TVTropes Now available in the app store!
Open

Follow TV Tropes

Following

George Lucas Semi-retires

Go To

Tyyrlym Jerk from Normandy SR-2 Since: Mar, 2011
Jerk
#51: Jan 26th 2012 at 8:02:02 AM

Attack of the Clones and parts of Phantom Menace were utterly painful to watch dialogue-wise. However, Revenge of the Sith was freakin' AWESOME IMO, and my personal favorite Star Wars movie.
I just... what? Attack of the Clones might be the low point of the prequels but Rot S is right there with it. I wouldn't argue with someone who put it up as the worst writing of them all. Phantom is the best of the three but that means it's just the least offensive of three piles of shit. Rot S gave us such gems as, "Only the Sith Deal in absolutes!" and, "You're breaking my heart, URK!" If you look at the overarching story of the prequels, of Anakin's rise and fall it's a rather grand tale. The problem is that Lucas is a hack writer surrounded by syncophants who refused to tell him he was. So the grand idea became painful to watch full of some of the most stilted dialogue to ever grace a blockbuster.

People who complain about the bad dialogue and bad acting of the prequel trilogy seem blissfully unaware the originals had the same problems. Bad acting and dialogue is part of the Star Wars package.
No, it's not. Yes, you're not getting award winning dialogue or acting in the originals but they have an advantage over the prequels. They aren't so bad they're nearly unwatchable. The dialogue isn't inspired but it's also not painful. The actors were actually acting rather than just reading the pages. Sorry, I love Natalie Portman but she was terrible in the prequels. It's like George told her that Padme's father was a statue and her mother was a mannequin, any expression at all was not tolerated and neither was moving away from the same boring monotone.

I can understand if you don't like CGI why you'd hate the prequels,
It's not that people hate CGI, its the pointless CGI orgy that was the prequels. First off, it wasn't done very well with many of the virtual sets. Watch the scene with Mace, Yoda, and Obi walking through the Jedi temple. They are not in the Jedi Temple. It's painfully obvious they are on a green screen. There is no attachment between them and their environment. It's horrible. There's no possible location or set they could have used for that, even if it was in part with CGI extension of the space? No, George's chubby over CGI told him to do it all in the computer and it SUCKS. Now look at the way things look in any scene in Palpatine's office. The actors are there, they interact with their surroundings. They are actually in a space and not on a green screen. CGI is used perfectly here to add in the appropriate background out the window and tweak the aliens in it. That's how you do it. It worked. Now look at... ok, Geonosis. The battle with the Jedi and the droids. Did you know what was going on? I didn't. There was no flow to the fight, not direction. It said NOTHING. It was just a giant clusterfuck of lightsabers and droids ment to provide, "spectacle" while doing nothing for the movie. It was really expensive padding. George could do it, so he did it. Now look at the Obi/Maul fight in PM. While it's not up to original trilogy snuff+, and you've got George's overuse of CGI, there's just two guys fighting and they managed to communicate a hell of a lot more with it. It added to the story and the characters.

  • Both Vader/Skywalker fights in Empire and Jedi are two of the greatest fight scenes in movie history because while they lack almost any real flash they are story telling devices all their own, conveying a depth of character and motivation that if you took every fight in the prequels and wrung those elements out of them you couldn't get half of what one of those fights had going for it.

but I love CGI and all the possibilities it brings, so that's A-OK with me.
I love CGI too, well done CGI. The Prequels had CGI for the sake of CGI.

And I don't care what anyone says: Kingdom of the Crystal Skull was absolutely great, and any problems people have with it can be blamed on the Nostalgia Filter.
Yeah, you just moved from an opinion I disagree with to being wrong. There are issues with Crystal Skull that go far beyond just Nostalgai. The genre shift from action adventure to sci-fi pulp alone is a valid criticism of the movie. Mind you, I don't really mind the Crystal Skull but even I have to admit that it's got a big genre shift and if you liked and wanted action-adventure it's easy to see how the pulp sci-fi 90 degree turn could throw you off. That's not just nostalgia filter. Watch Raiders, watch Crusade, then watch Crystal Skull. It is a dramatically different movie.

There's also plenty of other things to criticise, validly, that are not Nostalgia filter issues. Blithely dismissing all criticism of the movie as Nostalgia filter is just wrong.

People forget that before the prequels came out George Lucas was a highly respected figure in film history, and he still somewhat is, as he was partially responsible for inventing the modern summer blockbuster. For this, I salute him.
George got credit where credit was due. He was not some film legend. He was a guy who had some great ideas and made some great movies. He is no longer. When speaking of him now people refer to early George in largely the same light as they used to, but he went through his own genre shift and most people seem to acknowledge that it was largely the obstacles he had to overcome to get Star wars made that prevented his more... ridiculous tendencies from seeing the light of day. With all the money in the world to work with now he's running without a filter and Lucas unfiltered isn't pretty.

