I want my money back from the 04 DVDs and the prequels tickets. — Page 2

LordVader said:

Mielr said:

Gaffer Tape said:

Lame fights?!  Oooooooooooooooooooh.

Yeah, them's fightin' words......

 

 Don't get me wrong, when I saw my first lightsaber duel between old Ben and Vader I was in awe, now lets compare that to the choreographed masterpiece between Ray Park, Ewan McGregor, and Liam Neeson, truth be told fightwise there is no comparison, but its understandable Obi Wan is old and Darth Vader is well past his prime, that's not to say I don't enjoy the old fights, especially Adywan's remix of it.

The Phantom Menace fight was overdone and pompous. The OOT fights weren't lame in the slightest.

i disagree. i thought it was the best fight out of all the movies. obi-wan and anikan was my second favorite. empire third. anyways, the fight was that intense though because the jedi were abundent and at full bloom and well trained. the battle thought really showed what a lightsaber battle was like.

rcb said:

i disagree. i thought it was the best fight out of all the movies. obi-wan and anikan was my second favorite. empire third. anyways, the fight was that intense though because the jedi were abundent and at full bloom and well trained. the battle thought really showed what a lightsaber battle was like.

The big lava fight with Obi Wan and Anakin was one of the lamest most awful scenes ever called Star Wars. Totally artificial, total bullshit and totally uninvolving. Totally overdone too.

C3PX said:

even though you had crazy low expectations for this film after seeing AOTC, the movie still managed to suck a lot harder that you though it would

That was precisely my experience. I was seriously disappointed by AOTC and I expected something on that level for ROTS and what I got was way worse. I couldn't believe how bad ROTS was. The first time I saw ROTS I had trouble staying awake because it was so uninvolving.

And the Yoda saberfight in AOTC was amazingly lame, reminded me of Kermit the frog dueling in Muppet's Treasure Island, not sure why. I felt embarressed to be watching the movie when Yoda started jumping around like a loon.

Yeah, Yoda flying around with his lightsabre buzzing was the lamest thing ever. He was like some overgrown bee or fly. So painful. And I bet Lucas thought it was so cool. And then there was the Yoda/Emperor battle in ROTS, which made them both look so lame. You keep getting these really lame scenes that you're supposed to think are really cool -a defining trait of the prequels is trying to pass off extreme lameness as extreme coolness.

And I nearly started laughing when Obi-Wan and Anakin where hovering over the lava riding on the backs of droids.

All the jumping and balancing  and swinging and climbing around, it was really implausible they didn't fall in or get cooked (and I wanted them to). When Anakin finally did get burnt up it was seriously anticlimactic. And Anakin ranting at Kenobi was so lame. And Kenobi "You were the Chosen One!" Good lord Obi, you bought that hype? The lava scene was almost comically overdone and totally uninvolving and it was supposed to be so SIGNIFICANT. The music in particular really layed it on thick.

Oh, but Palpatine's big fight with the three stooges, two of them going down in the first two seconds, gets the award for the worst saber duel of all time, and the acting in that scene managed to make it even more unbearable that it already was.

The Jedi were made such annoying idiots in the prequels that I liked seeing those guys go down. And did they have to make the alien appearance of some of the Jedi look so dumb? Kit Fisto being so silly-looking made me enjoy his death more. Of the ones on the council, wtf is that on Ki Adi Mundi's head? The council are idiots anyway. Great, Lucas, bring us back to the great age of the Jedi to see what posers they were. I know the Republic was supposed to be declining, but seriously. Order 66 was a distinct relief. And considering it was supposed to be tragic, that's a distinct failure of filmmaking.

RRS-1980 said:

Vaderisnothayden said:

The Jedi were made such annoying idiots in the prequels that I liked seeing those guys go down.

:D I guess I'm not alone, then.

:) I suspect there's more of us out there too.

idk. you tell me.

Gaffer Tape said:

I see that, briefly, the rationalization of the old man vs. the machine was used in this conversation.  I have to say that's one of my least favorites.  Thankfully, this thread moved on to users' preferences, because that's really the only way to gauge the fights.  I pretty much agree with a lot of what's been said here.  Empire's duel is my favorite.  It always has been since the first time I saw it.  It always felt the most real and the most grueling.  Jedi's was good too but in a different sense.  It has an emotional resonance, but since Luke refuses to fight for most of it, it doesn't have the same sense of action that Empire's had.  I also enjoy watching the prequels' fights because some of them do look cool, like in TPM.  I even enjoyed Vader vs. Obi-Wan, although the balancing on various bits of metal at the end broke my suspension of disbelief completely!

