Did you like the movie?
- Thread starter samdx
- Start date
GypsyComet
SOC-14 1K
This would be Attack of the Clones you're asking about?
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by GypsyComet:
This would be Attack of the Clones you're asking about?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I kinda figured he was talking about Traveller, that movie about the con-artists with Bill Paxton and Marky Mark that came out a few years ago...
This would be Attack of the Clones you're asking about?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I kinda figured he was talking about Traveller, that movie about the con-artists with Bill Paxton and Marky Mark that came out a few years ago...
I just saw clones today (yesterday I guess). What a horrible film. Forced acting. Forced writing. And so much fake looking CGI that I thought I was watching a cartoon half the time.
I'm glad I waited to see a matinee of this thing, and not stand in line like some idiot. If I had paid full price there would've been blooshed
I'm glad I waited to see a matinee of this thing, and not stand in line like some idiot. If I had paid full price there would've been blooshed
hunter
Ancient - Absent Friend
Just saw the movie the other day. I have to say I did enjoy it, but you know, it just didn't have that magic if you know what I mean. There is nothing really I can say that I particularly didn't like, there are a few points I can say where I think it rocked (YODA-FU BABY!), but in all it was just another flick.
It's kinda sad. I'm enjoying the novels more than the movies for Star Wars these days.
Hunter
It's kinda sad. I'm enjoying the novels more than the movies for Star Wars these days.
Hunter
The original films were made by a young talented filmmaker, who was up and coming and held much promise. As such this younger George Lucas paid attention to detail and was somewhat more malliable to actor's craft. Also in those first films we had seasoned talent in the lead roles, and real actors playing the extras. We also saw shots for which technology had been developed.
In these recent films we see the antithesis of that. I'll go through these one by one.
1) The detail. There's very little carefully crafted detail because the actors aren't allowed to act. They're told what to do (Lucas's own "unique" sytle of directing), and they do it. This has always been a trademark of his style. He's a very nice guy personally, that is he smiles and you can get along with him, but he's unbending in his demands. It shows in the overall film.
2) This is the second film we've seen created by a filmmaker who hung up his slate some fifteen years prior "Phantom Menace," and then decides to cruise in to show that not only he's still "got it," but that he in fact (and this comes directly from him in an interview) does not trust anyone else to do the films the way he wants them done. In short we're not seeing films made by a man whose spent years honning his skill with subsequent projects.
3) Ewan MacGregor and Christopher Lee were the high points of this film (as well as the actor who played Jango Fett, but whose name I forget). I've always thought Chris Lee would've been a natural for an Imperial Role ever since the first film hit the theatre back in '77. The younger actors just aren't mature nor talented enough to pull off their roles. Poor Natalie Portman, who has some talent, is biting off more than I think she can chew. That combined with Lucas's own directing and writing style makes for some schlocky performances. Even bit parts like the cook from the diner and the librarian were right out of central casting. Acting wise the previous "classic" films had some shallow performances, but the actors were better and so could pull it off with their craft. The younger actors can't.
3) The shots and the deplorable reliance on CGI. When I used to work in special effects (in fact I worked for a former ILMer who resides in Medicino here in the SF Bay Area) the concept was to design a thing or technique that could create the illusion of whatever it was that was supposed to appear on the movie/TV/still-photo/slide-presentation-screen. The shot WAS NOT designed around the technology, as is the case in a great many of "Clone's" scenes. Example; when Amidala falls out of the troop transport and CGI clone trooper comes up to her. We only see one shot, an overhead shot, where the trooper approaches her and asks if she's alright. There's no reaction shot of her getting up, no cutaway of the trooper approaching, no nothing. That kind of cinematography permeates much of the film, but not all of it.
4) The basic story itself is flawed, and hokey dialogue delivered by poor unseasoned actors doesn't help. Like when Anakin tells Amidala that he's just slaughtered an entire village of Sand People. Not only is the delivery unbelievable, but Amidala's character crouches to comfort him. To me that's pretty sickening. And on top of that she falls in love with this character. Most women I know would've been shocked out of their minds. In short the writing is poor.
