I like the ROTJ vid. Gaffer makes it fun. But I still don't see why ROTJ needs to be logical, as long it's strong on imagination, fun, acting and character interaction. And it is all those things. Good enough for me.
Lucas has been making changes since 1977. Technically the films, as they were seen in the theater, have never been released in any form. For example, the title of the first film was changed be the time it came to VHS, adding the Episode IV part.
A title change isn't a change to the main part of the film. It's not in the story. As for other changes, most of it was stuff that dates back to the original different versions made in the first few months, not changes made years later. BIG difference from coming along many years later and making a whole lot of changes that don't fit with the original films.
generalfrevious said:One by one, we will die off, just like each frame of the OOT is slowly decaying in the LFL archives.
BTW, did you know that are over 200,000 CGI shots in ROTS? Well, assuming a rate of 24 frames per second...
The prequel fans will die off too some day. And maybe the generations that come after will recognize that it's the OT that has value. They might even be interested in the original versions of these classic films.
Sluggo said:Snivvians, Ithorians and Quarren? Who cares. Give me Snaggletooth, Hammerhead and Squidhead any day.
Hear hear.
CO said:I read one thread and it confirmed my beliefs. I clicked to the 'Would you buy the O-OT on DVD' Thread, and I think this site is the twin sister of TFN. I always thought TFN was an only child, but Yoda was right, "No, there is another!"
Their responses to the OOT on DVD ranged from, "I dont know if I'd buy it, those versions Lucas was not able to tell his story, and the SE are alot better."
Yeah, ESB fucking sucks because you never see Vader leave his shuttle on Cloud City! or ROTJ sucked because Lucas could never record 'Jedi Rocks!'Why are there so many lunatic fans who like SW?
God, that sort of stuff makes me choke. What shit. Yes, ESB sucks because Boba wasn't voiced by Jango Fett doing a bland job. ROTJ sucks because they had that old geezer appearing as a ghost in the end instead of beautiful Haydenkins. ANH sucks because that horrible Han person shot poor Greedo without provocation. It just wasn't George's Holy Vision.
That would have made Han seem mean-spirited. Remember, this guy was risking his life to rescue Han. They obviously didn't want Han to come off mean-spirited. I like it fine the way it is, with Han being a cheerful good sport. Much more fun.
Gaffer Tape said:Anakin: Short-Lando. Step on it!
Lando: Okey-dokey, Jedi! Hold on to your asteroid-shaped potatoes!
I didn't know Annie HAD any potatoes.
rcb said:Wow! that's a first! i wonder wat lando was doing there, as he was the original owner at that time.
Not bloody likely. Lando would have been pretty young at the time. If you go by the EU he was about 9. And in the EU Lando wasn't supposed to get the Falcon until he was about 27, 4 years before ANH. Which sounds pretty dumb, actually, because it doesn't leave much time for Han to have it before ANH.
Maybe somebody could find Padme's brain in AOTC or ROTS. They obviously surgically removed it between TPM and AOTC, so it's probably lying around somewhere. "Oh Annie! I'm so dumb!"
rcb said:C3PX said:I dunno, even as a guy on fire who is slowly sliding into a molten river, he fails as Darth Vader. The Darth Vader I know would have used the force to force choke the piss out of Obi-Wan who he standing on the bank expressing his disappointment and undying love for Anakin while simultaniously watching his flesh burn off of his body.
that was prolly the last thing on his mind though. one line that will always haunt me from that scene is, "I HATE YOU!" just the way he said it, and realizing how close they were. it just sucked.
That line wasa incredibly laughable. It came off like a toddler who's been denied a treat. I pretty much expected him to follow it with "I'll hold my breath until you say I won."
I'd rate him less than 0. Hayden as Anakin is some of the worst casting in the history of film.
ChainsawAsh said:I wasn't a fan of the Outrider simply because "Shadows of the Empire" sucks. It's unnecessary, and adds a lot of complicated bullshit that makes no sense to a period between films that should have been pretty straightforward.