I think the original trilogy gets less flak, because it's less pretentious.
That's certainly a good point. I never felt preached at in the originals the way I did in Rot S.

Because it's the most epic.
I agree with this. Thematically it was probably the most epic of them all. The death throes of a democracy vs. the rise of an Empire.

It has the biggest climax,
I think it loses to Return. The climax of Rot S is very long and drawn out. There's not much in the way of a high point to it. It's a long cacophony of bad things, but bad things that don't really amplify and work with one another. In Return everything that's happening is working together towards the same ending, each impacts and plays off the other. It's far more... musical, in it's approach. By the time the ending of Sith rolls around you've been pounded with over an hour of just bad shit happening. Instead of everything working together it's all depressing, but it's isolated. The deaths of the Jedi are isolated and given the lack of development of most of them not so much visceral as just, "well that sucks." Even the Yoda/Palp and Obi/Anakin fights are totally segregated and have no impact on the other. They exist in isolation rather than feeding off one another.

the best lightsaber fights,
It has the flashiest. The best lightsaber fight is Empire's Luke vs. Vader, the second is the rematch of the first. The fights in the prequels were flash but no substance. You could cut out the middle 50% of the Obi vs. Anakin fight and miss NOTHING.

the best space battles.
I think the Rot S space battles fell victim to the "Throw as much shit at the audience as we possibly can," impulse that Lucas had been indulging since Phantom. There's all kinds of stuff going on but does any of it have the tension of the New Hope's trench run? Of the the Falcon's zipping in and out of the Death Star? I don't think so.

It has the most emotional moments of the whole saga.
"Luke, I am your father."

I know it's been dulled with time but the first time I ever heard that phrase it was like a nuclear weapon. All the potential emotion in Rot S was killed off by the horrid dialogue and bad acting.

Sure, the acting isn't that great, but do you honestly expect great or even good acting in a Star Wars movie?
Full stop, foul. Yes, I can expect good acting in ANY movie.

For me, the climactic fight between the two of them was amazing. It never dragged, it never let up, it was pure, raw power.
I love Star Wars but even on my first viewing of Sith I was rolling my eyes when they started Errol Flynning around and fighting on the lava droids. It was ridiculous.

Revenge of the Sith is one of only three movies in my life that have made me cry.
I cried at the end of Sith too, when they raped Vader.

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.
This right here. I could deal with the prequels if he wouldn't have started fucking with the originals.

Well like it or not, the Anakin vs Obi-Wan was an inevitability, so it kind of had to be in the film.
Everyone knew it was coming, doesn't mean it couldn't have been done well.

Like 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.
Actually I care. Most of the lightsaber fights in the prequels would have been over the first time someone twirled their saber pointlessly.

  • Twirl
  • Stab
  • Fin

When someone who's not a trained swordsman looks at a fight and asks, "Why don't you just stab him?" and the only answer is fanwank mumbo-jumbo that's not mentioned at all in the movies something is wrong. While you're right that the prequel fights failed for other reasons, they also fail because half the moves in them are stupid, obviously so.

It's kendo-based,
Please, show me a fight where two trained swordsmen with intent to kill or at least win, spent half the fight twirling their swords like majorettes.

edited 26th Jan '12 8:02:11 AM by Tyyrlym

"Tyyr's a necessary evil. " Spirit
Extreme64 Since: Dec, 1969
#52: Jan 26th 2012 at 1:30:40 PM

I just... what?
Wow. Right from the start I knew I couldn't take your arguments seriously. That takes skill. The thing is, you're treating my opinion as if its wrong. And opinions are never wrong, nor are they ever right. I acknowledge there are plenty of movies I can't stand that have their fans, and you know what? I let it be. I don't tell them that they're wrong, and I certainly don't say "I just... what?" as if I think they're lunatics for DARING to believe something different. If you can't understand that when it comes to people's takes on entertainment there is no right or wrong, but purely subjective opinions, then it's pointless arguing with you. But I'll still address the other parts from your post.

No, it's not. Yes, you're not getting award winning dialogue or acting in the originals but they have an advantage over the prequels. They aren't so bad they're nearly unwatchable. The dialogue isn't inspired but it's also not painful. The actors were actually acting rather than just reading the pages. Sorry, I love Natalie Portman but she was terrible in the prequels. It's like George told her that Padme's father was a statue and her mother was a mannequin, any expression at all was not tolerated and neither was moving away from the same boring monotone.

