I'm not saying that Jedi's emperor was bad, but Empire's was better.

Either way, in terms of the SE, there wasn't that big of a difference between the two emperors to justify erasing one. I have saved myself from watching the 2004 SEs so I have no idea what the dialogue changes are. In the end, its just another perfect reason why the original theatrical releases should be available alongside the SEs at the very least.

"Now all Lucas has to do is make a cgi version of himself.  It will be better than the original and fit his original vision." - skyjedi2005

Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: Cable-X1
Originally posted by: Go-Mer-Tonic
He doesn't care about the people who don't like what he's doing.

He still remembers the fans who made him what he is today, he just doesn't put much stock in the ones who turned their back on him since ESB or ROTJ. To him they are in the same pile he put the people who said the O-OT sucked.

But he loves his fans.


Gomer.....if Lucas came to a sudden halt, your face would go halfway up his ass.


That made my day. Though I might have said that Lucas's dick would go through the back of Go-Mer's throat.
Watch DarthEvil's Who Framed Darth Vader? video on YouTube!

You can also access the entire Horriffic Violence Theater Series from my Channel Page.
Author
Time
Post link
I LOVE the Emperor in RotJ. Best thing about that movie, by far!


Most people seem to forget that the original point of Star Wars was to take a bunch of Hollywood cliches, accentuated on the serial brand of cliches, and do them both way better than ever -and- a bit tongue in cheek.

The cackling, mustache-twirling Emperor was CLASSIC StarWarsness.


Perhaps the hologram Emperior of ESB was more believable, but hardly an indelible and memorable character that could carry a movie. McDiarmid's performance in Jedi was delightful, a perfect combination of menace and, yes, comedy. Every line delivered with style and charisma.



To each his own, of course, but I rather prefer my space-opera movie-serials to be a little on the goofy side, with plenty of fun and eye-twinkle. Star Wars fit that bill perfectly - and won the appreciation of the world. Its sequels and prequels have never fared as well in capturing that elusive tone.



.
Author
Time
Post link
I certainly like my Star Wars with extra cheese.

I'm trying to imagine the original ESB emperor carried through to the end. He almost comes off like some kind of cold-blooded executive in ESB. That could have been a lot different if he hadn't gone all cackley in ROTJ.

I certainly did like Ian's over the top performance. It was like something out of a good Disney film.
Your focus determines your reality.
Author
Time
Post link
Dammit, the emperor in RotJ is perhaps one of the best captured villain performances on film, and it is (HELL NO) not because he was cheesy... pfft. It's the opposite. He was to me anyway more badass and super powerful than any villain i've ever seen before, even vader (gasp, shock) just like Yoda warned Luke he was and remember how vader says "the emperor is not as forgiving... etc bla bla" That's really what makes him so cool. He's like the original jabba before that blob of cgi shit was put in the special-ed edition, just this unseen important character who's the reason for whatever trouble our the heros are in. So I expected someone truly evil and twisted, and yep, that's what we got. He could have been a stupidly bumbling bafoon like in Rots after Sam Jackson dies, but he wasn't. He calmly sits there and pulls the strings, yes, like the typical movie villain, but what really was special about Ian's original emperor was that he added his own attitude and vocal flourishes to the performance that made it iconic to me. That happy go lucky bastard clown in the PT was a joke. I liked him better as the slimey evil manipulator during that opera scene. Ian was brilliant, 100% emperor palpatine right there, but lucas had to fuck it up later. Good grief...

Anyway, back on topic. I'll never buy the SE's, not even to break them and send them back to Lucas in pieces, but that's hilarious what you did. It'd be a fine way to protest his endless meddling with the films.

edit: Finally back! what the heck happened to the forum for about an hour?
He big in nothing important in good elephant.

"Miss you, I will, Original Trilogy..."

"Your midichlorians are weak, Old man." -Darth Vader 2007 super deluxe extra special dipped in chocolate sauce edition.

http://prequelsstink.ytmnd.com/