For example, did we *really* need an explanation for why Chewie's hair looked a little different? Did we really need a Han Solo clone, just so we could have Han Solo in the book by proxy?
Then there was Xizor ... ugh ... I could go on and on ...
I agree with all that. Shadows gets on my nerves.
vote_for_palpatine said:
Supposedly, in AOTC they had a X-Wing pursuing a TIE, or vice versa. I never could see the damn things.
The ET's in the senate...no comment necessary.
I consider Darth Vader in the OT suit twenty years before Star Wars and towel-faced Palpatine to be fan service, both of them shitty. Ditto Yoda's fighting and constantly talking backwards.
I can't imagine what Yoda's introduction would have sounded like in PT-speak:
"Still...I feel like-"
"What, feel like?"
"Like we're being watched!"
"Away put your weapon! No harm, I mean you! Wondering, I am - here, why are you?"
***
Or, as Obi-Wan and Yoda discuss Luke's future:
"Teach him, I cannot. No patience, the boy has."
"Reckless, ARE YOU!!!"
Off-topic, there's an ad for a Rifftrax SW Holiday Special. I hate when they take on such easy targets.
Yoda talking backward worked in the OT, when there was some fun to the character. But the dour pompous PT Yoda was just annoying when backward he talked.
Yoda's fighting is described on wookieepedia as being "popular" with people. Wtf? That's a disturbing thought. People actually LIKED Yoda bouncing around howling? And why was he howling? That doesn't fit the character at all.
The Emperor's makeup in ROTS was crap. They got it right in ROTJ, so they could get it right in ROTS, if they had to do it at all.
Anakin being reconstructed as the suited Vader was done in a very artificial and unintelligent way in ROTS. I do think he would have been in some form of the suit back then, though.
TheBoost said:I hear the words 'fan service' tossed around alot, usually meaning something GL tossed into the films as a little 'gift' to the fans. Usually I hear people say this is a bad thing. Here are my thoughts on some of the 'fan service' in the saga.
THE GOOD:Admiral Piett. This dude is my favorite character in ESB. According to wookiepedia he wasn't supposed to be in ROTJ but Lucas put him in it because of the surprising fan response to our nervous commander. I think it benefits the film a great deal.
The Outrider: Adding the EU ship from Shadows of the Empire into "Star Wars" special edition seems to be controversial. I don't see why. Admittedly we all seem to have mixed feelings on all the additions to the SE, but if Lucas was going to add a CGI ship to Mos Eisly, why not make it the Outrider? It's cool for the few fans who can recognize it, and it's just another ship to the vast majority who don't.
Millenium Falcon in ROTS: Seriously, it's almost invisible but it is kinda cool if you're eagle eyed.
THE BAD:
Chewie in ROTS: Not just because Yoda's awkward namedropping so the audience would recognize him, what really sucks about it is that Chewie never mentions to Luke 'I used to hang with a Jedi master named Yoda. Little green dude. If you ever see him say hi.' If Chewie was personal friends with the greatest Jedi of all time, I think that deserved a mention.
Baby Boba: When I, like all fans, thought Boba Fett was awesome, I never said to myself, "I bet he has a wacky and tragic backstory that needs to be explored." Making him the clone of a bounty hunter so awesome he's the basis for the entire galactic army makes what Boba actually is, a minor villain who forwards the plot, seem anticlimactic. It's weird to give such a minor thug an epic origin. I understand that Boba is ridiculously popular, but this just didn't seem to work.
THE UGLY:
Boba in ROTJ: Boba, a minor goon, was very popular. It makes sense that the hated baddie could get his comeuppance in the next movie. In my opinion, there's no problem with Boba getting offed in Act 1 of ROTJ, now serving as a lacky to Jabba the way he had been Vader's lackey, but I understand the distaste many have for the actual execution of the fan service, with Fett's death being played for laughs.Did I miss any? Am I deluded, and they're all terrible? Thoughts?