I'm not going to defend the prequel's acting or dialogue, and I agree that a lot of the dialogue in Phantom Menace and Attack of the Clones is unbearable to watch. But so were the originals. "I'd no sooner kiss a Wookiee!" "I can arrange that, you could use a good kiss!" I personally find THAT painful to listen to as well. There are plenty of other examples. Revenge of the Sith had such moments too, like "you're breaking my heart!" like you mentioned, but they were much fewer. Plus, it had that whole speech Obi-Wan gives to Anakin, which was heartbreakingly awesome. And Palpatine's talk to Anakin about Darth Plagious was equally awesome, and appropriately sinister. Again, this is all my opinion. If you disagree with it, fine. But don't tell me I'm wrong for liking this. I am a human with my own opinion, and that's no more wrong than you with your opinion.

It's not that people hate CGI, its the pointless CGI orgy that was the prequels. First off, it wasn't done very well with many of the virtual sets. Watch the scene with Mace, Yoda, and Obi walking through the Jedi temple. They are not in the Jedi Temple. It's painfully obvious they are on a green screen. There is no attachment between them and their environment. It's horrible. There's no possible location or set they could have used for that, even if it was in part with CGI extension of the space? No, George's chubby over CGI told him to do it all in the computer and it SUCKS. Now look at the way things look in any scene in Palpatine's office. The actors are there, they interact with their surroundings. They are actually in a space and not on a green screen. CGI is used perfectly here to add in the appropriate background out the window and tweak the aliens in it. That's how you do it. It worked. Now look at... ok, Geonosis. The battle with the Jedi and the droids. Did you know what was going on? I didn't. There was no flow to the fight, not direction. It said NOTHING. It was just a giant clusterfuck of lightsabers and droids ment to provide, "spectacle" while doing nothing for the movie. It was really expensive padding. George could do it, so he did it. Now look at the Obi/Maul fight in PM. While it's not up to original trilogy snuff+, and you've got George's overuse of CGI, there's just two guys fighting and they managed to communicate a hell of a lot more with it. It added to the story and the characters.

I disagree with pretty much all of this. George Lucas has always had a vision of what Star Wars was in his mind, and how otherworldly the locations and technology looked. In the original trilogy, with that period of technology he was unable to fully realize his vision. So you can't blame him for going crazy with CGI for the environments in the prequels: he wanted to show his true vision of the Star Wars universe, and now he was able to do so. And you know what? In my opinion, the environments look amazing! I don't care if they used greenscreen, unless there's some other magical way to have humans in a completely alien environment that cannot be convincingly built on a set that I haven't heard of. And most of the prequel's environments fit that criteria! Do you realize if he made an actual set for the Jedi Temple how freakin' BIG it'd have to be? There's no way he could've built it with practical effects! So he did the same thing Peter Jackson did when making 1933 New York in King Kong: he built only part of it, and made the rest with CGI. And I don't see people whining about how obviously greenscreen the New York in King Kong was. I guess that since it's not an alien environment, it looks more real, but that's kind of obvious, don't you think?

Yeah, you just moved from an opinion I disagree with to being wrong. There are issues with Crystal Skull that go far beyond just Nostalgai. The genre shift from action adventure to sci-fi pulp alone is a valid criticism of the movie. Mind you, I don't really mind the Crystal Skull but even I have to admit that it's got a big genre shift and if you liked and wanted action-adventure it's easy to see how the pulp sci-fi 90 degree turn could throw you off. That's not just nostalgia filter. Watch Raiders, watch Crusade, then watch Crystal Skull. It is a dramatically different movie. There's also plenty of other things to criticise, validly, that are not Nostalgia filter issues. Blithely dismissing all criticism of the movie as Nostalgia filter is just wrong.

Oh look, more "you're wrong" again. First off, there is no shift between action-adventure and sci-fi: the action-adventure's still there, they just ADDED sci-fi. And yes, the complaints to that CAN be traced to Nostalgia Filter. If it's not the exact same "perfection" as it was before, and if it's added a genre that wasn't there in the older ones, then cue the complaining. Sounds like Nostalgia Filter to me. And actually, I was kind of late in seeing the original Indiana Jones movies: I saw them only a few years before Crystal Skull came out. Except for a lot more CGI and an alien subplot, I didn't see too big of a difference. I saw the same environments, the same crazy action sequences, the same ancient-civilization plots, the same tribal-people-chasing-heroes, the same style of comedy, and so on. I could understand the complaints people had with Phantom Menace, Attack of the Clones, and even parts of Revenge of the Sith. But by Crystal Skull, I could tell people were just complaining because they weren't the originals. Again, though, that's my view on the matter.

George got credit where credit was due. He was not some film legend. He was a guy who had some great ideas and made some great movies. He is no longer. When speaking of him now people refer to early George in largely the same light as they used to, but he went through his own genre shift and most people seem to acknowledge that it was largely the obstacles he had to overcome to get Star wars made that prevented his more... ridiculous tendencies from seeing the light of day. With all the money in the world to work with now he's running without a filter and Lucas unfiltered isn't pretty.