But the fights of the two trilogies were created under two totally different mindsets, choreographed by different people, and they just don't mesh together.  It's up to the viewer's preference if they prefer the more down-to-earth, grueling battles of the OT or the flashy acrobatics of the PT.  But to try to rationalize why the fights in the OT didn't look like the fights in the PT because of the old "Ben's an old man, and Vader's a robot" is just silly, especially because, even though George coined it, he largely ignored it.  Let's explore:

Ben's an old man--Yes, but there are old men characters in the prequels:  Dooku, Yoda, and Palpatine.

Vader's a robot--Somewhat, but there is a mechanical construct in the prequels:  General Grievous.

And, guess what?  All of those characters are constantly seen jumping around like they have briars up their asses, so... how exactly does this argument hold water?

In one of the Phantom Menace dvd featurettes Lucas says that we haven't seen a real Jedi fighting before the prequels and all we saw we're half-men half-droids and young boys trained by these old people. So the prequels fights were faster and more energetic because it's real Jedi in their prime in the prime of the Jedi. Or something like that. And I just don't buy it. I find it really hard to believe that during the filming of the OT Lucas was going "Let's make these guys slower, because they're not real Jedi and not up to Jedi standard." And that's not how the characters were portrayed. ESB Luke wasn't up to Jedi standard, but ROTJ Luke is portrayed as if he is. There's no indication whatsoever that Vader is supposed to be a useless fighter by Jedi standards, or that Kenobi isn't up to Jedi  standard either. In one of the drafts of the first film's screenplay Kenobi was supposed to be weaker in the force because he was older, but that was conspicuously lacking in what reached the screen. I think it's all just a stupid excuse invented in prequel times to account for how the prequels' fights are more energetic because modern screen fights are more energetic than old ones. And it's insulting to the old films, because it belittles the OT characters. Trust Lucas to do down the OT. God, does he REALLY want us to go through the OT thinking, "God, that Darth Vader is such a lame fighter, he couldn't hold his own against Salacious Crumb"?

Vaderisnothayden said:

Art is subjective, but only up to a point.

Wrong. Art is subjective all the way through. Somewhere out there, someone may think Manos: The Hands of Fate is the greatest movie ever made. While just about every other individual on the planet may disagree with him, we can never actually prove him wrong.

Johnboy3434 said:

Vaderisnothayden said:

Art is subjective, but only up to a point.

 

Wrong. Art is subjective all the way through. Somewhere out there, someone may think Manos: The Hands of Fate is the greatest movie ever made. While just about every other individual on the planet may disagree with him, we can never actually prove him wrong.

That is a comfortable view that allows people to pretend everybody is equally right about works of art, but it just isn't true. Not everything about art is subjective. We shouldn't cling to handy untruths just because they're handy.

see you auntie said:

Didn't Lucas originally imagine lightsabers or more importantly the weapon that a Jedi wields as requiring an immense amount of focus to use as they were supposedly made of a dense energy.  Hence Jedi were the only ones who could weild them and why they often used a two handed grip, because they were heavy, and they'd use short precise strikes as not to waste energy fighting.

I don't even know if that make any sense (a dense energy?) but my memory of this is fuzzy. If anyone knows what the hell I'm talking about please add some input.

 

IN TPM there's a hint that the only-Jedis-can-use-them rule has gone. Because Qui Gon tells Anakin maybe his possession of a lightsaber doesn't mean he's a Jedi, maybe he just killed a Jedi and took it from them. Presumably a guy wouldn't be carrying around a weapon if he couldn't use it, so this sounds like a non-Jedi could use a lightsaber.

In the marvel comics version of the duel the sabers are crackling and dripping fire and sparks. That was probably just too hard to do. Practical reality dictated a lot of stuff in Star Wars. If you ask me the whole idea of making entire movies out of the backstory was borne out of a desire to avoid being at the mercy of actors. (I think Empire went from being called "Episode II" to "Episode V" right around the time Harrison Ford refused to sign for both sequels)

Vaderisnothayden said:

Gaffer Tape said:

I see that, briefly, the rationalization of the old man vs. the machine was used in this conversation.  I have to say that's one of my least favorites.  Thankfully, this thread moved on to users' preferences, because that's really the only way to gauge the fights.  I pretty much agree with a lot of what's been said here.  Empire's duel is my favorite.  It always has been since the first time I saw it.  It always felt the most real and the most grueling.  Jedi's was good too but in a different sense.  It has an emotional resonance, but since Luke refuses to fight for most of it, it doesn't have the same sense of action that Empire's had.  I also enjoy watching the prequels' fights because some of them do look cool, like in TPM.  I even enjoyed Vader vs. Obi-Wan, although the balancing on various bits of metal at the end broke my suspension of disbelief completely!