Piett is a good character. Having him in ROTJ was good. Though I'd have preferred if he'd survived.
The Outrider being stuffed into ANH pisses me off. EU stuff does not belong in the OT. This is another SE insult to Star Wars as far as I'm concerned.
Chewie in ROTS was stupid. One of these make-the-galaxy-smaller things. It's bullshit.
The whole AOTC Boba Fett story was stupid bullshit. Also, if you know what Jango is like in the EU, he's really annoying. Jango is supposed to be so awesomely superhumanly cool that he kills a whole load of Jedi with his bare hands.
Boba Fett in ROTJ was cool, specifically him getting killed off. Very satisfying. Though I'd have liked it more if Han had beaten him in a proper fight.
Yoda Is Your Father said:Janskeet said:I think it is a cool title and probably the most clever thing Lucas thought of in the prequels. I remember when I heard it back in '98 when I was 10, I was like wow, The Phantom Menace, that sounds cool. At the time, I didn't even know what "menace" meant.
Really? When I first heard it (I was 18 or so) I thought it was sooooo cheesy. Then the next one was called Attack of the Clones amd I just thought 'oh, fuck this'.
"Attack of the Clones" really is taking the homage-to-corny-old-serials a bit too far. Homages should never be done done at the expense of quality. I think there's a lot that sucks in the prequels that's there because Lucas wanted to imitate something from way back, like the style of the AOTC romance and Palpatine's awful ROTS makeup.
TheBoost said:Vaderisnothayden said:He was a self-satisfied twerp for like 5 seconds yeah, but not a guy whose whole nature is self-satisfied twerp. Nor creepy the way I mean it, like paedophile creepy. Nor even self-satisfied the way I'm talking about. No, the character in the movies is not at all the one in the comics. The guy in the movies could never grow into the good guy he became in the comics. The guy in the movies would be stuck forever as a creepy self-satisfied twerp. Total warping of the character. It's bogus to say the character in the comics was like that.
C3PX said:I am really curious in what way the first Spider-Man film is not accurate to the comic, or in what way Toby's Peter Parker is completely different from the comics? The origin of Spider-Man and the Green Goblin are both spot on.
The Peter Parker character in the comics did not come off like he was going to start pinching little girls' bottoms. The character in the movie did. Similarly, the other characters in the movie do not come off like their on-paper versions. You seriously want to tell me that Kirsten Dunst came off like Mary Jane Watson? Dunst's lifeless performance was nothing like the character.
That the origin of the Spider Man and Green Goblin characters fitted the comic book story doesn't mean that everything else in the film fitted to the tone and mentality of the comics or made the best use of the comics' material. The idea with a comic book movie is to make something with as much depth as the comic story, or, better yet, to elevate the story by maximizing its virtues to effect of improving its depth. Why not make the best one can out of the material? But here we get lets make dumb shit out of the material.
I'm really just a bit wierded out by your Spider-Man/pedophilia connection. What I'm hearing from you is you just didn't like the performance of Toby Maguire. But how do you deny that he DOES grow into the hero he is in the comics when he... I don't know... becomes a hero, saves the day, and sacrifices his chance at love with MJ because he understands that WITH GREAT POWER COMES GREAT RESPONSIBILITY which is the driving center of the character for the 40+ years he's been published.
The movie character may grow into a hero in the films, but he's never remotely convincing as a hero and he continues to come off like a self-satisfied creepy guy.
C3PX said:Yeah, where does this whole pedophile thing come from? I don't see it by a long shot. Pinching little girl's bottoms? Where did anything in the film happen to even suggest that in the slightest? I really fail to see anything creepy or self satisfying in the character in the movie. Care to give a few examples of what makes him seem like a self satisfied punk who likes small girls?
It's not in the story of the film. It's in the performance. The character is played as this creepy self-satisfied guy. Really off-putting.