5) The Jedi. They don't do a hell of a lot. They're supposed to be warriors, but they're not soldiers, even though they're said to be involved in military actions. They're keepers of the police, but they don't patrol the streets, and only get involved when something involves them; i.e. if a crime is comitted, then it better be against a Jedi or one of his friends if any justice is to be served. Again, this is poor writing.
Look, I could go on and on with poking holes in this film because it's so bad, but there'd be no point in it. The critcisms I've made aren't nitpicking, but actual fundamental flaws in both the author's filmmaking character and technique. Everything from violating the 180 degree camera rule in the arena, to his extrtemely poor knowledge of basic military fundamentals when it came to staging "the big battle" scene at the end of the film. It's a poor film made by a guy who's just too full of himself to realize otherwise.
In these recent films we see the antithesis of that. I'll go through these one by one.
1) The detail. There's very little carefully crafted detail because the actors aren't allowed to act. They're told what to do (Lucas's own "unique" sytle of directing), and they do it. This has always been a trademark of his style. He's a very nice guy personally, that is he smiles and you can get along with him, but he's unbending in his demands. It shows in the overall film.
2) This is the second film we've seen created by a filmmaker who hung up his slate some fifteen years prior "Phantom Menace," and then decides to cruise in to show that not only he's still "got it," but that he in fact (and this comes directly from him in an interview) does not trust anyone else to do the films the way he wants them done. In short we're not seeing films made by a man whose spent years honning his skill with subsequent projects.
3) Ewan MacGregor and Christopher Lee were the high points of this film (as well as the actor who played Jango Fett, but whose name I forget). I've always thought Chris Lee would've been a natural for an Imperial Role ever since the first film hit the theatre back in '77. The younger actors just aren't mature nor talented enough to pull off their roles. Poor Natalie Portman, who has some talent, is biting off more than I think she can chew. That combined with Lucas's own directing and writing style makes for some schlocky performances. Even bit parts like the cook from the diner and the librarian were right out of central casting. Acting wise the previous "classic" films had some shallow performances, but the actors were better and so could pull it off with their craft. The younger actors can't.
3) The shots and the deplorable reliance on CGI. When I used to work in special effects (in fact I worked for a former ILMer who resides in Medicino here in the SF Bay Area) the concept was to design a thing or technique that could create the illusion of whatever it was that was supposed to appear on the movie/TV/still-photo/slide-presentation-screen. The shot WAS NOT designed around the technology, as is the case in a great many of "Clone's" scenes. Example; when Amidala falls out of the troop transport and CGI clone trooper comes up to her. We only see one shot, an overhead shot, where the trooper approaches her and asks if she's alright. There's no reaction shot of her getting up, no cutaway of the trooper approaching, no nothing. That kind of cinematography permeates much of the film, but not all of it.
4) The basic story itself is flawed, and hokey dialogue delivered by poor unseasoned actors doesn't help. Like when Anakin tells Amidala that he's just slaughtered an entire village of Sand People. Not only is the delivery unbelievable, but Amidala's character crouches to comfort him. To me that's pretty sickening. And on top of that she falls in love with this character. Most women I know would've been shocked out of their minds. In short the writing is poor.
5) The Jedi. They don't do a hell of a lot. They're supposed to be warriors, but they're not soldiers, even though they're said to be involved in military actions. They're keepers of the police, but they don't patrol the streets, and only get involved when something involves them; i.e. if a crime is comitted, then it better be against a Jedi or one of his friends if any justice is to be served. Again, this is poor writing.
Look, I could go on and on with poking holes in this film because it's so bad, but there'd be no point in it. The critcisms I've made aren't nitpicking, but actual fundamental flaws in both the author's filmmaking character and technique. Everything from violating the 180 degree camera rule in the arena, to his extrtemely poor knowledge of basic military fundamentals when it came to staging "the big battle" scene at the end of the film. It's a poor film made by a guy who's just too full of himself to realize otherwise.
Simon Jester
SOC-12
Mediocre, but very toyetic (designing an object with the express purpose of later ease in turning said object into a toy). As soon as I saw the Clone Army's troopships, I knew precisely what had been the overriding concern for Mr. Lucas.
