Aaaand now you're saying "I know better than anyone else and anyone who disagrees with me is automatically wrong, so let's just take my opinion as fact for the rest of the conversation."
I doubt you'd find it reasonable if someone said "I have been interested in media and entertainment my whole life. I have studied what critics think and what audiences think. If there was any possibility whatsoever that Return of the Sith was not objectively the worst movie ever made, I cannot see it."
![]()
Cute.
edited 20th Jan '12 3:51:01 PM by jewelleddragon
I know I probably won't actually post on this thread again, but isn't this a thread about George Lucas' "retirement" and not a thread about the quality of a film?
Follow me on tumblr!I don't know what to feel about George Lucas. I mean he did mess up on the prequel trilogy, but at the same time, I do feel bad that he gets so much hate from the geeks. I can understand hating the films, but the person. Come on, he's not Hitler or anything. He just made a subpar film. Get over it.
I don't think it's about how everything he's done recently was bad, he's not the first director to do that. No one gives Ridley Scott or Spielberg that much grief when they put out a sub-par movie (and if they do, they stop harping on it after like a week).
It's most likely got more to do with the fact that he made a few good movies 30 years ago and has since then altered them repeatedly and doesn't want people to see the original versions of those films anymore, no matter how much people would like to see them (unless they keep a well-preserved/maintained VCR), even though he (at one point) was for preserving films as they originally were. That's more likely the reason why people tear him a new one all the time.
Now comparing him to Hitler? When has that happened? Wouldn't he have to destroy a few billion movies in order to get that kinda comparison?
Alright, I've posted two narratively parallel scenes. One is Episode III, the duel between Obi-Wan and Anakin. The other is Episode VI, the duel between Luke and Vader. I chose them because they're entertaining segments and give me a bit of wiggle room to talk about actual swordsmanship. Here's hoping for a fencing derail.
These scenes are different in a lot of ways. Each one could be discussed to death, but I'll tell you why Jedi wins over Sith in the hearts of the general audience.
- In Jedi, the combat is interrupted by characterisation dialogue. It makes very clear what the conditions of each part of the fight are, as well as what's thematically at stake. Luke's battle isn't to save anyone — he's in no position to do that. Luke's actual fight is internal. While the lightsaber fight makes for a visceral, entertaining climax, that's not what the scene's about. Luke fights against his human impulse of anger, all the while doing battle with his father in the external world.
- In Sith, the fight is to prevent Anakin from doing any further damage. While it has character significance for Obi-Wan, it's not nearly as intense. There's no need for Obi-Wan to fight his anger because everything is at stake. The external implications and the extremity of Anakin's actions disempower the internal character factors of the fight. Just like Episode I failed to discuss what a Jedi really is, Episode III failed to provide a narrative justification and climax for the concept.
- In Jedi, the battle takes place in the heart of the Empire's power. Luke fights his father, the most terrifying agent of the Galactic Empire, while the Emperor himself sits in the seat of power. Two of the most terrifying people in the Galaxy are in a dark, dimly-coloured room with Luke, testing his character and his skill with a lightsaber. Outside are legions of Stormtroopers. Luke's only solace is in his internal strength.
- In Sith, Anakin and Obi-Wan are the only ones on Mustafar (apart from an unconscious Padme). It's a location that holds no thematic significance to the audience. It's not a base of operations for the Emperor, nor is it a particularly threatening environment to the audience. Sure, the whole planet's essentially an active volcano, but that's near enough cartoon villainy. This is not an environment that's come to represent anything. In terms of characterisation, atmosphere and narrative communication, it's entirely neutral ground.
- In Jedi, the lightsaber combat is raw, brutal and flows with the emotions of the combatants. When Luke becomes enraged, we can witness it through his fighting technique — the lightsaber becomes a tool of expression and characterisation rather than just a cool toy. Furthermore, the whole thing is way more on level with the real world (although still falls short of true sword technique). It actually looks like a battle between graceful knights. It's very human.
- In Sith, the lightsaber combat expressed nothing the dialogue and acting didn't, nor did it serve to reflect the internal struggle. Furthermore, it was overwrought and, at many times, just plain stupid. Sure, Jedi doesn't give us the best or most accurate sword fight in film history, but it gives us one that actually looks like two people trying to fight one-another. Sith, on the other hand, looks choreographed while making no sense from the perspective of any kind of sword fighting.
- In Jedi, the music, man. The music.
The male choir works so brilliantly to tie the scene together.
- I don't even remember the music for the fight in Sith. It might be pretty good and all as Star Wars music generally is, but I don't recall anything particularly climactic about it, no swell during a moment of character development, no link with any internal revelation.
