What's Wrong with the new Star Wars?
- Thread starter Karma168
- Start date
Recommended Videos
for me the characters are no worse than the ones in the originals, some like qui-gon, young anakin and Ep.1&2 padme (not 3) are a lot easier to relate to. the 3 main characters to me seem overly serious (luke), a little stuck up (leia) and bored with life (han) whereas the ones i mentioned seemed much more human.Freezy_Breezy said:
I will agree though 3 has some dire moments :/
I quite liked jar-jar, he added a bit of humour to the mix, i liked him when i first saw 1 and it's kinda stayed but now i do see that they maybe overdid the goofy side of him.mattttherman3 said:
I dont get why everyone gets riled up over the midiclorians, they're mentioned in like one line and have absolutely no use in the films other than checking to see if anakin is a force sensitive.
you beat me too it, but that means i dont have to post them and can instead have soup and try and feel betterAuron555 said:
The original star wars trilogy is by no means more engaging than the original films, on the other hand they are well realized, fun, and exciting films that are much better than they could have been, although not nearly as good as they should have been.I grew up watching these films, and i mean all of them. I am as glad for the existence of episodes 1,2, and 3 as I am for the originals. To me its like a relationship with a good friend, sometimes he makes mistakes, and he is far from perfect, but all in all we have good times and I look forward to seeing him again(meaning: cant wait for three more episodes). now these films do not deserve the hate heaped on them, but a little constructive criticism never hurt anyone. So c'mon fanboys, calm down. deep down you enjoyed these films too and saw them multiple times in the theater, probably on opening weekend ;p
Because the only good Star Wars movies are the first two, every other movie is shameful. And even the original trilogy is riddled with cliche; George Lucas has never heard of the word subtlety.
George Lucas' response to the above opinion.
You want to talk about cliches?
George Lucas' response to the above opinion.
You want to talk about cliches?
Because the internet and, more importantly on this site, Yahtzee says they are.
Unfortunately, I don't actually listen to either on my movie decisions. Plus, being a big Star Wars fan, I'm a little more willing to overlook it's faults.
Same thing with Indiana Jones 4. I avoided internet discussion of it because people were already predicting how bad it would be over a year before it came out based on the stupidest things. (One argument was that there was a U.S. flag seen in a preview which offended some people terribly.) I still thought it would suck because Shia "Plague of the Transformers" LeBouf was in it.
But, y'know what? I really dug on Indiana Jones 4. I even liked Shia....somewhat or, at least, didn't hate him.
Same thing with video game movies. Gamers are absolutely the worst people to listen to when it comes to movie adaptions of games. The level of butthurt from Silent Hill fans when it was announced that the lead was going to be Radha Mitchell as opposed to a man could power the Eastern Seaboard for two years if we could have converted it to electrical energy. Everytime a video game movie comes out, the same level of butthurt rises from the fans because a character used a square key instead of a circular key to open a door or other such nitpicky nonsense.
So, in the end, you have to realize that the internet is a hate machine full of people who like Moviebob or think that "Over 9000" references is the peak of comedy. This could lead you to the conclusion that listening to people on the internet over what you should and should not like is asinine. However, while that is not wholly incorrect, the crowd can sometimes be right. So here is the best way to figure out if you should listen to arguments against a movie.
1) Do the arguments have the appearance of just hating on the movie because it's cool?
2) Are the arguments against it somewhat nitpicky?
3) Does the person write in all caps/like a 13-year-old badly in need of spellcheck/make ridiculous comparisons such as comparing a movie to the Bataan Death March?
4) Is the argument on IMDB?
If so, then ignore them. These people suck.
If, however, the arguments seem reasonable, then you may want to listen to them.
Getting back to the prequels, yes, they have their problems. As an example, there was only one short scene in Episode 2 where I actually bought into Anakin & Padme's relationship and the rest of their "loving" dialogue for the trilogy fell flat on it's cardboard face. But, while they have their issues, they are not terrible movies. It's just that the original trilogy had the benefit of not being torn apart by the internet before they were released in the theater plus people were free to make up their own minds about it rather than be confronted by a large hivemind that bombards you with how badly they suck/you suck if you like it.
Frankly, I've gotten into the habit of avoiding any internet discussion of movies that I'm going to see. This way, I can see the movie with as close to an optimistic blank slate as you can get. I'd rather be pleased/disappointed on the movies merits/faults on my own rather than going into it with the preconception surviving a nuclear blast by hiding in a fridge is the W0R5T M0M3NT 1N F1LM HESTOY 3VAR!!1!
So, in the movie, if you like the prequels, more power to you.
Unfortunately, I don't actually listen to either on my movie decisions. Plus, being a big Star Wars fan, I'm a little more willing to overlook it's faults.
Same thing with Indiana Jones 4. I avoided internet discussion of it because people were already predicting how bad it would be over a year before it came out based on the stupidest things. (One argument was that there was a U.S. flag seen in a preview which offended some people terribly.) I still thought it would suck because Shia "Plague of the Transformers" LeBouf was in it.
But, y'know what? I really dug on Indiana Jones 4. I even liked Shia....somewhat or, at least, didn't hate him.