Doug Grimes
-----------
"If it's worth doing, it's worth doing for money."
tim_manley
SOC-12
I know what you mean. BUT, I've been experiencing them through the eyes of my kids.
Forced writing? Forced acting? Go watch the original 3 and tell me they don't have the same thing? You know why they're held in mystique? We accepted them. Go watch all 3 of the 1st movies back to back and count how many times they say the circle is now complete or something about destiny.
Watching my kids get charged from the new movies reminds me of the magic they held for me. My youngest of the brood (4 yrs) watches episode 1 every day at least twice (more if we let him). He'll watch and play what he's watching with his toy light-sabers or holding his hands up and flying the pod and then ask to fast-foward the DVD to the fighting parts. My 12 year old is in love with them too; he was so charged by seeing episode2 that it's refreshing to see the magic of it again.
I propose that the movies haven't lost their magic -- we have. We've been jaded by effects generated by super-computers, movies with actual plots and decent stories and good acting and now we sit back and critique the new movies forgetting that when Star Wars 1st came out the critics panned it -- but no one cared; we all had the magic back then.
I know what you mean. BUT, I've been experiencing them through the eyes of my kids.
Forced writing? Forced acting? Go watch the original 3 and tell me they don't have the same thing? You know why they're held in mystique? We accepted them. Go watch all 3 of the 1st movies back to back and count how many times they say the circle is now complete or something about destiny.
Watching my kids get charged from the new movies reminds me of the magic they held for me. My youngest of the brood (4 yrs) watches episode 1 every day at least twice (more if we let him). He'll watch and play what he's watching with his toy light-sabers or holding his hands up and flying the pod and then ask to fast-foward the DVD to the fighting parts. My 12 year old is in love with them too; he was so charged by seeing episode2 that it's refreshing to see the magic of it again.
I propose that the movies haven't lost their magic -- we have. We've been jaded by effects generated by super-computers, movies with actual plots and decent stories and good acting and now we sit back and critique the new movies forgetting that when Star Wars 1st came out the critics panned it -- but no one cared; we all had the magic back then.</font>[/QUOTE]Then your proposal wouldn't stand up to muster, because adults liked those original films; specifically the first two. And when they were shown on HBO years later the adults and kids alike still loved them. And when they came out on video-casette all ages still loved them.
The simple fact of the matter is the author (autur) of the films in question didn't know how to make a flick specifically targetted at younger audiences. Or rather had he known, then he deliberately veered away from that to grab a larger market share. But since his was one of three sci-fi flicks released in 77 (I think King Kong or Godzilla versus Megalon came out either the year before or after ... ditto with Logan's Run) he essentially had a happy hunting ground.
The original films, specifically the first two, were a little slower paced, but well timed, and certainly a touch more contemplative than the lastest recent disasters.
It's important that you recall not just your memories of watching the film as a young person, but also try to recall the popular response to the films back in the seventies. I remember it distinctly; news reports about people seeing Star Wars for the gazillionth time, political cartoons with Star Wars elements/themes, Disco Star Wars music, and a whole host of other items, thoughts, and things that paid homage to George Lucas's film.
Part of it was the novelty; good to passing SFX in a genre that was used to stop-motion or models hanging from wires or strings to tell a story. But the other part was that the writing was far more refined, as was the acting by all the talent involved. All these elements have been lost in the latest installments.
It's good you can enjoy it with your child, or rather watch him enjoy it. But ask yourself why all the adults enjoyed it way back when?
Well...my 2creds worth, is that movie is worth seeing for the final battle. Not as good TESB or ROJ (for Space Battles) but otherwise, the movie dialogue sucked and the book was much better as it worked off the original script not holes that was projected on screen.
BTW, is there any truth to the rumour that Nat. Portman is going to appear in Jedi as one of the final ghosts? All I know is that Anakin is going to put a lot of weight between now and the next film...