Anyway, that's a very brief and non-academic comparison between the two scenes, but it shows exactly how well the OT was pieced together despite its flaws. We can overlook those because the OT is a fairy tales about knights, princesses and rogues on a quest to save the galaxy. It never tried to be anything else. The PT has all the same flaws and then some, all the while trying to be action movies and political thrillers that take themselves seriously.
edited 22nd Jan '12 8:27:56 AM by MadassAlex
Swordsman Troper — Reclaiming The Blade — WatchOkay, now it just seems like you're just biased. The Battle of Heroes
is a much more remembered piece than the piece used for Luke and Vader's duel (which doesn't even have a proper name). Not saying that it's a bad track though, far from it. Also, TBOH sounds pretty emotional to me.
Also, the battle of Mustafar is obviously supposed to be analogous to hell. YMMV on whether or not it worked for the movie.
Really, the fight scenes in the prequel trilogy share the same problems as the ones in Advent Children. They're good fights, and very entertaining, and the over-the-top aspects of them make sense, but 9 times out of ten you end up not really caring about the combatants.
My brother was talking about how much he prefered the novelization to the movie and was praising the quips Vader made while executing the Seperatists leaders "The transmission was garbled, he said you would be in pieces." I told him I prefered the cold, silent approach taken because if anything the characters in the prequels were too chatty and while the black armor Vader had a very dry sense of humor hearing him quip like that in battle is probably worse than the whole "In my opinion the Jedi are evil" moments.
The same thing goes for Anakin and Obi-Wan's fight, they talked a little but ranting on about geopolitics, betrayal or simple You Fight Like a Cow doesn't make the fight more exciting. Two former friends who are forced to kill each other, yeah it makes sense they aren't very chatty. It's also very clear that their body language is telling a story, Anakin has his shoulders slouched with a "to hell with the world" expression while Obi-Wan is perpetually tense, constantly defensive and waiting for the right moment to strike. Their movement mirror each other in certain places because of how much time they spent together.
If there is anything you can say about Lucas, he has a hard time telling a story though dialogue but is great doing it with visuals.
It wasn't the lack of dialogue, which bothered me about the Anakin vs. Obi-wan duel but the lack of any kind of dramatic structure. All I remember is 15 minutes of flynning and jumping around and finally Obi-wan wins by using the lesson he learned in Episode I. Even if you watch the final duel in Return Of The Jedi on mute and without subtitles you can see there's more to it than just two people fighting. First Luke holds back and then starts hiding but when Darth Vader taunts him with something, he loses control, defeats Darth Vader and becomes shocked at what he's almost become.
I remember one of the prime issues with it now.
It has too many "stabs" in the music. These are great for some action sequences, especially the space battles, but they don't fit the solemn tone of the lightsaber battle at all. In Star Wars, it's because musical shorthand for "action scene". Perhaps that's the isssue — the Anakin vs. Obi-Wan scene is an action scene first, character scene second. The Luke vs. Vader scene is the reverse. It's a fight that exists for the sake of closing a character arc; the Anakin vs. Obi-Wan scene is about setting the plot up for Episode IV and having a cool fight. By the time lightsabers are drawn, all the character elements are done.
I'll give it to Ewan, though. Some people might think of it as narm, but his performance after he cuts down his padawan is pretty powerful to my mind.
Even this falls short of the battle in Jedi, though.
edited 23rd Jan '12 9:54:30 PM by MadassAlex
Swordsman Troper — Reclaiming The Blade — Watch@Madness Alex
If your trying to juxtapose Jedi over Sith,those two scenes are the worst,if anything it is easier to justify Sith over Jedi with it. And this is coming from someone who'd defend Jedi over Empire any day.
Firstly, In Jedi it's all about Luke vs Vader and every other battle is just there so of course there's more to it. What you say is spot on about this scene
- However in Sith the battle is not just about Obi-Wan vs Anakin,but also Yoda vs Palpatine. The battle of Obi-Wan vs Anakin isn't supposed to be about the internal conflict,but rather both coming to terms with doing what they must. The internal character stuff is moved to Yoda realizing that he has lost before he came,that he must change
Secondly, In Jedi the battle is just in another Death Star like the first one,sure you argue such pretentious crap like "Oh it's the heart of the Emporer's evil"
- But it's nowhere near as good as Mustafar representing hell,where a good friendship never should've come to
Thirdly, the saber fight is based entirely on emotion and Luke doing whatever,but it's easily more Flynn-like than Sith. It highlights Luke's inexperience and he just happens to win via Deus Angst Machina.
