What does everyone think of Star Wars Eps I-III?
- Thread starter blix
- Start date
Picking elements out of a film doesn't even begin to touch the surface of how the narrative is created. Just because there are (in your opinion) more of what you have mentioned in the more recent series of films doesn't make them in any way more complete. Also if the first set of films were lacking they wouldn't have garnered such a reputation that created the weight of expectation on the latest ones.
Don't think I've ever seen anyone say that at all!!!
Die hard fans usually hate the first two and 3 is boderline because it is dark like Empire, so they get nostalgic.
To say 1 is better than 2 and 3 though...did you forget the 45-60minutes of the film where you have to sit and watch/listen to binks and the rest of the gungans?
At leas the Ewoks in Jedi looked real and sounded believable!
Last edited:
Associate
- Joined
- 15 Jul 2005
- Posts
- 1,230
- Location
- UK
Ep1 = average
Ep2 = very good
Ep 3 = very good
Ep 4 = good
Ep 5 = excelent
Ep 6 = very good
the new trilogy is much better than what most people on here say. How can you say that the acting is bad in ep 1-3 when it was equally as bad in the old films?
Im a huge fan of the new trilogy and I thought the storyline was great, it answers a lot of questions about Darth Vadar.
People will never be happy on sequals that come out 5-10 years after, as "things are much better back then", but in reality, its all in your mind
Ep2 = very good
Ep 3 = very good
Ep 4 = good
Ep 5 = excelent
Ep 6 = very good
the new trilogy is much better than what most people on here say. How can you say that the acting is bad in ep 1-3 when it was equally as bad in the old films?
Im a huge fan of the new trilogy and I thought the storyline was great, it answers a lot of questions about Darth Vadar.
People will never be happy on sequals that come out 5-10 years after, as "things are much better back then", but in reality, its all in your mind
Associate
- Joined
- 15 Jul 2005
- Posts
- 1,230
- Location
- UK
its one big love story......
Associate
- Joined
- 2 Feb 2008
- Posts
- 777
What I don't understand is why Episode 1 was wasted on largely pointless back story which could have been sumed up in flashbacks?
E.g. Episode one- essentially Episode 2 without the love story being so...awful, and secondly, the start of Anakin slowly turning towards the dark side?
Episode two- set around a key part/event of the middle of the Clone Wars? Again, evidence of Anaking becoming increasingly aggressive and violent, etc.
Episode three- largely the same, as this one was dark enough to be okay. The main difference is that again, Anakin doesn't turn to the dark side within all of 5 minutes of hanging around Palpatine...
If they took that sort of approach, I think the trilogy would have been a lot closer to the original one.
E.g. Episode one- essentially Episode 2 without the love story being so...awful, and secondly, the start of Anakin slowly turning towards the dark side?
Episode two- set around a key part/event of the middle of the Clone Wars? Again, evidence of Anaking becoming increasingly aggressive and violent, etc.
Episode three- largely the same, as this one was dark enough to be okay. The main difference is that again, Anakin doesn't turn to the dark side within all of 5 minutes of hanging around Palpatine...
If they took that sort of approach, I think the trilogy would have been a lot closer to the original one.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 33,188
no the first 3 starwars films(as in the originals) didn't have lightsaber fights in every scene, it was about plot, characters and the story, fights were only PART of it. That IS what star wars was. unfortunately the unwashed masses saw lightsabers and wanted more, they saw explosions and wanted more, they saw story and ignored it waiting for the next fight, so they cut that out and put bigger fight scenes in.
Far too many frustratingly stupid plot holes and twists and stupid actions in fights. For instance the Darth Maul scene where he runs through the , whatever the heck they were, timed forcefields that protected, nothing, there was NO reason for the first guy(too late to remember names) to not wait for the other guy, who for no reason took ages to catch up. He wasn't angry, he's a trained jedi, a skilled warrior with a brain, why not wait the 8 seconds it would have taken for backup. Also this feeble minded insane idea that a double "bladed" lightsaber would somehow make him better, in reality it would simply make for an incredibly ackward, difficult and slow to use weapon where two trained people of roughly equal quality with a far easier to use weapon should have had him within seconds.
In the first films, take the last one the Vader/Skywalker fight, there was a reason, they were alone, they were trying to turn Skywalker so didn't just gang up to rape him quickly, the plot explained, and well, why it was a one on one fight and it played out great. THe plot completely failed to explain why the jedi's decided to act like idiots, nor why Darth Maul didn't kill Ewan but made pretty sparks while Ewan plotted his death.