BTW, is there any truth to the rumour that Nat. Portman is going to appear in Jedi as one of the final ghosts? All I know is that Anakin is going to put a lot of weight between now and the next film...
tim_manley
SOC-12
Well, the story that Lucas told in the first star wars movie was not original. The movie wasn't that original either. What was is that at the time the old serials had been dead for some time and it was re-dressed in a manner that seemed fresh and new. And, for many of the effects, it was new. But, novelty doesn't keep something alive for years; novely makes it a flash and then it's gone. There's something more to it than that. And that is the mystique of the old story...the Hero Quest mythos (to bring in Cambell).
Neither the writing in the 1st two movies nor the acting was anything special. Much of the dialogue seemed forced and unnatural. The writing wasn't refined either. On it's techinal merits as literature it wasn't anything special. But, the story and the genre captured us all -- it invoked the feelings that most adults of the time had of their time watching the serials in Saturday Morning (Buck Rogers, Flash Gordon, etc.)
What I'm getting at is that the 1st two movies have the same depth of story that the 1st 3 had. The 2nd movie tried to show too much -- the fall of a Republic into Empire (which was spread over 2 movies) the fall into darkness of a hero, the love story between two people -- and toss in some connections to the movies to come; that if we didnt' *see* those movies first wouldn't mean much to us now.
Too many people bash Ep 1 & 2 and I ask why? They say the acting sucked and the writing sucked. Well, both are at least equal to Ep4-6. I think that perhaps a little reason there is bashing is multi-fold. First, the expectation is always greater than what is delivered. Second, many folks have developed their own ideas, from novels and such, about the history or the enviornment of the stories. Well, the movies will never match those...just won't.
Another reason is that folks say what you just did, that they tried to 'gear' it towards kids and/or toys. I disagree. Sure, peple hated Jar-Jar and say he was put in the movie as a calculated plan to appeal to children. I disagree; I see humor as the reason to include the bumbling character.
Now, in episode 2 I did like the way that Jar-Jar was the unwitting tool to help Palpatine gain power.
But, I need to add something else about Ep1 & 2 that has not existed in any other movie so far. That's a good super-villian. I mean, this guy was planning what he was doing for the past 10 years. Ep1 was nothing more than an attempt on his part to get himself elected chancellor. He knew that it would fail. Ep2 was the same. He knew that his little robot coup army would fail -- in fact he was counting on it. He was counting on the Clone Army being brought in and handed to him.
bascially what I'm saying is that I loved SW, ESB and RoTJ...and, I also love Ep1 & 2 and am eagerly awating Ep3. In fact, I'm looking forward to having all 6 movies and spending a weekend with my kids watching them all in order.
Lucas really has captured the essense and feel of the old Serials here. It's taken quite a long time to get it done....but he did what he set out to do.
Now, to add -- the *only* star wars book I read was the actual star wars, and the 3 Zhan novels. I started to read Empire but the writing in the book was so bad I had to throw it down in disgust. So, the *only* thing I have to work from are the original 3 movies -- I have no preconceptions as to what to excpet Lucas' world to be other than what he shows me in the movies.
anyway....
Well, the story that Lucas told in the first star wars movie was not original. The movie wasn't that original either. What was is that at the time the old serials had been dead for some time and it was re-dressed in a manner that seemed fresh and new. And, for many of the effects, it was new. But, novelty doesn't keep something alive for years; novely makes it a flash and then it's gone. There's something more to it than that. And that is the mystique of the old story...the Hero Quest mythos (to bring in Cambell).
Neither the writing in the 1st two movies nor the acting was anything special. Much of the dialogue seemed forced and unnatural. The writing wasn't refined either. On it's techinal merits as literature it wasn't anything special. But, the story and the genre captured us all -- it invoked the feelings that most adults of the time had of their time watching the serials in Saturday Morning (Buck Rogers, Flash Gordon, etc.)
What I'm getting at is that the 1st two movies have the same depth of story that the 1st 3 had. The 2nd movie tried to show too much -- the fall of a Republic into Empire (which was spread over 2 movies) the fall into darkness of a hero, the love story between two people -- and toss in some connections to the movies to come; that if we didnt' *see* those movies first wouldn't mean much to us now.