I'm sorry, but as soon as you said "He was not some film legend" I couldn't take the rest of this paragraph seriously. Creating the highest-grossing movies of the time, right after two other cinematic classics, and nearly single-handedly inventing a type of film (summer blockbuster) still excessively popular to this day ISN'T enough of a legend for you? George Lucas is considered to be one of Hollywood's most influential directors. Of ALL TIME. That seems kind of legendary to me.

I think it loses to Return. The climax of Rot S is very long and drawn out. There's not much in the way of a high point to it. It's a long cacophony of bad things, but bad things that don't really amplify and work with one another. In Return everything that's happening is working together towards the same ending, each impacts and plays off the other. It's far more... musical, in it's approach. By the time the ending of Sith rolls around you've been pounded with over an hour of just bad shit happening. Instead of everything working together it's all depressing, but it's isolated. The deaths of the Jedi are isolated and given the lack of development of most of them not so much visceral as just, "well that sucks." Even the Yoda/Palp and Obi/Anakin fights are totally segregated and have no impact on the other. They exist in isolation rather than feeding off one another.

This sounds like more opinion-claiming-to-be-fact to me. My opinion is, the climax of Sith is amazing because all this bad stuff is built up to its climax here, and the full extent of Palpatine's villainy is shown in complete glory. I see some of your other points, such as the Yoda/Palpatine and Obi-Wan/Anakin fights being separate from each other, but that seems like nitpicking, and that isn't enough to bring it down for me.

It has the flashiest. The best lightsaber fight is Empire's Luke vs. Vader, the second is the rematch of the first. The fights in the prequels were flash but no substance. You could cut out the middle 50% of the Obi vs. Anakin fight and miss NOTHING.

Thank you for continuing to state your opinions as if they are fact. Now, I did say that I thought the lightsaber fights in Sith are the best, but I also said "IMO". You're talking as if you're discussing concrete fact: the lightsaber fights in Empire and Jedi are the best. Factually. Objectively. And to that I say, "bullshit." I'm not saying they're bad, in fact I do enjoy them immensely, but the fights in the prequel trilogy, IMO, looked so much more like JEDI fighting than just two choreographed actors. It felt more fantastic to me. And seeing as this is Star Wars, a fantasy, I consider that a good thing.

I think the Rot S space battles fell victim to the "Throw as much shit at the audience as we possibly can, " impulse that Lucas had been indulging since Phantom. There's all kinds of stuff going on but does any of it have the tension of the New Hope's trench run? Of the the Falcon's zipping in and out of the Death Star? I don't think so.

IMO, it had MORE tension than the trench run, or the Falcon's escape from the Death Star. Why? Because with all the things attacking them and menacing them, or as you call it, the "shit thrown at the audience," it felt like they were in more danger to me. The scenes you mentioned were limited by the effects of the time, and kind of felt empty to me. When I picture Star Wars space battles, two of them come to my mind first: the opening Revenge of the Sith battle, and the climax of Return of the Jedi.

"Luke, I am your father." I know it's been dulled with time but the first time I ever heard that phrase it was like a nuclear weapon. All the potential emotion in Rot S was killed off by the horrid dialogue and bad acting.

I agree that was pretty emotional. But IMO, a mother dying right as her babies are born, with Obi-Wan holding these children, who are left with a dead mother and an evil father, trumps it. As does the whole ending with everything being put together. I do think that the "NOOOOOO!!!" was pretty bad. But I don't care: the rest of the ending made up for it.

Full stop, foul. Yes, I can expect good acting in ANY movie.

Well, you're not going to find it in any Star Wars movie. My point is, complaining about the bad acting in the prequels as if they ruin the movie, and then praising the originals, seems rather hypocritical to me.

I love Star Wars but even on my first viewing of Sith I was rolling my eyes when they started Errol Flynning around and fighting on the lava droids. It was ridiculous.

To you.

I cried at the end of Sith too, when they raped Vader.

To you. To me, they MADE Vader.

This right here. I could deal with the prequels if he wouldn't have started fucking with the originals.

I actually agree with this. I do think he should stop editing the originals. They were products of their time. Keep them as such.

Everyone knew it was coming, doesn't mean it couldn't have been done well.

Again, to you it wasn't done well. That doesn't mean as a fact it wasn't done well.

I think I'm done. Even if you reply to this (which I have no doubt you will) I'm not going to fight back. My opinion will always continue to stand, as will yours. Thus, I don't feel like arguing. In fact, I was done earlier, but seeing as you brought it up again and continued to dissect my points, I figured I'd reply this once. But I'm done.

edited 26th Jan '12 1:31:29 PM by Extreme64

BobbyG vigilantly taxonomish from England Since: Jan, 2001
vigilantly taxonomish
#53: Jan 26th 2012 at 8:17:05 PM

OK, can we turn down the anger a wee bit here and show a little respect for one another's opinions, please? Whether or not a movie sucked is always going to be an opinion. If you want to challenge something, do so with reasoned arguments, don't just go "you're wrong" and don't make accusations like "you're just nostalgic". That's not how you argue in good faith.