But the fights of the two trilogies were created under two totally different mindsets, choreographed by different people, and they just don't mesh together.  It's up to the viewer's preference if they prefer the more down-to-earth, grueling battles of the OT or the flashy acrobatics of the PT.  But to try to rationalize why the fights in the OT didn't look like the fights in the PT because of the old "Ben's an old man, and Vader's a robot" is just silly, especially because, even though George coined it, he largely ignored it.  Let's explore:

Ben's an old man--Yes, but there are old men characters in the prequels:  Dooku, Yoda, and Palpatine.

Vader's a robot--Somewhat, but there is a mechanical construct in the prequels:  General Grievous.

And, guess what?  All of those characters are constantly seen jumping around like they have briars up their asses, so... how exactly does this argument hold water?

In one of the Phantom Menace dvd featurettes Lucas says that we haven't seen a real Jedi fighting before the prequels and all we saw we're half-men half-droids and young boys trained by these old people. So the prequels fights were faster and more energetic because it's real Jedi in their prime in the prime of the Jedi. Or something like that. And I just don't buy it. I find it really hard to believe that during the filming of the OT Lucas was going "Let's make these guys slower, because they're not real Jedi and not up to Jedi standard." And that's not how the characters were portrayed. ESB Luke wasn't up to Jedi standard, but ROTJ Luke is portrayed as if he is. There's no indication whatsoever that Vader is supposed to be a useless fighter by Jedi standards, or that Kenobi isn't up to Jedi  standard either. In one of the drafts of the first film's screenplay Kenobi was supposed to be weaker in the force because he was older, but that was conspicuously lacking in what reached the screen. I think it's all just a stupid excuse invented in prequel times to account for how the prequels' fights are more energetic because modern screen fights are more energetic than old ones. And it's insulting to the old films, because it belittles the OT characters. Trust Lucas to do down the OT. God, does he REALLY want us to go through the OT thinking, "God, that Darth Vader is such a lame fighter, he couldn't hold his own against Salacious Crumb"?

 he made the decision of making the PT lightsaber battles more intense when he started on them. he never intended that the OT should be weaker and slower. hell, they were limited on technology during ANH. don't you think it would've look weird to see alec guiness fly through the air? or darth vader?

negative1 said:

Gaffer Tape said:

Yes. And it looks weird to see Yoda, Palpatine, and Count Dooku fly through the air.

not to some people.

it was perfectly ok for me,

and i had no trouble believing it, or watching it....

if they had been like the slow/plodding fights of the old series THEN

it would have been dull and boring..

 

later

-1

 

There was nothing boring about the old fights. They were involving and had feeling, unlike most of the prequel fights, which didn't make you feel and were uninvolving and flat. Flashiness doesn't necessarily make for a good fight scene. The prequels were full of fights that bored the hell out of me. The OT's fights do not bore me.

Those guys flying around in the prequels looked bloody stupid. That moment when Palpatine launches himself into the air spinning around I didn't know whether to laugh or puke. It didn't help that it was all horribly overacted. Yoda's flying moments were terrible. He was like a big green fly, just my idea of a Jedi master. Maximum lameness.

Gaffer Tape said:

This is one of those arguments that nobody can win because both sides are wrong and both sides are right. When you get right down to it, art is entirely subjective. There is no way to give an absolute evaluation of any type of art. However, because a large number of people can agree on what is good and what is bad, criteria has been established, and art can be valued against the criteria to come up with an assessment of its value based on these categories. While it is not perfect, studying art enough to come up with definable characteristics does lend credence to opinions rather than simply, "I may not know art, but I know what I like." It may be true, but it's impossible for the speaker to explain what it means to anybody else. People who define art as purely subjective might dismiss any kind of attempt to grade art as impossible or wrong. And those who believe art has to live up to at least a certain standard would argue that criteria are necessary for any type of discussion about art. What's probably true is that the answer is somewhere in between. As a certain user here wonderfully misquoted recently: "Opinions are like assholes. Everybody is one."

Well said. I am of a somewhat scientific mind, so the lack of a completely objective scale by which to measure the "quality" (whatever that is) of an artwork means I disregard any judgments about art that are stated as facts. Oh, and that was my quote! Yay, I'm famous!