- In Sith it is a mixture of Anakin's rage and the determination of both not to die,and unlike Jedi where you can see them continuously hit blade again and again,Anakin and Obi-Wan are constantly still trying to kill the other,like a real fight. It's the most realistic fight in the whole saga after Darth Maul in Theed. Finally in this fight,you can see how unlike Luke,Anakin gets sloppier and sloppier which was all that was needed to lose the battle
Finally,no one remembers the theme in Jedi except you and few other people hell-bent on not admitting the prequels actually did something right,Sith uses numerous themes including a nice reprise of the well-loved "Duel of Fates"
No,no,no what makes Jedi what it is in the audiences is the part after that when Luke refuses to give in and nearly dies for it. The fight is merely to get to that point. In Sith the fight is the point,and unfortunately,the parts without fights have less emotion.
I have to disagree with you on all accounts. Jedi had other scenes going on in the background with their own significance, but I didn't look at them because they're beside the point. Both movies come down to those singular duels. We don't have the same investment in Yoda vs. Palpatine or Han against the Imperial army. There isn't the same amount of investment in the characters or events.
As for Mustafar representing hell, I guess so. How well it does that is debatable; for instance, I needed to be told that, and I never felt that it was a particularly threatening environment. What is and isn't hell is beside the point, though — what matters is how effective each environment is. Luke willingly gives himself up to the Emperor, disarms and takes his battle to somewhere he can't escape. He's throwing his life away, be that at the hands of his enemies or at the hands of his friends. There's no way out for him.
Flynning's beside the point, and as someone who studies the historical European martial arts (of which the two-handed longsword was a huge part), I can tell you it's far more to the point and accurate to actual fighting than what we got in Sith. The prequel fights are mostly Flynning themselves, but they also include plenty of stupid, suicidal techniques that accomplish nothing. The battle in Sith is especially full of them. Don't be fooled by how cool they look — they serve absolutely no function.
Apart from their greater accuracy, the OT lightsaber battles also occur on a much more human level, and always partner with a significant plot or character moment. The PT fights are all flash, incredibly inaccurate and have no substance to them. They exist to exist, the battle between Anakin and Obi-Wan being one of few exceptions. Even that belies the attitude of the prequels, though, as it stretched out far too long and tried so hard to be cool that it become silly. Lightsaber combat swinging from cords is for a fun swashbuckling pirate movie, not a film that aims to have a final, serious, climactic fight between former allies.
You'll also note that for the bulk of the Jedi fight, Luke isn't trying to kill Vader — he's trying to defend himself without wounding his father. When the conditions change and Luke becomes enraged, it's very obvious.
edited 24th Jan '12 11:08:52 PM by MadassAlex
Swordsman Troper — Reclaiming The Blade — WatchLike most fight scenes in everything ever? Only pedantic's like you really care about accuracy. The rest of us just want to have a good time. The reason the Prequel's fights seem boring isn't because of their inaccuracies, but because the movies failed to make you care about the characters and/or plot, and thus fail to keep you entertained. Ergo, by the time the good stuff (read: the fights) come around, you're half-asleep wondering why you should care anymore.
There's that.
There's also a difference between inaccurate (like the OT) and absolutely stupid. Like in Episode II when Anakin holds out his hand and allows Dooku to cut off his arm. You don't need to be a swordsman to see that it was bad choreography. Most movies are less than accurate, but most make an effort to hide that some way. The prequels don't at all; they're so preoccupied with looking cool that they fail to provide a convincing fight.
Swordsman Troper — Reclaiming The Blade — WatchIt's kendo-based,admittedly the Tyranus vs Anakin scenes were stupid as were the Yoda ones
But then watch Darth Maul vs Qui-Gon and Obi-Wan,that is not only better choreographed,but also far more believable and accurate
And I'm sorry but the first lightsaber fight is still even stupider than any the prequel fights,ur all covered by Nostalgia Filter if you dare give that one a pass. Really Darth Vader barely stabs out at all. At least with Anakin vs Dooku,you can pass that off as an old man being a Badass Grandpa taking the arrogant Padawan by surprise
The original fight both are supposed to be masters,yet they fight worse than that kid taking down the troopers in Sith
So yeah, George Lucas is retiring, he gets hated on far too much for someone who hasn't killed at least a million people, And That's Terrible.
edited 25th Jan '12 9:47:09 PM by CorrTerek
![]()
I still think when Darth Vader decides to lean on the rail and thus lets Luke cuting off his arm ... again, seemed really awkward. But I still agree about the original trilogy fights being better, if only because the sword fights were much rarer in the OT and thus making them immediately more important/entertaining.

No. A movie's quality being a matter of opinion IS a fact. You cannot convince me otherwise. Which is why I think we should get back on topic, which is what I tried to do my last post. George Lucas is semi-retiring. And I'm sad, for I think we've lost a visionary filmmaker.
edited 20th Jan '12 1:13:16 PM by Extreme64