Too many people bash Ep 1 & 2 and I ask why? They say the acting sucked and the writing sucked. Well, both are at least equal to Ep4-6. I think that perhaps a little reason there is bashing is multi-fold. First, the expectation is always greater than what is delivered. Second, many folks have developed their own ideas, from novels and such, about the history or the enviornment of the stories. Well, the movies will never match those...just won't.
Another reason is that folks say what you just did, that they tried to 'gear' it towards kids and/or toys. I disagree. Sure, peple hated Jar-Jar and say he was put in the movie as a calculated plan to appeal to children. I disagree; I see humor as the reason to include the bumbling character.
Now, in episode 2 I did like the way that Jar-Jar was the unwitting tool to help Palpatine gain power.
But, I need to add something else about Ep1 & 2 that has not existed in any other movie so far. That's a good super-villian. I mean, this guy was planning what he was doing for the past 10 years. Ep1 was nothing more than an attempt on his part to get himself elected chancellor. He knew that it would fail. Ep2 was the same. He knew that his little robot coup army would fail -- in fact he was counting on it. He was counting on the Clone Army being brought in and handed to him.
bascially what I'm saying is that I loved SW, ESB and RoTJ...and, I also love Ep1 & 2 and am eagerly awating Ep3. In fact, I'm looking forward to having all 6 movies and spending a weekend with my kids watching them all in order.
Lucas really has captured the essense and feel of the old Serials here. It's taken quite a long time to get it done....but he did what he set out to do.
Now, to add -- the *only* star wars book I read was the actual star wars, and the 3 Zhan novels. I started to read Empire but the writing in the book was so bad I had to throw it down in disgust. So, the *only* thing I have to work from are the original 3 movies -- I have no preconceptions as to what to excpet Lucas' world to be other than what he shows me in the movies.
anyway....</font>[/QUOTE]I never said the story was original. It's a new twist on an old theme. What I said was the writing, that is the verbage and phraesology, is better in the original films.
The effects; no, the techniques were not new. I did special effects for films for a number of years, and I worked for a couple of the guys who worked on the original SW films. With the exception of putting mirrors on Luke's speeder there is absoloutely nothing in that film, in terms of technique, that hadn't been done in previous films. What was new were the blend of story and dynamacism of how the effects were shot and cut together with the live action.
Story and the late Joe Campbell; see my previous statement. It should be noted that Lucas originally wanted to reshoot the "Flash Gordon" serial, and embed his message there. But he was unable to secure the rights (the reason escapes me, but I think the licensing cost was prohibitive for his budget).
Your second paragraph on writing. Again, it's important NOT to confuse the quality of writing with its originality.
Your third paragraph; I refer you to my previous post.
Your fourth paragraph; on acting and its blend with the writing; no, the acting on the part of the child leads (Nat and Jake) stunk. Poor natalie is a young adolescent girl asking to take on the persona of a world leader. Clearly no method of research can prepare one for something of that nature, so she took her cues on how to "behave" from the director. The quality of performances between SW then, and SW now, is night and day with a couple of exceptions. Those exceptions all involve the seasoned actors.
Your fifth paragraph; refer to my previous post; i.e. in legalese; "Asked and answered."
Your 6th one line paragraph; neat.
Your 7th paragraph; "Supervillain" huh? OK. That didn't make the movie better. It still stunk. Reading your paragraph I get the sensation that you enjoyed this film. If that's the case, then you have to ask yourself why you did. It was afterall a children's film ... right?
Your 8th paragraph; more power to you.
Your 9th statement; not in the least. Reading this exchange I'm going to offer some advice, and it's going to sound very condescending, but it isn't meant to be so. You need to take off your rose colored glasses to really analyze this film. Look, I was a huge SW fan until I saw Phantom. I enjoyed the movies, story and a great many ancillary aspects. I was really looking forward to Phantom. I didn't have any great expectations other than to see a good film. I didn't see that. I saw a CGI cartoon with a couple of inexperienced child actors, buttressed by exceptional supporting actors who did their best to carry the film.