TheBoost said:Vaderisnothayden said:TheBoost said:When adapting a character who's been published non-stop for 40+ years, it's IMPOSSIBLE to be 'faithful' to the work.
I don't think that's an excuse for not being faithful. You can zero in on the best material or the best-known or most archetypical stuff and be faithful to that. The films made the characters into totally different people from what they were in the comics and reduced the story to a load of crap. Peter Parker in the comics never came off like a self-satisfied creepy twerp who probably stalks little girls, but that's how he was played in the films.
What's the single best known most archtypal momen in SpiderMan? When he realizes that with great power comes great responsibility. A self satisfied creepy twerp is EXACTLY who Peter Parker was. That's the entire point of his character. He's a loser, and the moment he gets some power he becomes an jerk (letting the robber go) and spends the rest of his life regretting it. A cool, charming, humble, or pleasent Peter would have missed the point.
He was a self-satisfied twerp for like 5 seconds yeah, but not a guy whose whole nature is self-satisfied twerp. Nor creepy the way I mean it, like paedophile creepy. Nor even self-satisfied the way I'm talking about. No, the character in the movies is not at all the one in the comics. The guy in the movies could never grow into the good guy he became in the comics. The guy in the movies would be stuck forever as a creepy self-satisfied twerp. Total warping of the character. It's bogus to say the character in the comics was like that.
And no WAY is being a self-satisfied twerp the whole point of the character. It was the point of one brief stage in his development. Then he moved past that to something very different. He acted like an idiot because he was a downtrodden teenager who suddenly got a lot of power. But he quickly learned his lesson and changed. He wasn't a self-satisfied twerp by nature. The movie version was. Different character.
C3PX said:I am really curious in what way the first Spider-Man film is not accurate to the comic, or in what way Toby's Peter Parker is completely different from the comics? The origin of Spider-Man and the Green Goblin are both spot on.
Peter changes quite a lot in the comics, depending on who is writing him. To me, the characters in the film come off very much like they were in The Amazing Spider-Man volume one era.
The Peter Parker character in the comics did not come off like he was going to start pinching little girls' bottoms. The character in the movie did. Similarly, the other characters in the movie do not come off like their on-paper versions. You seriously want to tell me that Kirsten Dunst came off like Mary Jane Watson? Dunst's lifeless performance was nothing like the character.
That the origin of the Spider Man and Green Goblin characters fitted the comic book story doesn't mean that everything else in the film fitted to the tone and mentality of the comics or made the best use of the comics' material. The idea with a comic book movie is to make something with as much depth as the comic story, or, better yet, to elevate the story by maximizing its virtues to effect of improving its depth (after all, film is a medium that can go farther than comics -why not use that potential to make the most out of the comic book material?). Why not make the best one can out of the material? But here we get lets make dumb shit out of the material.
TheBoost said:skyjedi2005 said:There is a reason why it is called an adaptation. Books are not movies and neither are comics.
Not a Sam Raimi fan are you? There are a lot of Evil Dead fans out there, if your not a horror fan and i'm not. Hey i still liked Lord of the Rings and Peter Jackson is a b movie horror director.
When adapting a character who's been published non-stop for 40+ years, it's IMPOSSIBLE to be 'faithful' to the work.
Should you be faithful to the original 12 page origin story? Or the years he was a hipster college student with two hot girlfriends, often considered some of the best years? Why not get his origin out of the way ASAP, and then be faithful to the years he was married to supermodel Mary Jane, my personal favorite years? Or the 'Ultimate Spider-Man' retellings, or the "Lost Years" re-tellings, or one of fifty other retelings of his origin? Would a almost exact recreation of the story where he fought Man-Wolf, the lycanthropic astronaut, be better than an adapted version of the Green Goblin saga?
I don't think that's an excuse for not being faithful. You can zero in on the best material or the best-known or most archetypical stuff and be faithful to that. The films made the characters into totally different people from what they were in the comics and reduced the story to a load of crap. Peter Parker in the comics never came off like a self-satisfied creepy twerp who probably stalks little girls, but that's how he was played in the films.
C3PX said:
Spider-Man 3 was downright awful.
I can agree with that.
And with Gwen Stacy in 3! Why?
The Gwen Stacy thing wasn't done very well.
skyjedi2005 said:They wanted to make him relatable to a teen audience and to ostracized kids, what would you have done as the producer?
Did you hate the organic webs he shot out his hands instead of having that thing he has in the comics?
There is a reason why it is called an adaptation. Books are not movies and neither are comics.
What did the cgi bug you, i thought John Dyktra did a preety good job with the first 2 films.
I thought the first 2 films were good films and the third was a bit dissjointed and needed to be edited better. One two many villains and subplots in the movie.
Sure Spider Man is younger than he was in the comics and is a total dweeb and a geek. I like Tobey's spider man because he brings the character to life and makes him almost believable. This guy is a deeply flawed guy with a chip on his shoulder and has love troubles,lol.
Do you think they should have had Gwen Stacy in the first film and had her killed?
I do agree with one thing though the guy from the seventies show as venom was an absolute joke.
Not a Sam Raimi fan are you? There are a lot of Evil Dead fans out there, if your not a horror fan and i'm not. Hey i still liked Lord of the Rings and Peter Jackson is a b movie horror director.
They wanted to make him relatable to a teen audience and to ostracized kids, what would you have done as the producer?
I don't think being truer to the comics character would have made him any less relatable to teens and ostracized kids. I think the character as he was in the comics was perfectly relatable and would have worked fine for those people. There was no need to warp the character. I think if they were going to change the nature of the character so much they shouldn't have been making a film of the material. They should have got their own original material with their own character instead and not fucked with a character who'd been developed for 4 decades and had lot of fans.
Did you hate the organic webs he shot out his hands instead of having that thing he has in the comics?
I didn't have a problem with that.
There is a reason why it is called an adaptation. Books are not movies and neither are comics.
You don't need to change everything just because it's in a new medium. A new medium does sometimes require some changes, but directors of these kinds of films often take way too many liberties. I figure if they're not going to base it on the material properly then they shouldn't be making a film of the material. They should go get their own original material to make a film of, rather than fucking up somebody else's story. It being an adaption didn't require shallowness, dumbness, bad casting or dropping so much of the feel of the story.
Sure Spider Man is younger than he was in the comics and is a total dweeb and a geek. I like Tobey's spider man because he brings the character to life and makes him almost believable. This guy is a deeply flawed guy with a chip on his shoulder and has love troubles,lol.
The comic book character was a flawed guy with issues and love troubles, but he was a whole hell of a lot more relatable than Tobey's version. They didn't have to get an actor to do him like a self-satisfied creepy little twerp. The comic character was a geek but not since very early on in the comics (in rather weaker stories) was a he a total dweeb, and I don't think it improves the story to make him one. I didn't find Tobey's version especially believable. For one thing, I found him not remotely believable as any sort of hero. Spider Man in the comics was a geek and not a big muscle bound guy, but he had a heroic fighting spirit. I just didn't get that off Tobey's version at all. There was no strength to Tobey's version. Tobey's version was a wimp through and through. And he didn't bring the character to life properly for me at all, he just annoyed the fucking hell out of me.
To me Tobey's Peter Parker is in exactly the same class as turning Anakin into Hayden Christensen.
Do you think they should have had Gwen Stacy in the first film and had her killed?
I didn't have huge issues over the Gwen Stacy thing apart from bad casting for the role.
What did the cgi bug you, i thought John Dyktra did a preety good job with the first 2 films.
I wasn't terribly impressed with the cgi version of Spider Man, but that wasn't one of my biggest issues with the films.
Not a Sam Raimi fan are you? There are a lot of Evil Dead fans out there, if your not a horror fan and i'm not. Hey i still liked Lord of the Rings and Peter Jackson is a b movie horror director.