And please don't use words like "rape" that way. Not appropriate.

Welcome To TV Tropes | How To Write An Example | Text Formatting Rules | List Of Shows That Need Summary | TV Tropes Forum | Know The Staff
Tyyrlym Jerk from Normandy SR-2 Since: Mar, 2011
Jerk
#54: Jan 27th 2012 at 8:30:50 AM

But don't tell me I'm wrong for liking this.
Then it's a good thing I didn't. I said that your assertion that bad acting and dialogue is part and parcel with Star Wars is incorrect. I further went on with my own opinion about how even with it's flaws the dialogue and acting in the original trilogy is superior.

So you can't blame him for going crazy with CGI for the environments in the prequels: he wanted to show his true vision of the Star Wars universe, and now he was able to do so.
Yes, we entirely can blame him for going crazy. Part of film making is realizing your limitations and working within them. If you can't make the Jedi temple work as you envision it, you adjust your goals and find a way to make it work. The problem is that Lucas didn't do that. The end result is a very pretty CGI set that has no connection with the actors, a very nice concept horribly ruined by not knowing when to quit. Pretty much the prequels in a nut-shell. Hell, part of what made New Hope work is that Lucas couldn't fully realize his vision. Really, track down some of the notes on what he was really trying to do. It's the prequels. He wanted Han as a lizard/frog man and that's just the start of it.

I don't care if they used greenscreen, unless there's some other magical way to have humans in a completely alien environment that cannot be convincingly built on a set that I haven't heard of. And most of the prequel's environments fit that criteria! Do you realize if he made an actual set for the Jedi Temple how freakin' BIG it'd have to be? There's no way he could've built it with practical effects!
You don't build the entire temple. You build the part where the Jedi actually are and are interacting, or you find a location with somewhat similar architecture. You have your actors act in it and then in post production you make the rest of the place fit either with CGI, matte paintings, whatever. Focus in on the portion I'm talking about, the Mace/Obi/Yoda talk as they walked through the temple. They didn't build any of it. It's a horrible effects scene. Now look at other scenes in the temple. The kids and the Star Map. Guess what, actual set with the necessary background done in CGI... and it looks great! Jedi Masters Meeting Room, another actual set with CGI background... and it looks great! You can carry this on through the movies. Where there was an actual set and the CGI was used appropriately in the background or to compliment the set the effects are very good. It's when you go full CGI that they look horrible due to the disconnect between the actors and their environment.

This sounds like more opinion-claiming-to-be-fact to me... Thank you for continuing to state your opinions as if they are fact.
This is my opinion claiming to be my opinion. It's opinion structured in the way most opinions on creative works are. Stating how I felt and why. Only on the internet do people claim you are stating opinions as facts unless you start every sentence with IMO. It's all opinion and it's OBVIOUSLY all opinion.

[[/quoteblock]]Why? Because with all the things attacking them and menacing them, or as you call it, the "shit thrown at the audience, " it felt like they were in more danger to me.[[/quoteblock]] What was really meancing them? They have one head on pass with droid fighters after which Obi tells Anakin not to get involved and they fly on. They get a couple missles lobbed at them which were just the most nonsense things I have ever seen. Hell, they used the droids that came out of them as an opportunity for comedy. When you're yucking it up for laughs its not a menacing scene.

But IMO, a mother dying right as her babies are born, with Obi-Wan holding these children, who are left with a dead mother and an evil father, trumps it.
The scene with the child birth could have been highly emotional. It wasn't. It was like they intentionally tried to avoid it. I really feel like they got to the end of the movies and were in post production and someone went, "Hey, isn't she supposed to have died right after the kids were born?" Then they had an "oh shit!" moment and tossed in the line about her just giving up. The Jedi don't even react much to it. "Oh, she's dead. Guess we better do something with these kids." Conceptually I think that could have been very good, just like the rest of the prequels it's a very epic sort of story. The problem is when they go to execute it's just lifeless.

Well, you're not going to find it in any Star Wars movie. My point is, complaining about the bad acting in the prequels as if they ruin the movie, and then praising the originals, seems rather hypocritical to me.
You yourself have said there were moments in the prequels where people were acting their asses off and I agree. There are moments in the originals where people acted their asses off. Same with dialogue. They had their moments. And I will criticize bad acting where it occurs. People can praise the originals if they want to, I agree they had plenty of hammy moments or dull acting. They do. However I think most people when getting into that debate aren't claiming that you've got multiple Oscar worthy performances in the originals, just that the Originals are better acted than the prequels.