Yes its nitpicky, but thats just what sums up almost every stage of all the films, some uncreative idiot comes up with an idea for a fight and shoehorns a story to fit around the fight even if it makes no sense, and it was the same for every fight/sequence they had. THe crash landing the cruiser which was broken in half, its just utter nonsense from start to finish.
Might just be me but, sets, sparse deserts they actually build sets and film in decades ago have far more character and depth to them, than a bunch of actors infront of a blue screen running towards a wall which is then replaced by a dodgey looking CGI effect, because people like their films to look shiney and new rather than real. It all takes away from the film, the horrific acting of many of the people cast didn't help, especially Annakin. The jokes are crappy and ill timed, Jar Jar Binks was a travesty, not funny, mildly racist, wasted a lot of time and frankly, you wont' get good actors talking to a non existant character whose put into a bluescreen shot at a later date putting in a very good performance.
CGi for the sake of CGI because lots of stupid kids like CGI in their films because they think its new and hip, is what ruins all too many films.
IV - 9/10
V - 10/10
VI - 7/10
Then
I - 3/10
II - 4/10
III - 4/10
I was 7 when I first went to see Star Wars in St. Ives so I might be one of those who grew up with rose tinted glasses for the original three films.
I was also annoyed that they released Episode I in the US a few weeks before the UK in 1999 that I went to New York just to see it. Loved New York but was really dissapointed with the film.
V - 10/10
VI - 7/10
Then
I - 3/10
II - 4/10
III - 4/10
I was 7 when I first went to see Star Wars in St. Ives so I might be one of those who grew up with rose tinted glasses for the original three films.
I was also annoyed that they released Episode I in the US a few weeks before the UK in 1999 that I went to New York just to see it. Loved New York but was really dissapointed with the film.
Last edited:
The biggest beef with Ep 1-3 is that it wrecks the original trilogy and mythology. Suddenly the force is not to be found in all living things, it's something you have to be immaculately born with in your blood, like Jesus with hep-c. If you don't have one, universe doesn't give a flying fig about you. Suddenly one of the biggest, most spectacular, darkest and fearful villains in history of modern cinema is just a latex wearing metrosexual, snotty, annoying kid with a brain of a diversity football player and tendencies to teeth grinding. Suddenly Obi Wan is just an a-hole on power trip. And Yoda is just an Umpa Lumpa on ecstasy, flying around the room with rave fluorescent tube. Republican universe is one where everything is oblique, smooth and made of plastic. Jedi are not likeable and not overly heroic, but instead very stubborn and manipulative. And they serve republic where seemingly anyone from whiny teenager, through retarded frog with down syndrome can have seat or function in Senate. It could go for hours. The three "anakin" episodes wreck the story line in the same way as discovering after 20 years that Indiana Jones was dealing with aliens and flying saucers and died from radiation poisoning after he chose to hide in SMEG fridge in the middle of a-bomb testing grounds. Oh, wait... it was the same guy who screwed up this story...
Last edited:
I would much prefer CGI then scale models, puppets and costumes. Where not in the 70s now, we have the technology to create very very real looking CGI.
What we have here is 3 different types of viewer base, people comparing and hating the new and loving the old, people hating the old and loving the new and people who adapt after liking the old, but also like the new.
Unfortunately, they couldn't make the die hard SW's fans enjoy the new films, because none of the old cast where there, none of the cheesy scale models and costumes were used.
They made the new films to continue the story but also for the modern times, this is why we have characters like binx to relate to the children. I personally think the old Obi-Wan actor was terrible compared to the new guy (cant spell his name).
Last edited:
You are kidding arn't you!!! Your saying Sir Alec Guinness was crap ?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alec_Guinness
There's still room for both in modern film-making imo. And personally, I don't think the CGI in Eps 1-3 were "very very real looking". Some of it was great, some of it was cheesey as hell.
Comparison is unfortunately, inevitable. They are the same series of films. However, whilst nostalgia might play a big part in someone claiming the older trilogy is better than the new, I see many valid points in this thread as to why the newer films just aren't that good, either comparing them to the original trilogy, or to modern contemporaries.
So SW die hards enjoyed the original trilogy because of the cheesy scale models and costumes? That's why at the time, it was the biggest thing to hit cinema... ever...? Because of models and costumes????