Nope, I'm not a Raimi fan. I had issues with the casting in LOTR, the rewriting of Faramir and the exclusion of certain Saruman stuff, but the LOTR films were so very well done in many ways. There was much brilliance there, totally unlike the Spider Man films.
C3PX said:Having been a fan of the original Amazing Spider-Man comics for as long as I can remember, I felt the first film was incredible true to the originals, with the exception of Mary Jane, which felt like a fair enough plot convienence to me.
It is a comic book movie, how "deep" do you really need it to be? It is no more shallow than the source material. Also, it was made by someone who had a great respect for the source material (unlike the makers of most comic book movies), and that is really all I could ask for in a comic book movie. My feelings are that the first and second Spider-Man flicks are ideal comic book movies. If the prequels were half as good as Spidey 1 & 2, I would have been thrilled. But to each their own.
Just out of curiosity, what movies do you like?
And yes Mielr, B-movies were low budget. There was a misunderstanding on the part the OP, but it has since been cleared up.
Having been a fan of the original Amazing Spider-Man comics for as long as I can remember, I felt the first film was incredible true to the originals
Sounds like you were watching a different film than me, because what I saw wasn't true to it.
It is a comic book movie, how "deep" do you really need it to be?
That's the attitude I oppose. That's the attitude some of these filmmakers seem to have. If these comics didn't at least have some emotional depth than they wouldn't be worth making into films. And if the comics have some emotional depth then the films should have some. Just because they're basing a movie on a comic book doesn't license directors to chuck all depth out the window.
It is no more shallow than the source material.
It's significantly more shallow. The Spider Man movies have zero emotional depth. The comics had heart, the films just have a sunny emptiness.
The Spider Man comics managed to fit a certain feeling of the real world into their unreal world, while the films live in a world that feels totally unreal. The central character has some depth in the comics and he's relatable, whereas in the film he's a prissy glassy-eyed jerk-off who fails to feel like he matters. The Spider Man films live in a world that is overly sunny, despite whatever threatening things that may happen. The sense of darkness and threat that I found in so many Spider Man comics is missing. Oh the films can throw in some villains who can be scary and violent to an extent, and bad things can happen, but the way they do it, it doesn't go far emotionally. The characters in the comics could be engaging and interesting. Too many of the characters in the movie fail to make a connection, most notably the main character. Not to mention the characters don't feel like themselves. Peter Parker comes off more like maximum wuss Andrew from Buffy than like the character in the comics, and he comes off so terribly self-satisfied too. James Franco is a good actor, but he's not Harry. Kirsten Dunst is no more Mary Jane than she is Darth Vader. I liked their Doc Ock, but the film he was in was crap. Eddie Brock wasn't Eddie Brock at all (though that actor wouldn't have been too bad as Parker, which goes to show how inappropriate he was for Brock). They nearly got Jake Gyllenhaal to play Parker in the second film, which would have been a vast improvement.
Also, it was made by someone who had a great respect for the source material
Funny way to show respect.
As you can gather, I REALLY didn't like those movies. Spider Man in the comics was a hero I could relate to and his world felt like it mattered. I couldn't relate to the twerp they made the main character into in the films and his world felt totally fake.
.
I only hate crap. The Spider Man movies are shallow crap that totally dumb down Spider Man and take the depth and edge out of the story. Plus Tobey Maguire in the role is as bad as Hayden Christensen as Anakin, and a bit similar actually. Certainly no more convincing as a hero than Hayden is as a great Jedi. In the 90s I was a fan of various Marvel comics and it annoys the shit out me to see them turned into crap movies that don't respect the material. All too often, the people who make films based on comic books seem to want to avoid recognizing that the comics have stories with some depth and seriousness and aren't just lightweight nonsense. The Spiderman movies are lightweight nonsense. They have a lot in common with the prequels actually.
I wouldn't insult B-movies by calling the Spider Man movies B movies.
All leading up to Revenge of the Shit.
I think the "phantom menace" was meant to be George Lucas. ;)
With the title "Jedi Don't Fart"? lol
Where's my old post on the topic? ::rummages around:: Here it is! You father wanted you to have this... -wait, sorry, wrong film.
Post:
See, I think the Mustafar duel was atrocious. In the prequels they got to doing this thing with lightsaber duels wherein the characters go on and on and on repeating pretty much the same action endlessly with nothing really happening. If you look at the OT lightsaber battles that doesn't happen. It's all meaningful action. Whereas in the Mustafar duel you feel you could could go away from the screen for a while and come back nothing important would have happened in the time you were gone. It makes the action meaningless and boring. The Mustafar duel stretches on endlessly and is boring as hell. And the music is way overdone. In OT battles the music is generally a background thing. In the Mustafar duel the music is damn near the main star of the scene. It's overpowering. And the tone of the music is as if to say "You MUST feel strongly here. This is an EPIC and TRAGIC moment. Feel!" The OT made you feel rather than telling you to feel like that. The Mustafar music is not only pushy, it adds to the pomposity and overdone showiness of the scene.
And we don't just have guys standing on droids. They're swinging back and forth on ropes while fighting each other over the lava. Maybe that's where they got the tarzan swinging around idea for Indy 4. Give me the Indy 4 version any day over the Mustafar version. It's seriously overdone. See, all this is while they're dancing around in the lava without getting burnt and we're being asked to buy that as plausible. It's just ridiculous and overdone. The whole thing is done up way too grand. The OT managed so much more involving fights with so much less show and pomposity and buildup. The Mustafar scene bludgeons you with how grand it's supposed to be. Way too heavy handed. It's shouting at you "This is a GRAND moment!" and I just want to say "I got that. Stop fucking shouting already!"
And then we have Anakin's ranting. When he rants about how from his point of view the Jedi are evil he looks like he's about to burst into tears like a little kid. When he screams "You underestimate my power!" the lameness factor is mind-boggling. And then later after he's been chopped up and fried he screams at Kenobi "I hate you!" like a little kid who's been denied a treat. I half expect to shout "If you don't say I won, I'll hold my breath until you do!" Between the script and the talents of Hayden Christensen the character of Darth Vader is totally rubbed in the shit in this scene.
Also, Anakin's defeat is seriously anticlimatic. After all that fighting going on forever with nothing really happening, suddenly Anakin makes a stupid jump and Kenobi cuts off three of his limbs in one go and Annie falls flat on his face and get fried up. It doesn't work. And it's almost slapstick.
Also not helping is you have no real connection with either of these characters. Ewan McGregor is a good actor but if you compare his Kenobi to Alec Guinness's or to Han, Luke and Leia, you can see how he fails to make that close connection with the audience that the OT characters do. Plus it doesn't help that Ewan's Kenobi comes across vaguely like he's a pretentious poser. As for Anakin, between the writing and the acting this character is made unlikable and unrelatable and pathetic in a totally non-endearing way. So, watching this fight, I really didn't give a fuck what happened to either character. Which doesn't help the scene.
And the artificiality of the scene doesn't help you get genuine emotion out of it either. This scene should have great feeling, but mostly it just TELLS you to have great feeling rather than actually making you feel it. A classic example of the prequels failing at depth of feeling.
Overall I think the scene is one big load of meaningless pompous overdone show and one of the worst scenes I've ever seen in any film ever.
The Emperor and Yoda fight was awful. Horrible overacting for the Emperor. Annoying CGI Yoda with his macho posing that's so totally inappropriate for the character. It was hard to decide which character was more annoying. I wanted to flush both of them down the toilet. And that was intercut with the Mustafar scene, for maximum lameness.
Vader's nooooooo was a terrible moment. Between it being so totally unnecessary and cheesy and poorly judged and James Earl Jones's voice acting being uncharacteristically bad there. It was a real cringe moment. And let's not forget it was Hayden Christensen in the Darth Vader suit.