Giles ,'Chosen'
[NAFDA] "There will be an occasional happy, so that it might be crushed under the boot of the writer." From Zorro to Angel (including Wonderfalls and The Inside), this is where Buffistas come to anoint themselves in the bloodbath.
You have to give a crap about the characters to be pulled about by their emotions.
Yes. None of the emotions felt earned. I know we're talking about a popcorn movie, but there was no character development - just a string of "important" moments strung together with some annoying comic "relief" and a bombastic sound track.
"Yes. None of the emotions felt earned. I know we're talking about a popcorn movie, but there was no character development - just a string of "important" moments strung together with some annoying comic "relief" and a bombastic sound track."
The original trilogy's emotions were also predicated on "a string of important moments strung together with comic relief and a bombastic soundtrack". Really. Luke's character development happened through his actions and reactions to the events he was thrust into and the same goes for Anakin. Now your beef may be with the performances, direction or whatever but in that regard the two trilogies are very similar. This isn't a television series or a character drama and thus the original trilogy and the prequel trilogy both operate in broad strokes.
Barry, the Prequels are bad. They're indefensibly bad.
"Barry, the Prequels are bad. They're indefensibly bad."
Opinion stated as fact. Come on, you're much too smart to resort to that. Really, I see where you're coming from but I won't roll over and go with the flow.
Next up - Star Wars vs Star Trek.
Opinion stated as fact.
Whoa. You totally got me there. You win, here's your cookie. I'll just go over here and sulk.
"Whoa. You totally got me there. You win, here's your cookie. I'll just go over here and sulk."
I don't want to win, I'm just trying to tell folks where I'm coming from.
The prequels really do lack the depth and characterization, and IMO, most importantly, the sense of fun of the first three. Lucas didn't have actors like Ford and Fisher, who both have really good script instincts (Fisher is one of Hollywood's highest paid script doctors now) who felt free to challenge him on lines and on character to add layers and believability around on the prequels and it shows.
Wait, Stoppard?
Does this mean I'm going to have to go and watch the damn thing?
Never saw either of the other two new ones so I'ma stay out of that conversation. But it's interesting, Barry - I've rarely seen the prequels strongly defended so it is kind of intriguing to read.
I can't speak for the second prequel, but I saw the first one, and was horribly disappointed. Star Wars the original captured me with its vision and creativity and the archetypal nature of the characters. There were lots of little moments of connection, bits of insight into this universe, some witty dialog, and a classic (if not original) story driving the plot.
Whereas The Phantom Menace struck me as a bunch of set pieces, with too many characters and no time to make me care about them. I felt overwhelmed by the CGI and underwhelmed by the dialog. It felt like 30% of a movie, and I never had any desire to see it again.