Ranking the Star Wars films — Page 60

imperialscum said:

Film is either good or shit.

I don’t subscribe to the lie of Objectivism.

Or an anthropomorphic septic tank.

1. The Empire Strikes Back
2. Star Wars
3. Revenge of The Sith (I used to hate it, but after some time I’ve found a lot to appreciate about what Lucas was trying to do, check out this for a little more context as to what I mean - http://brightlightsfilm.com/star-wars-episode-iii-revenge-sith-george-lucass-greatest-artistic-statement/#.V_1rpfkrLIU
4. The Force Awakens (feels soulless and made by committee but undeniably well made and executed)
5. The Phantom Menace (I understand why people hate it but it still feels like a pulpy space adventure)
6. Return of The Jedi (Honestly after the first act of the film everything goes downhill)
7. Attack of The Clones (truly awful)

HelloFidelio said:

4. The Force Awakens (feels soulless and made by committee but undeniably well made and executed)

I’ll take it!

HelloFidelio said:

3. Revenge of The Sith (I used to hate it, but after some time I’ve found a lot to appreciate about what Lucas was trying to do, check out this for a little more context as to what I mean - http://brightlightsfilm.com/star-wars-episode-iii-revenge-sith-george-lucass-greatest-artistic-statement/#.V_1rpfkrLIU

Ugh no.

TV’s Frink said:

HelloFidelio said:

3. Revenge of The Sith (I used to hate it, but after some time I’ve found a lot to appreciate about what Lucas was trying to do, check out this for a little more context as to what I mean - http://brightlightsfilm.com/star-wars-episode-iii-revenge-sith-george-lucass-greatest-artistic-statement/#.V_1rpfkrLIU

Ugh no.

I’m not saying I agree with that article and I find a lot of these types of articles try hard, but that one in particular makes some good points and I found it interesting. I found it interesting when he pointed out similarities between the cinematography with John Ford films, specifically The Searchers, as well as how the acting is similar to 30’s theater acting and 50’s character acting.

Well ok, but my comment was also related to anyone rating ROTS at #3.

I don’t know enough about 30’s and 50’s acting to judge that comparison, but it just tells me I don’t want to watch any 30’s or 50’s acting.

30s and 50s actors were much better than the prequels. And the films of those times are a lot of fun to watch.

HelloFidelio said:

3. Revenge of The Sith (I used to hate it, but after some time I’ve found a lot to appreciate about what Lucas was trying to do, check out this for a little more context as to what I mean - http://brightlightsfilm.com/star-wars-episode-iii-revenge-sith-george-lucass-greatest-artistic-statement/#.V_1rpfkrLIU

About Camille Paglia, try this: https://medium.com/conversations-with-tyler/a-conversation-with-camille-paglia-a842db2f3c6#.md93jemyy

and then this: http://www.chronicle.com/article/Why-George-Lucas-Is-the/134942

[Camille Paglia said:]
It was Revenge of the Sith — after the great volcano planet climax of Revenge of the Sith. I think it’s one of the greatest sequences in all of modern art. The thing is once I had written about it, I realized, as I went out in the world, how few people had actually seen the movie, because people had given up on the prequels long before.
Therefore, I think anyone who dismisses what I say about the sublime quality, the vision, the execution, the emotions, and the passions of that scene, they don’t know what I’m talking about, because they haven’t exposed themselves to it.

Ranking ROTS third is a little bit high for my taste but it’s a quite reasonnable point of view, this episode being very unique and visually beautiful and bold. It might even be the most beautiful episode of the saga.

MalàStrana said:

and then this: http://www.chronicle.com/article/Why-George-Lucas-Is-the/134942

The exhilarating eight-minute battle over Coruscant that opens Revenge of the Sith (2005), with its dense cloud of stately destroyers, swooping starfighters, and fiendish buzz droids, cuts optical pathways that are as graceful and abstract as the weightless skeins in a drip painting by Jackson Pollock. An ILM technician calls Lucas a “great master-weaver,” guiding and gathering the fine stitching of his army of gifted fabricators.

the exhilarating eight-minute battle? exhilarating? i don’t think so.

Between her opinion that I share and yours, you know… I don’t want to be rude…

what were you going to say about my opinion? i honestly have no idea what you are alluding to but leaving un-said.

Handman said:

30s and 50s actors were much better than the prequels. And the films of those times are a lot of fun to watch.

