Saga What level do you put Revenge Of The Sith on?

It's my third favorite in the saga, before ESB and ROTJ.

Mod Edit: Moving to Saga. -Sx3

 

This poll is quite biased is it not?

 

worst of the prequals

*builds a fort and flame shield*

 

I love this movie, and don't get why people hate it. It has great character development, amazing effects, awesome lightsaber fights, and one of the most touching montages in cinemas history (Order 66). Sure, there are some bad bits and corny dialogue, but every Star Wars film suffers from those flaws.

 

Best movie of the PT and 2nd best only to Empire!

 

My 'why do people hate it' was meant literally, and that is quite a good explanation. I do, however, believe the reason for the gullibility of Anakin was because of the traumatic visions he was having, and as such that makes sense. As for the gratuitous violence and evil, I was never really phased by it. In a story about evil taking over a democracy, things like that are expected to happen.

 

It sounds like the movie had you very emotionally invested.

 

I consider it the best of the PT, but I think it still falls short of any of the OT.

 

Second behind ESB IMO.

 

Second best in the saga (sorry, but I still loooove TPM best.), and by far the most emotionally charged!

 

For the sake of adding context to my post: 453621

I rank it about on par with Return of the Jedi, one up or one down depending on my mood.

From the opening moments on, it feels noticeably more confident in its direction than the previous two. The dialouge is by far the best of the PT, the special effects are fantastic, and the tragedy is incredibly well done, in fact I remember the sheer sadness of the movie far surpassing my expectations the first time I saw it. The moment on mustafar, when Anakin loks up behind Padme and sees Obi Wan standing on the ramp, and you realize that this is all about to go downhill, still gets to me.

I loved the fall of democracy stuff as well.

What really holds ROTS from ever being better than ANH or ESB in my eyes are two things:

1. The characters in 5&6 just can't be beat. I realize that the prequels tell a very different story, but they needed a Han Solo equivalent to round out the group. Anakin and Obi-Wan never quite cut it for me.

2.Various corny/odd bits that really hold the film back when I think about them. The infamous "NOOOOO", Palpatine killing the Jedi masters so quickly felt rushed as well as a HUGE missed opportunity for a 5 man lightsaber duel, "From my point of view the Jedi are evil!" etc.

 

Hmm, I would say that it feels more driven, because it’s leading into the third act of the Prequel trilogy with an endgame in sight, and thus with greater momentum. So, really, I think it is simply the story that determines this aspect. Lucas’ actual direction of the previous two feels just as assured to me but, likewise, with slightly different aims via the immediate story.

Why? You said it yourself, that’s not the story. So why force a Han Solo equivalent where he clearly doesn’t belong. What purpose would that character serve? Why would a smartass scoundrel, smuggler, fringer, what-have-you, be hanging around with senators or Jedi Knights? Sure, Lucas did something like that with Jar Jar, but that’s precisely because Jar Jar is the village idiot (with epic ramifications). Moreover, any attempt to replicate a Han Solo-type character or effect would have inevitably been deemed, criticized and forever dismissed as inferior by comparison to the genuine article. And for good reason: Han Solo is unique to the OT story and circumstances, and the OT unique because of him. The whole 'thrown together' motley crew feel of the OT deserves to be its own thing. I say let it alone. I do happily acknowledge that the Prequels are not quite as accessible for this very reason, but they were never suppose to be.

All this aside, I was, for a moment, tempted to click the worst of the prequels bubble. Relax …I ended up clicking on par with. But I do think that, while Revenge of the Sith delivers the most dramatically, it also shifts Star Wars into the express lane, limiting the scope of its universe (despite showing more planets than any other installment) by charging through it in order to focus primarily on the main character conflicts, whereas Episodes I and II feel more like open worlds with curious oddities to be explored at a leisurely pace. But I don’t hold this against the film. It is what it needs to be.

 

Yeah, I never understood why some fans think the PT needed a Han Solo. What makes Han great is he is a product of his time period(the selfish, world-wearer cynic).