To me, they MADE Vader.
Again I will say that conceptually the scene could have worked. It was even starting out promising. Then Vader pulls a full Frankenstein and blows out the hammiest big no I have ever personally witnessed. I went from wincing and feeling actually sorry for Anakin to laughing my ass off. I'm sorry, I don't think that was the emotional reaction they were going for. Something far more understated could have conveyed his despair and hit that low note the ending of the movie was going for better.

I actually agree with this. I do think he should stop editing the originals.
All I want is a blu-ray copy of the original cuts. His one man war to force the edits on us is the biggest issue even beyond changing the movies. We get new cuts all the time. This is the only time I can think of that the director is actively trying to make it impossible to see the original cut.

edited 27th Jan '12 8:36:26 AM by Tyyrlym

"Tyyr's a necessary evil. " Spirit
TheBatPencil from Glasgow, Scotland Since: May, 2011 Relationship Status: I'm just a hunk-a, hunk-a burnin' love
#55: Jan 27th 2012 at 9:53:56 AM

they were horribly acted, and had a lot of bad dialogue. Luke was just WHINY in the original movie, and he didn't get much better as they went on. The lines are insanely cheesy. The acting is stilted and wooden.

Could you give any examples of this from the original trilogy? Just so I know where to begin as I jump into the fray.

edited 27th Jan '12 12:42:16 PM by TheBatPencil

And let us pray that come it may (As come it will for a' that)
BorneAgain (4 Score & 7 Years Ago)
#56: Jan 27th 2012 at 11:33:38 AM

I never understood why so many people argued that Luke was whiny. Yeah, he complains a bit... in the first 15 minutes of the movie. But taking into account that he discovers the charred corpses of the only family he's ever known, I'd say he handles himself pretty well. Hell the entire trilogy seems designed to throw crap on him and he still comes across as a young guy gradually maturing into a strong and responsible Jedi.

TheBatPencil from Glasgow, Scotland Since: May, 2011 Relationship Status: I'm just a hunk-a, hunk-a burnin' love
#57: Jan 27th 2012 at 12:41:53 PM

Again I will say that conceptually the scene could have worked. It was even starting out promising. Then Vader pulls a full Frankenstein and blows out the hammiest big no I have ever personally witnessed. I went from wincing and feeling actually sorry for Anakin to laughing my ass off. I'm sorry, I don't think that was the emotional reaction they were going for. Something far more understated could have conveyed his despair and hit that low note the ending of the movie was going for better.

Indeed.

Part of what made the final scenes on the Death Star so compelling to Vader's character was the fact that we could see the whole conflict running through his head despite the fact that he says nothing and is wearing an expressionless mask. The character and his development is written well enough that, through just two or three close ups, we can see what the character is thinking without being explicitly told.

Naturally they took a sledgehammer to this in the newest edition, but the situation in Revenge of the Sith was so much worse because Character Development in the entire trilogy consisted of us being told rather than shown before concluding in the most hamfisted and unnecessary Big "NO!" imaginable.

And let us pray that come it may (As come it will for a' that)
Rynnec Since: Dec, 2010 Relationship Status: Healthy, deeply-felt respect for this here Shotgun
#58: Jan 27th 2012 at 1:04:22 PM

[up][up]Luke's not really whiny. Just boring.

[up]Yep. That scene had actual subtlety. And we can't have subtlety in Star Wars. Else Lucas would throw a hissy fit.

jewelleddragon Also known as Katz from Pasadena, CA Since: Apr, 2009
Also known as Katz
#59: Jan 27th 2012 at 3:20:51 PM

Luke is somewhat whiny, but that's a common trait for hero's journey characters; they have to be immature at the beginning so that they can mature, and to provide contrast with more experienced characters like Han Solo. I've never thought of it as a flaw of Star Wars.

Brandon Deadly Vu! from Between Thanksgiving and Christmas (4 Score & 7 Years Ago) Relationship Status: Don't hug me; I'm scared
Deadly Vu!
#60: Jan 28th 2012 at 7:10:07 AM

Luke has nothing on C-3PO in the whining department.

Like creepy stories? Check out my book!
terlwyth Since: Oct, 2010
#61: Jan 28th 2012 at 7:24:11 PM

Alec Guiness as Obi Wan,he has less emotion than Hayden Christensen.Why did Mac Gregor study this guy when he had all the chance to add more? Even with all the dull surprise,once the dialogue got better,the guy managed to do the impossible,merge Dull Surprise with Large Ham. Even Carrie Fisher doesn't have that charm seen in The Empire Strikes Back

On that note Luke was incredibly whiny during all the Yoda scenes to. Equally so compared to Attack Of The Clones,which only gets called out because the topic which is whined about doesn't change.