The older films were able to generate sympathy for characters and situation. Compound that with some good writing, exceptional performances and dazzleing visuals, and you got a winner of a movie. Those elements are just no there in the newer SW incarnations.
Often I find myself handicapped when debating folks on quality of popular media. I worked in the industry for a number of years, have intimate knowledge of its workings and environs. Often when debating tastes people are unwilling to admit that that which they adored (at any age level) isn't all that good as they first thought. It's a difficult thing to argue with people because in effect one is telling the other that his taste in a given art is bad. It's difficult because unlike the Delta-Epsilon proof for derivatives, there's no well grounded math that will point to the absoloute value of opinion-X.
Even so I think there are some artistic absoloutes. Though not proven by any process I know, there are things that are qualitatively good, and qualitatively bad. And I don't mean that in the opinionated sense, where each of us prefers one flavor of ice cream over another as an example, but in the real hard value of what is appealing and well constructed. That verse that which is not.
In any event, I'm glad you enjoyed the newer films, and am sorry you don't understand why other folks don't appreciate your love of them
tim_manley
SOC-12
hmmm...interesting.
I still disagree with you on many points. I think that due to your experience and background in the industry you have a different perspective than others; and I'm sure that you watch movies with a different eye, a more critical eye, than most others.
I disagree with the quite though; I do not think there is an artistic absolute. I think it's very subjective and personal. Being educated in the medium does not make one an expert on what *is* or *is not* art; now I mean not to flame or insult you and am not saying that you are doing exactly this. But, I've known too many people that do; and I do think that the 'industry' tends to have a very egotistical attitude about those that are not educated, i.e. of thier ilk, and how they just cannot know what art truly is.
I still defy you to show me that the previous 3 SW movies had good acting throughout
Too many places the dialogue was stiff, the acting forced and the exchange actually painful to watch. As for your comments on Ep1; I don't disagree with all of them. I don't think it's actually intended to be a children's film, no more than SW was. But, I agree with the acting of the child actors....that's the problem with child actors, no seasoning
I didn't like ep1 when I first saw it; in fact hated it for probably the same reasons most here do. What I was saying, and I think that point was missed due to my inability to communicate it effectively, was the magic of the mythos and how watching my children enjoy the movie inspired me to look at them with a different eye.
But, I think the intent of my words are missed and no one is really willing to see what I'm trying to say. Even you are entrenched in your belief, which you back up by your professional experience, that what I say is not true. In fact, you challenge me to examine why I enjoy the movies, as if there is something wrong with my enjoyment of them.
You call them 'dazzling visuals' in the old movies. They were dazzling why? You yourself said that no real technique was new, just the delivery. They were dazzling because no one merged them before, as you yourself have said.
So here come Ep1 and Ep2, building on a past-history created by a movie made nearly 3 decades ago and here sit us, the aged, educated audience watching and excpecting grandeur and amazement and wonder and the same things that tints our perception of it to this day.
But, we have under our belts incredible visual effects as part and parcel for today's epics. We have movies that are generated to be like carnival rides and we see the new star wars chapters come into the fray.
We forget that when SW first came out it was quickly panned by the critics; the artistic experts. The older movies can be picked apart and dissected to stand to the absolute artistic truth.
But, none of this is really my point. I've met very few people that have hated the original SW movies; and those folks that have hated the new ones love the old ones. Hell, even my grandmother has seen Star Wars (on broadcast TV).
My point is the magic that watching the movies brought to us when we saw them in the theater for the 1st time. And, how I see that very same magic in my kids and how *that* has caused me to look at them differently, to rediscover the wide eyed wonder that I had when I first saw Star Wars.
But, I think this point is lost. Either I am not explaining it clearly or folks just don't get it. So, I see that there really was no point in my making the post in the first place. I don't mean to offend anyone, nor am I trying to make anyone wrong, so please don't take this post as doing that, I'll just drop the subject.
Well, there's the old cliche; "I'm no art critic, but I know what I like."
Your point isn't lost. You like those films because they hold a certain enchantment for you. I think that's great. But you have to ask yourself why it is you like them. You really have to dig deep down and be honest with yourself about what qualities appeal to you.