That type of character simply doesn't fit in the PT time period IMO.

 

More or less on par with the previous 2 prequels.

 

Best of the prequels, no where near the first two of the OT, sort of close to ROTJ.

 

Ingram_I and Game3525 , I like your points, and I'd like to maybe change and reframe my original argument.

I love the fact that the Prequels tried to do something new and different from the OT. I never desired to see Han Solo, or a duplicate character in the prequels. What I think I was trying to articulate was that the three "central" heroes of the PT, being Obi, Anakin and Padme, aren't as strong or memorable in my opinion as the trio of Luke, Han and Leia.

The OT trio formed a perfect "rock paper scissors" like dynamic in the way that each character played off of the other. Luke was the naive farmboy, well intentioned but occasionally impulsive. Han contrasted Luke perfectly by being the experienced, cocksure scoundrel who felt he was too cool for all the wide eyed talk of destiny and big goals like overthrowing the empire. Leia, though admittedly the least clearly defined character of the three, acts foil for both by being a strong willed, independent not-so-damsel in distress who consistently defies their expectations.

In addition to this, and in addition to the roles they serve in the story, the characters go on their own personal transition through the trilogy. By ROTJ, Luke has become a wise and strong Jedi Knight, Han has gone from selfish scoundrel to a willing hero of the rebellion, and Leia has warmed up to Han fully.

In contrast, I don't think the PT really has that kind of development amongst its trio. Anakin is easily the most fully featured character of the three. He has a clearly defined personality, he definitely goes through an evolution during the trilogy, and he plays well off of the other two characters. Obi Wan and Padme, however, never really received the type of strong "character moments" that the heroes of the OT received. Obi Wan plays a big role in the plot, sure, but his personality and personal story are never that clearly defined. His persobality in the prequels basically is: "he's a good guy". I think most of his character developmebt, or lack thereof, in the prequels coasts by solely on te fact that, well, he's Obi Wan friggin Kenobi! Who doesnt love Obi Wan? You enjoy Obi Wan, but your never sure why you like him.There is a story implied, about a young Jedi knight who impulsively takes up an apprentice and questions his decision for the rest of his life, but it's mostly left to the background in favor of the incredibly huge story the prequels tell, and the character suffers for it.

Padme suffers even worse. It's clear she's meant to mirror Leia in many ways, but she rarely shows a character of her own. She's a progressive, compassion driven politician who watches in frustration as the democracy around her crumbles, but we don't get enough scenes of genuine emotion from her to really appreciate the nuances of her character. We don't get enough intimate scenes of her letting her gaurd of "political speech" down, and worst of all, considering her biggest function in the PT is to fall in love with Anakin, we are never given any legitimate reasons why she falls in love with him in the first place (though that's a topic for another time, or another thread )

In short, you could probably sum this post up as "I like the OT characters better", but I hope you see my reasoning.

 

Empire is first but Sith is a close second.

 

On par with TPM (despite too much of Jar Jar - Gungans and podracing...), better than AOTC, but behind the 3 originals, even ROTJ.

What I like : the beginning (space battle, except for the buzz droids), some really good scenes and dialogs in the middle of the film, H. Christensen performance before he turns to the dark side, I. Mc Diarmid acting before he gets scarred and deformed, the musical score, Mace Windu/Palpatine lightsaber duel,

What I don't : Anakin's turn (pact with the Devil arc to save the one he loves), General Grievous' character (more ridiculous than menacing to me), some real cheesy lines (balcony scene, the infamous NOOOOOoooo, and Grievous talking to Sidious above all), Mustafar's scenery (volcanic red-lava planet), Palpy defeating 3 Jedi masters in the blink of an eye, and last Sidious/Palpy gruesome and infamous look and voice when and after he kills Mace.

Was also fairly disappointed that the few scenes about the formation of the Rebellion had to be cut. Thought it would have made much to help bridge the 2 series better. But that's another debate...

 

These scenes should have been included.

 

Revenge of the Sith is my favorite movie of all time.

 

ROTS is easily my favorite of the bunch.