Also I'll take that Big "NO!" (which is Hayden's fault for making that cliche motion) over "Your powers are weak old man" or half the attempted ham that didn't fit Vader at all. As for "Only the Sith deal in absolutes",everyone has clearly missed the point on that one.

Obi-Wan was not saying "Only the Sith make absolutes",and it's not some kind of Moral Myopia statement like so many say. It's him being like "Okay,Anakin's gonna kill me,so I guess I cannot negotiate out of this one"

Have to admit,Matt Stover definitely handled the whole thing better and I wish he wrote all the prequel novelizations

BorneAgain (4 Score & 7 Years Ago)
#62: Jan 29th 2012 at 2:47:24 AM

Luke's complaints vs. Anakin complaints. Its an issue of context.

Luke was doing so as part of his learning process with Yoda and realizing the solutions and hidden answers to the problems he was vocalizing. "What I am I even doing here?" Yoda is actually already here. "Even with the force there's no way I can lift the X-Wing." Yes he can.

Anakin's frustrated pieces of dialogue are an admitted part of his characterization but because he's not actually learning doing many of them against against Obi-Wan/Jedi behind their back, at times it just seems like he's bitching about things because he feels like it.

Plus I think there was a bit of understanding for Luke given he's on a strange planet learning about a mystical phenomena from a decidedly odd mentor vs. Anakin who's raising a stink about matters that just sound far too typical and everyday for most people to be really sympathetic about. "Oh so your teacher doesn't understand you and you aren't getting the respect you deserve; well cry me a river asshole."

Not saying its justified, but I can see how different the two come across.

TheBatPencil from Glasgow, Scotland Since: May, 2011 Relationship Status: I'm just a hunk-a, hunk-a burnin' love
#63: Jan 29th 2012 at 10:59:41 AM

Alec Guiness as Obi Wan, he has less emotion than Hayden Christensen.Why did Mac Gregor study this guy when he had all the chance to add more? Even with all the dull surprise, once the dialogue got better, the guy managed to do the impossible, merge Dull Surprise with Large Ham. Even Carrie Fisher doesn't have that charm seen in The Empire Strikes Back

I agree that Ewan Mc Gregor was wrong to try and outright replicate what Alec Guinness did, but not for the same reason. Right off the bat, this contradicts what was established about his younger days in Empire.

Also, it makes sense that Alec Guinness is a bit dull: he's an old man now, more experienced and knowledgable and far, far more in control of his emotions and impulses than young Luke. He's supposed to be the example for Luke to follow, wise, patient and in control when Luke is young and rash and stupid.

This didn't work in the new trilogy for a few reasons. Firstly, he's supposed to be younger, less wise and more emotionally invested in his best friend (in fact, this one line gives a greater sense of caring and friendshup than anything in the new trilogy between Obi Wan and Anakin). Secondly, he's the lead character and is supposed to have more depth than that.

Of course, almost every character is bland dull in the new trilogy (looking at you, Natalie Portman) so I can only assume that the actors have no idea how their characters are feeling. I smell bad direction.

On that note Luke was incredibly whiny during all the Yoda scenes to. Equally so compared to Attack of the Clones, which only gets called out because the topic which is whined about doesn't change.

Ok, so what is it that automatically makes a character being "whiny" bad?

He's stuck in a horrible swamp with a patronising little goblin who pushes him to his physical and mental limit while never saying anything without being cryptic. Of course he's going to get frustrated and complain, because he isn't a robot and this is how we relate to what the character is going through and remain interested in him.

Compare and contrast the part with Anakin and Padme on Tatooine in Clones. Everything is so heavy handed and false that it just doesn't work. A quiet, reflective scene without dialogue showing Anakin breaking down gets the point across without turning him into a creepy psychotic murderer. Because "creepy psychotic murderer" doesn't fit the profile of someone whose fall could ever be considered tragic.

Also I'll take that Big "NO!" (which is Hayden's fault for making that cliche motion) over "Your powers are weak old man" or half the attempted ham that didn't fit Vader at all.
No, the Big "NO!" failed because it was over the top and forced. Dialogue that unnatural will always become a source of ridicule when you try and play it seriously. This was better written, was delivered by a better actor and subsequently has a thousand times more emotional impact.

As for "Only the Sith deal in absolutes", everyone has clearly missed the point on that one.

Obi-Wan was not saying "Only the Sith make absolutes", and it's not some kind of Moral Myopia statement like so many say. It's him being like "Okay, Anakin's gonna kill me, so I guess I cannot negotiate out of this one"

What he's trying to get across is that Anakin has been twisted by Palpatine's exploitation of his paranoia and thinks that people are only good or evil, that they can only back him in everything he does or hate him and want to hurt him, no inbetweens.