You're want to establish your opinion as fact, because the thing were discussing appeals to you, and you want to show that what you like is really a good thing. That's understandable. We'd all like people to appreciate the things we like, but that doesn't make them good. Nor does it make one an expert.
I have expertise. Most people don't, and therefore think that because (in their minds anyway) making movies is supposidly an "art," that therefore their opinion is as valid as anyone elses. In terms of quantifying one's taste, I suppose that's true, but it is not justification to assert their opinion as fact. A bad film is a bad film, and no amount of opinion will change that fact.
My professional experience doesn't mean I can't enjoy films as they were meant to be seen; with innocent eyes. A lot of my coworkers couldn't. When they went to a movie with their wives or girlfriends they immediately started to pick the thing apart, and ruined the evening for their lady friends. I'm not one of those people. If a film is really good, then it should take one's mind and immerse it in the fantasy presented. When a film isn't good it's then that one involuntarily notices the glitches or other technical aspects of the film.
Anyway, I've said all I had to on this subject. If you like these films, then that's great. But again you need to be brutally honest with yourself why you like them.
Your point isn't lost. You like those films because they hold a certain enchantment for you. I think that's great. But you have to ask yourself why it is you like them. You really have to dig deep down and be honest with yourself about what qualities appeal to you.
You're want to establish your opinion as fact, because the thing were discussing appeals to you, and you want to show that what you like is really a good thing. That's understandable. We'd all like people to appreciate the things we like, but that doesn't make them good. Nor does it make one an expert.
I have expertise. Most people don't, and therefore think that because (in their minds anyway) making movies is supposidly an "art," that therefore their opinion is as valid as anyone elses. In terms of quantifying one's taste, I suppose that's true, but it is not justification to assert their opinion as fact. A bad film is a bad film, and no amount of opinion will change that fact.
My professional experience doesn't mean I can't enjoy films as they were meant to be seen; with innocent eyes. A lot of my coworkers couldn't. When they went to a movie with their wives or girlfriends they immediately started to pick the thing apart, and ruined the evening for their lady friends. I'm not one of those people. If a film is really good, then it should take one's mind and immerse it in the fantasy presented. When a film isn't good it's then that one involuntarily notices the glitches or other technical aspects of the film.
Anyway, I've said all I had to on this subject. If you like these films, then that's great. But again you need to be brutally honest with yourself why you like them.
PapaGolfWhiskey
SOC-13
Actually I think I -do- get it.
When describing my disapointed reaction to phantom menance to a friend I sighed and said "I guess you can't have first times over again"
part of the magic of ep. 4 was the time and place, it was at a theatre that's been since, a dance club, a comercial children's funhouse and a few other non theatre things. During the wait for the movie to start, the Star Wars theme played constantly, a Disco ball was lowered from the ceiling and spun around. I was 8 I think.
ep. 1 was slow in some places and overdone in others. I don't think it was -just- me. but I was certainly a factor in the magic not working.
ep 2 was good. It wasn't ep. 4. you still can't have first times over again. Yes it still had plot holes you could drive a battleship through. So did ep 4. yes, Anakin's pick up lines were PAINFUL and Amidala falling for them was NOT a point in her favour. but there were some good moments.
Such as when Anakin is asking Obi-wan "what about Amidala" and Kenobi responds as he watches her skinny out her bonds and up the sacrifice pole "I think she's on top of the situation"
I don't think I could have enjoyed clones without having seen Phantom. and I for one. DID enjoy it.
Garf.
When describing my disapointed reaction to phantom menance to a friend I sighed and said "I guess you can't have first times over again"
part of the magic of ep. 4 was the time and place, it was at a theatre that's been since, a dance club, a comercial children's funhouse and a few other non theatre things. During the wait for the movie to start, the Star Wars theme played constantly, a Disco ball was lowered from the ceiling and spun around. I was 8 I think.
ep. 1 was slow in some places and overdone in others. I don't think it was -just- me. but I was certainly a factor in the magic not working.
ep 2 was good. It wasn't ep. 4. you still can't have first times over again. Yes it still had plot holes you could drive a battleship through. So did ep 4. yes, Anakin's pick up lines were PAINFUL and Amidala falling for them was NOT a point in her favour. but there were some good moments.