Same thing with video game movies. Gamers are absolutely the worst people to listen to when it comes to movie adaptions of games. The level of butthurt from Silent Hill fans when it was announced that the lead was going to be Radha Mitchell as opposed to a man could power the Eastern Seaboard for two years if we could have converted it to electrical energy. Everytime a video game movie comes out, the same level of butthurt rises from the fans because a character used a square key instead of a circular key to open a door or other such nitpicky nonsense.
So, in the end, you have to realize that the internet is a hate machine full of people who like Moviebob or think that "Over 9000" references is the peak of comedy. This could lead you to the conclusion that listening to people on the internet over what you should and should not like is asinine. However, while that is not wholly incorrect, the crowd can sometimes be right. So here is the best way to figure out if you should listen to arguments against a movie.
1) Do the arguments have the appearance of just hating on the movie because it's cool?
2) Are the arguments against it somewhat nitpicky?
3) Does the person write in all caps/like a 13-year-old badly in need of spellcheck/make ridiculous comparisons such as comparing a movie to the Bataan Death March?
4) Is the argument on IMDB?
If so, then ignore them. These people suck.
If, however, the arguments seem reasonable, then you may want to listen to them.
Getting back to the prequels, yes, they have their problems. As an example, there was only one short scene in Episode 2 where I actually bought into Anakin & Padme's relationship and the rest of their "loving" dialogue for the trilogy fell flat on it's cardboard face. But, while they have their issues, they are not terrible movies. It's just that the original trilogy had the benefit of not being torn apart by the internet before they were released in the theater plus people were free to make up their own minds about it rather than be confronted by a large hivemind that bombards you with how badly they suck/you suck if you like it.
Frankly, I've gotten into the habit of avoiding any internet discussion of movies that I'm going to see. This way, I can see the movie with as close to an optimistic blank slate as you can get. I'd rather be pleased/disappointed on the movies merits/faults on my own rather than going into it with the preconception surviving a nuclear blast by hiding in a fridge is the W0R5T M0M3NT 1N F1LM HESTOY 3VAR!!1!
So, in the movie, if you like the prequels, more power to you.
Surprisingly, Episode 1 is the one I like the most out of the prequels. I don't like them because I have read every Star Wars book that comes after Return of the Jedi. These movies contradict those books seven ways to Sunday. There are also contradictions in the movies themselves. And never should a LOVE STORY be the main focus of a Star Wars story. NEVER. Especially one with Hayden as the main character.
And it is bad writing. See Anakin turning evil because the main villain tells him that it's okay. Enough said.
And it is bad writing. See Anakin turning evil because the main villain tells him that it's okay. Enough said.
These could probably settle this argument once and for all. They won't, but they should.Auron555 said:
Nothing, nothing at all - except, of course, some things that were wrong with the original trilogy (dodgy writing and some acting gaffes). The rest, mainly the feel of the films (they're not the same type of films, get over it) is down to personal preference.
yeah the whole good versus evil thing that the scene was setting up was brilliant and the dialogue is brilliant (if a little cheesy but it's SW cheesy is the norm) but the actual duel was so bad. they basically went "now we've shown off the lightsaber lets see it in use" but Alec Guinness was to old (63 y.o) to properly fight so the fight seemed stale.jjboat said:
If they had really wanted the fight luke should have tried to fight vader and obi-wan intervening, letting luke escape while still bringing in the great dialogue but leaving out a poor fight sequence
Came here to say exactly this. Think the prequels weren't that bad? Mr. Plinkett will set you straight, with a bucket o' pizza rolls upside your head.Auron555 said:
Midi-chlorians and the Chosen OneJoeNightmare said:
Midi-chlorians (also spelled "midi-clorians" or "midichlorians") are a microorganism in the fictional Star Wars galaxy, first mentioned in The Phantom Menace. They are microscopic life-forms that reside within the cells of all living things and communicate with the Force.[6] They are symbionts with all other living things and without them life could not exist. The Jedi have learned how to listen to and coordinate the midi-chlorians. While every living being thus has a connection to the Force, one must have a high enough concentration of midi-chlorians in one's cells in order to be a Jedi or a Sith.[7][8]
Creator George Lucas says that the midi-chlorians are based on the endosymbiotic theory.[9]
This guy knows what he's talking about. There are good moments in the prequels, but overall, it's hard to like characters such as the early Obi-Wan and Anakin the way they're portrayed in the original films.NickCaligo42 said:
I did like the second prequel, especially the side-plot of the clone army and the involvement of Boba Fett. Intriguing writing made that a part of the film you could at least get into. I also felt that Episode III felt entirely too much like Episode 2.5 and not enough of a bridge to set up events in the third. Hell, the last 10 minutes are basically a montage of Luke and Leia being born and separated, the death star showing up and the introduction of the suit.
The film should have focused more time on what happens AFTER Vader's turn than the contrived "if you train with the dark side there's a billion to one chance you can save your wife" storyline that happened before it. And he goes from being remorseful over the death of Windu to baby killer in 2.5 seconds? Come on.
I didn't think they were THAT bad, Anakin just sucked. As long as Anakin wasn't on screen, everything was k. On the other hand, I'm not a huge fan of Star Wars, and I haven't seen any of the films in a long time, so my opinions on them might have changed to some direction.
Both these fine gents are completely correct. The films fail because of poor direction, poor writing, over-reliance on CGI and several other factors. Mr. Plinkett explains these in great detail, and I swear his reviews are better written and more interesting than the movies they are reviewing.Commander Jack Rankin said: