5fb531cf
From: your.name@isp.com
"John Whelan" wrote in message
news:80e869b1-ecf9-4d46-b963-65a14120a94b@j19g2000vbh.googlegroups.com...
On Aug 24, 2:53 pm, Sandman wrote:
> > I mean, was I just very forgiving at its release because it was Star
> > Wars or have I become more demanding?
>
> Both, I suppose. But they really were very poor movies.
The "problem" for most of the whiners is that they saw the Original Trilogy
when they were young / kids, but then saw the Prequel Trilogy when they were
(supposedly) "grown up" .. .and stupidly expected the movies to have "grown
up" as well.
In reality, the movies were ALWAYS aimed at kids (basically young teen
boys), and it would have been ill-fitting and iditoically stupid for the
Prequel Trilogy to suddenly shift to a "grown up" set of movies.
> > That was all in there back than and I remember that ROTS was the
> > prequel episode I liked the most. Pffft.
>
> Many fans are less embarrassed by ROTS because it had more violence
> and "dark" themes, and less childish elements. But, in the final
> analysis, it really was just as poor as the others. The sad truth is
> that Jar Jar really was the best thing about the films, because little
> kids really do enjoy his antics. Take him away, and there's nothing
> left.
Jar Jar's "antics" are little different to the antics of the droids and the
ewoks of the Original Trilogy. It's likely Jar Jar partly existed because
the droids were separated for most of the Prequel Trilogy (C-3PO barley
existed in Episode I, literally).
> > Don't get me wrong, I really like Ewan McGregor, but he was stale in
> > all the prequel movies, and I don't know if I should blame George
> > Lucas or the overuse of CGI, or both.
>
> Lucas, the director, is to blame. Neeson, McGregor, Portman, Jackson
> et al. have all done better elsewhere.
>
> > But how can this be a problem? The original trilogy was shock-filled
> > with bad acting by non-actors at the time.
>
> I guess it depends on how you define "bad acting". But I disagree.
> The original actors did fine. Mark Hamill did fine.
Some of the Original Trilogy actors complained that George Lucas was too
vague or to exact in telling them what he wanted them to do and how he
wanted them to act.
> > So it's the story then?
>
> Yup.
Little has changed there either. Sir Alec Guiness or Harrison Ford called
the original movie something like a load of mumbo jumbo and expected it to
be a flop.
> > The character development?
>
> Yup.
Same here.
> > Lucas did direct the original movie that started it all
> > and while its story is simple it's still very captivating and carries
> > the viewer along, thirty years later. Did he just loose the ability to
> > direct a movie?
>
> One theory: he became a control freak and lost the ability to let the
> actors do their job. I am also convinced he had more help with the
> original story than he has acknowledged.
Not likely since some actors complained he was too exacting in what he
wanted them to do.
> > Too stylish. I sort of liked the new Star Trek movie - but it was
> > probably because it was so similar in "tone" to a Star Wars movie.
>
> I thought it was pretty bad.
It was "so similar in "tone"" because JJ Abrams is a Star Wars fan (to some
degree) rather than a Star Trek fan ... he had no real idea what "StarTrek"
is and nor did he really care, which is why that movie is utter ill-fitting
garbage *as a "Star Trek" movie*.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