Such as when Anakin is asking Obi-wan "what about Amidala" and Kenobi responds as he watches her skinny out her bonds and up the sacrifice pole "I think she's on top of the situation"
I don't think I could have enjoyed clones without having seen Phantom. and I for one. DID enjoy it.
Garf.
James Bolivar DiGriz
SOC-4
I can't knock the grandeur of some of the environments. I enjoyed it visually. As far as exciting goes, though, it just doesn't have it. I felt like I was watching a mediocre 50's movie. I liked the original three for the straightforward life and death struggles against evil that appeared to have the odds in it's favor. I liked cheering on the underdogs and wondering how they were going to "get out of this one?" Of course, I'm the kind of game master that likes to make sure the characters don't take their lives for granted. Nothing likes being on the brink of death's door to make you appreciate living.
It sure sound like someone tossed a grenade into the bear pit. Wrowl, Hssst.
I did enjoy the flick, because that is what it was, a flick. If you want to get into the story line, then read all of the books. I lost count how many there are, but it is well over 50. Include the comics, good material and artwork. and it gets quite large. The one thing this saga has over many other popular ones, STAR DREK, is that everything is in line and agrees with each other. Just trying to write a movie to match all of the data on hand and try to satisfy the gear heads would be a horror story. Many things could have been done to make the movie better, but it is now Star Wars canon.
As a comparison, think what was done to the Lord of the Rings, Fellowship of the rings. They took the best story of the 20-th century and butchered it. To make that story into a movie would require 6 hours of film. It would make Gettysburg seem like a quick flick.
Yes, the movie could have been done better. The big battle was a joke. Jango fett was wasted, but so was Darth Maul. The Jedi were fools, not the all knowing wise men of the universe. But a good bad guy will stick around for the next movie. And how else was a teenage jedi going to get into the pants of a princess?
How many of you did not cheer when Yoda got out the saber and danced the Tasmanian Devil cance with the Count?
----------------------------
In the end, Murphy will rule
I did enjoy the flick, because that is what it was, a flick. If you want to get into the story line, then read all of the books. I lost count how many there are, but it is well over 50. Include the comics, good material and artwork. and it gets quite large. The one thing this saga has over many other popular ones, STAR DREK, is that everything is in line and agrees with each other. Just trying to write a movie to match all of the data on hand and try to satisfy the gear heads would be a horror story. Many things could have been done to make the movie better, but it is now Star Wars canon.
As a comparison, think what was done to the Lord of the Rings, Fellowship of the rings. They took the best story of the 20-th century and butchered it. To make that story into a movie would require 6 hours of film. It would make Gettysburg seem like a quick flick.
Yes, the movie could have been done better. The big battle was a joke. Jango fett was wasted, but so was Darth Maul. The Jedi were fools, not the all knowing wise men of the universe. But a good bad guy will stick around for the next movie. And how else was a teenage jedi going to get into the pants of a princess?
How many of you did not cheer when Yoda got out the saber and danced the Tasmanian Devil cance with the Count?
----------------------------
In the end, Murphy will rule
PapaGolfWhiskey
SOC-13
When Yoda turned into SONIC THE JEDI. it ROCKED.
and Chris Lee made a good villain.
you really think they butchered Lord of the Rings?
I found the spectacle awesome and what I saw of Bilbo and the hobbits jived well with my favourite and only completely read Tolkein Novel (The Hobbit).
you want to talk about butchery, look what Matt Damon did to a Ludlum Classic.
Garf.
and Chris Lee made a good villain.
you really think they butchered Lord of the Rings?
I found the spectacle awesome and what I saw of Bilbo and the hobbits jived well with my favourite and only completely read Tolkein Novel (The Hobbit).
you want to talk about butchery, look what Matt Damon did to a Ludlum Classic.
Garf.
Similar threads