As for none of the original cast, that is just incorrect. In fact, one of my problems with the new trilogy is Lucas' quite frankly transparent attempt at appeasing every individual who has ever seen a SW movie. "Oh Boba Fett was quite popular, I'll chuck him in". "Hmmm, this film isn't contrived enough... I know, more Chewbacca is needed".
No, they were prequels, so they did not "continue" any story. I agree that they are most definitely modern films ie dumbed down for the masses with lots of eye candy, not because it adds anything to the story, but because it's what film producers think (and maybe they're right) modern movie audiences want. This by the way, can be levelled at pretty much every blockbuster movie of the last 30 years.
Your point re Alec Guinness? Well, just lol.
And if my own children enjoyed the presence of Jar Jar Binks on any level, I'd drown them.
Last edited:
Bare in mind modern CGI i.e. 2008-2009 is far in advanced of what we saw in them 2 films, just look at Star Trek.
I personally cant see a reason to use costumes and models anymore, there really isnt any need, CGI is very close to real and gives far in advanced flexibility then models and costumes.
I agree there are some valid points, i just feel a lot of the people who said they were rubbish is down to nostalgia.
No i was just generalising, but i dont feel the story is as strong as people are making it out to be.
Nothing wrong with adding the old characters into the story, lord of the rings wouldnt have been very good if they kept changing all the characters throughout the film.
While some films are as you describe, there are some very distinct films that use all the above and show great cinema, examples for me are the new Batman films, brilliant story, acting, CGI and still "dumb" enough for average joe to understand.
But you need to ask are films dumbed down because audiences want that or is it because the film industry is becoming stagnant with a lack of imagination?
No offence, but if you watched the trailer magick linked above, where he was fighting darth vader, well.......lets just say if it was released today it would flop.
I agree, CGI is very close to real. But costumes and puppets ARE real. They are tangible, part of the scene. They are actually there for the actors to see and interact with. They (like CGI) have to be well done of course, or (like bad CGI), they just look cheesey. Let me use Jurassic Park as an example of where CGI and animatronics (rather than mere "puppets") can compliment each other perfectly in a film. (Stan Winston RIP)
One area where I personally just can't stomach CGI is it's use in set creation. Creating a CGI monster/dinosaur/robot what have you, is fine, for the most part, but (and this is just my opinion), a computer generated set never looks good. It always looks fake. I know it's mainly done for financial reasons etc, but still, CGI sets always make me think I'm looking at a game rather than a film.
That's a perfectly valid opinion. However, being the only childhood Star Wars fan amongst my friends, I can promise you that plenty of people who didn't like/get the originals, loathed the new ones as well
To be fair though, the Lord of the Rings trilogy only spans a couple of years, whereas the SW series spans decades. We are quite literally dealing with different generations. There is just no need for Chewbacca eg, to be in the prequels. Again, just my opinion
Yep, Batman is a good example of how to make an intelligent blockbuster (if that's not too much of an oxymoron), but frankly it pees all over Episode 1-3. The CGI is used as a means to an end and is unobtrusive... it isn't there for the sake of it. The direction, acting, story etc were all a cut above the new SW trilogy I'm afraid, by quite a considerable margin.
Well, that's a debate for another thread, but you're dead right... Hollywood is almost completely lacking in any creative or imaginative spark. They churn out some mindless drivel at times, and regurgitate the same old ideas, remaking perfectly fine films because they don't have any new ideas.
However, it's we the public (generally speaking of course), who propel this stuff to the top of the box office rankings. We'll pay for the tickets, buy the merchandise for our kids... Hollywood, being what it is, is hardly likely to turn down our cash
Yet again, you're right, but that's because it's a 30 year old trailer, for a 30 year old film. And let it be said that Episodes 1-3 did not have the same financial success as 4-6 did in their day.
given that star wars almost never made it to the cinema, let alone many many cinemas once it caught on, its not surprising that it would fail in this day and age.
what a pointless comment to say that it would flop, everyone knows it would!
what a pointless comment to say that it would flop, everyone knows it would!
The whole reason people are complaining about the CGI was not because it was bad, but that there was too much of it. It was used as a substitute for acting, plot and dialogue.
Look at the Lord of the Rings trilogy. They're brilliant, epic films. The CGI is used tastefully and only to enhance the scenes.
Look at the Lord of the Rings trilogy. They're brilliant, epic films. The CGI is used tastefully and only to enhance the scenes.