In case I wasn’t clear, I was saying that I don’t want to watch those actors in the 30s and 50s if they’re on par with the prequel actors, which was how the article presumably puts it (I didn’t read the article and am just going off the post above). I can’t imagine actors from any time period being worse than what Lucas “directed” in the prequels, so that assertion in the article is almost certainly bunk.

dahmage said:

MalàStrana said:

and then this: http://www.chronicle.com/article/Why-George-Lucas-Is-the/134942

The exhilarating eight-minute battle over Coruscant that opens Revenge of the Sith (2005), with its dense cloud of stately destroyers, swooping starfighters, and fiendish buzz droids, cuts optical pathways that are as graceful and abstract as the weightless skeins in a drip painting by Jackson Pollock. An ILM technician calls Lucas a “great master-weaver,” guiding and gathering the fine stitching of his army of gifted fabricators.

the exhilarating eight-minute battle? exhilarating? i don’t think so.

As dumb as the word “exhilarating” is to describe the scene, the rest of that description is even worse.

dahmage said:

what were you going to say about my opinion? i honestly have no idea what you are alluding to but leaving un-said.

Oh don’t worry there is nothing more: just saying between a full well-written text and your “I don’t think so” I choose the well-written text. Besides I really like this opening sequence.

“The exhilarating eight-minute battle over Coruscant that opens Revenge of the Sith (2005), with its dense cloud of stately destroyers, swooping starfighters, and fiendish buzz droids, cuts optical pathways that are as graceful and abstract as the weightless skeins in a drip painting by Jackson Pollock. An ILM technician calls Lucas a “great master-weaver,” guiding and gathering the fine stitching of his army of gifted fabricators.”

“Well-written text.”

I don’t know, can delusional text still be well-written (by the definition you are using)?

“The clouds, climbing majestically over the mountains, surely must weigh as much as all of the far-flung stars put together” is better written than a response of “no” but the majesty of the words means nothing when it’s a bunch of bullshit.

MalàStrana said:

dahmage said:

what were you going to say about my opinion? i honestly have no idea what you are alluding to but leaving un-said.

Oh don’t worry there is nothing more: just saying between a full well-written text and your “I don’t think so” I choose the well-written text. Besides I really like this opening sequence.

fair enough

TV’s Frink said:

“The exhilarating eight-minute battle over Coruscant that opens Revenge of the Sith (2005), with its dense cloud of stately destroyers, swooping starfighters, and fiendish buzz droids, cuts optical pathways that are as graceful and abstract as the weightless skeins in a drip painting by Jackson Pollock. An ILM technician calls Lucas a “great master-weaver,” guiding and gathering the fine stitching of his army of gifted fabricators.”

“Well-written text.”

I don’t know, can delusional text still be well-written?

no, but mala is perfectly fine to like that scene.

you can tell the text is terrible when it starts referencing Jackson Pollock, as if bringing art into this makes it seem like a smart review. it seems like the kind of think i would find in the seat pocket of an airplane.

[Camille Paglia said:]
The thing is once I had written about it, I realized, as I went out in the world, how few people had actually seen the movie, because people had given up on the prequels long before.
Therefore, I think anyone who dismisses what I say about the sublime quality, the vision, the execution, the emotions, and the passions of that scene, they don’t know what I’m talking about, because they haven’t exposed themselves to it.

This may be the single dumbest assumption I’ve ever seen (in a Star Wars context, that is).

TV’s Frink said:

Handman said:

30s and 50s actors were much better than the prequels. And the films of those times are a lot of fun to watch.

In case I wasn’t clear, I was saying that I don’t want to watch those actors in the 30s and 50s if they’re on par with the prequel actors, which was how the article presumably puts it (I didn’t read the article and am just going off the post above). I can’t imagine actors from any time period being worse than what Lucas “directed” in the prequels, so that assertion in the article is almost certainly bunk.

Oh, yeah I got that, I was just being a bit more explicit in saying the same thing I guess.

I really used to hate Revenge of The Sith, and yes ranking it 3rd is a little high even for my comfort, but it feels like more soul was put into it than The Force Awakens. I like that film just fine but I can’t help but see the market research team behind the scenes whenever I watch it. It makes it feel shallow and corporate. I genuinely think Return of The Jedi is one of the worst in the series, because it has such a great opening sequence that could be a short film on its own but then completely falls apart in the following acts.

The presence of a soul can’t compensate for poor writing and characters and that’s why ROTS is absolute ass in comparison to TFA.