But because no one apparently read the script, it comes across as a silly, not-thought-out attempt at forcing in An Aesop on moral relativity in a series where the good guys are all warm, friendly and likeable and the villains all Space!Nazis led by the Grim Reaper.

edited 29th Jan '12 11:00:28 AM by TheBatPencil

And let us pray that come it may (As come it will for a' that)
KJMackley Since: Jan, 2001
#64: Jan 29th 2012 at 11:54:01 AM

People mock the "Only Sith deal in absolutes" line but Obi-Wan didn't say "Only Sith use absolutes." He's describing the ideology differences between Jedi and Sith, that Anakin is now behaving as a Sith would. You can imagine that the entire time preparing himself to confront Anakin he was hoping he was merely confused or coerced, only to find that Anakin actually turned to the Sith. Hence his final words before the duel was "I will do what I must."

And there is supposed to be a contrast between how Luke behaved and how Anakin did things. Luke noticeably grew up quickly after he saw Obi-Wan stuck down, and his "whiney" behavior with Yoda was due to eagerness and not bitching about how life was unfair. By ROTJ he had grown into an adult, and any whiney behavior was due to the indignity of being lied to. Anakin wasn't really whiney in TPM, and his attitude in AOTC seemed to be from all the emotional baggage he carried. By ROTS he had noticeably matured, but let that emotional baggage fester inside until it made him snap.

terlwyth Since: Oct, 2010
#65: Jan 29th 2012 at 12:28:30 PM

Well I have nothing against him whining against his teacher,that was only once and when you see Obi-Wan do the same thing,it's kinda justified. I'm talking about how he consistently whines about "wishing away my feelings" over and over.

I agree that Luke is justified in whining a little bit,sort of like how in The Karate Kid Daniel has every right to whine when Miyagi only gives chores. But if watched too many times,you eventually just wanna get away from that part. It's sort of like how in the Avatar The Last Airbender Aang is The Pollyana at first even though he lost everyone by sleeping a hundred years. Bryke knew no one would want a whiner.

To be honest I hate Natalie Portman's portrayal of Amidala more than I hate Christensen (Who combined Large Ham and Dull Surprise and can really pull of pure hatred) or Lloyd (who is a kid for crying out loud,how many good kid actors can you name that aren't Haley Joel Osment,Elijah Wood,or Macualay Culkin?)

Also who the heck was it that said George Lucas can't make a convincing Face–Heel Turn? They are right,but not becuase of the idiot assumption Anakin was just always bad and power-hungry. It's implied he only wanted the power to save those he loved,and really he was more Chaotic Good than anything else.

edited 30th Jan '12 11:22:38 AM by terlwyth

jewelleddragon Also known as Katz from Pasadena, CA Since: Apr, 2009
Also known as Katz
#66: Jan 29th 2012 at 12:56:22 PM

who is a kid for crying out loud, how many good kid actors can you name that aren't Haley Joel Osment, Elijah Wood, or Macualay Culkin?

First, you only need to find one kid out of the whole universe to play the part. Second, it was Lucas's choice to make him that age and to give him that large of a part. He could have written Anakin as, say, a twelve-year-old, or he could have made him do less.

KJMackley Since: Jan, 2001
#67: Jan 29th 2012 at 3:31:37 PM

I've heard some people refer to a "Child Actor Syndrome" where the script asks too much of a young actor (usually anyone under the age of 14-15). The end result destroys the suspension of disbelief because they are simply unable to handle the emotional level being asked to accomplish. Certainly there are child actors capable of great things (some are capable of outperforming the adult actors if given the chance), but the job of the director is to find the right emotional tone and tailor the performance to the strengths of the actor.

Jake Lloyd gave a decent performance in Jingle All The Way (although the movie itself wasn't that good), so this all really goes back to how well the director handles the actors.

terlwyth Since: Oct, 2010
#68: Jan 29th 2012 at 6:53:22 PM

What?!? Jake Lloyd was even more wooden,and I really cannot name one scene he did a good performance in.

In The Phantom Menace on the other hand,the parting from his mother was actually decent.

True Chris Columbus managed a great run with the Harry Potter trio,and of course Macualay Culkin,...but those are still exceptions

The reality is far more like The Last Airbender on that stuff

edited 29th Jan '12 7:53:20 PM by terlwyth

Joesolo Indiana Solo Since: Dec, 2010 Relationship Status: watch?v=dQw4w9WgXcQ
Indiana Solo
#69: Jan 29th 2012 at 7:59:07 PM

I dont hate him, I just like him better with a good editor. Like with the original trilogy. at Jedi they started letting him lose, and it showed. phantom menace was him running wild. Then he realised his mistakes on his own for sith.

I'm baaaaaaack
Add Post

Total posts: 69
Top