AoTC IS the greatest Star Wars film ever. (so far)

it is the best for 31 and a half more hours

 

It's funny, Runecrow, I have the EXACT same thoughts when watching TPM-that film is bloody brilliant. Nonetheless...

I just can't share your love for the dialogue (though your appreciation of it, hey, more power to ya!).

It is some of the most poorly conceived dialogue I've ever seen. Don't get me wrong, George is a visionary and a master storyteller, especially visually speaking. But he's not particularly good at making characters convey their thoughts and emotions verbally.

"I've been dying a little bit each day since you came back into my life...I truly, deeply love you." Sorry, that is BEYOND cliche. George is such a creative person, and his visuals are more than a testament to that, but apparently he struggles at finding fresh and inventive ways to describe one of our most sacred and cherished emotions. Describing love so flatly takes away all of its magic.

The whole speech about the "kiss never given" becoming a scar...ugh! I understand that George wanted melodramatic dialogue for stylistic reasons, but, it's always been like that in SW. This movie just went WAY over the top. You need to walk a fine line between adding stylistically to the films while still connecting with the audience. Lines like these are just beyond cheesy and unnatural, it becomes extremely difficult to identify with or care about these characters.

"If you follow your thoughts through to conclusion..." I don't mind this dialogue, in and of itself. Its problem is contextual. The fireplace scene is extremely moody, it has a very specific ambiance, there's a lot of emotion (well, there's SUPPOSED to be). This line, even for Padme the politician, just comes across as far too analytical and scientific. Its placement is highly odd.

"Perhaps with merely your presence the mystery behind the attack will reveal itself" (that may not be word for word). That's utilitarian dialogue at its finest. I cringe every time I see this scene.

"I don't like sand..." This little speech has kind of become the trademark of bad dialogue, so I almost feel bad singling it out...but it needs to be. We've all heard cheesy pick up lines, but this goes beyond that simple adjective. Paired with its perhaps too- sincere delivery (which I don't really blame on Hayden, my guess is George wanted it that way) it becomes all the more odd. Once again, the audience struggles to connect.

You also mentioned what might seem a nit-pick, but when I watch the film, it's rather glaring, and that's the horrible lead-in to the fireplace scene. Talk about jarring and unpleasant. Once again, it primes the audience for misunderstanding (or no understanding at all), by giving this "should have been" powerful scene no emotional lead in or context. Despite it's warm glow (once again, George visually sets a beautiful stage) the action and dialogue itself is chilling.

I'll always love the film for some of its action sequences and its visionary scope, speaking both of visuals and audio, but it fails at delivering its love story, IMO. And, as I've said before, this is AOTC's largest contribution to the overall story arc and narrative of SW. It struggles to achieve one of its primary purposes, and I find that this causes it too be, in some ways, unfulfilling.

ETA- Lucas' dialogue can be viewed as just as bad as the "dialect" you provided as an example. Maybe someone would love that dialect. You can't say something can't be inherently bad and then provide an example of something you think is bad. What they say IS what they say, but that doesn't mean the audience can't interpret it as totally cliche and thoroughly uninspired.

 

I think you have to be a TRUE Star Wars fan to understand the greatness of AotC, because I just don't see it.

The PT will never be a part of Star Wars, to me. I will stick with the original trilogy and the EU books and comics.

 

Well, like I said, no one, no matter how hard they try, can really take away from Lucas as a visual director. He is a great storyteller in many ways. The scope and sheer imagination of the SW movies are perhaps its greatest achievements, and are likely why they have garnered so much support and interest. And these features are as evident in AOTC as any other episode of the saga. Beyond that, it's just like they say: "Different strokes for different folks."

 

Ok, now, Runecrow, let's can the "brainwash" talk. That makes it look like you're baiting for a fight.

Anyway, I watched some of AOTC yesterday. Wow, that thing has great surround sound. Still don't care much for the movie as a movie, but I could scene skip to some of the more action centered parts just to hear all the cool effects and have a blast (pardon the bun).

 

Consider me baited.

There is no such a thing as "long, unnatural pause" in talking.

Perhaps, then, I should have written "uncomfortably long pause" and something to the effect that Anakin hasn't tried to argue with Padmé for a long, long time in the film and thus the line is pointless. And flatly delivered. And...oh let me stop.

More to the point, the standards for story dialogue are different from those of real, unscripted life. In a film, a pause should have as much meaning as the words themselves. But in that scene, it just seems as though Christiansen blanked on his next line but recovered at the last possible instant.


There is no such a thing as "normal dramatic curve".

YES THERE IS. It's called "rising action." Things start at a certain level of tension, then gradually increase and increase until the climactic point. In a good love story, that climactic point is delayed so as to have the audience just as eager for the eventual confession of love and accompanying kiss as the characters may be. But for some reason, Lucas threw the kiss in practically at the beginning. Even coming after the meadow scene would have felt both more natural and been more satisfying storywise.

The fact that a person can't see why anothe person may or may not love someone is totally irrelevant. She does. End of story.

But unlike real life, a story has to make sense, or it's unsatisfying. As dull as TPM generally was, everything in it made sense to me. But this love story in AOTC? Not really, no.

She has loved him since e1.

She HAS? EWWWWWWWW! He was just a little kid!

Seriously, I know what you mean. But that was a different sort of love, a sisterly kind. This new love she feels for him seems to come out of nowhere during the lake scene. And then it's mostly gone from the meadow scene, then suddenly back as they have a dinner date and finally back in full force at the fireplace. The flow isn't right. Switch the meadow and lake scenes and it starts to feel a little more "right."


No. Give me an example of the dialogue that was "absolutely awful".

"Now that I'm with you again...I'm in agony."

That line was pretty corny. I felt agony hearing it.

"The thought of not being with you...I can't breathe!"

Really, it feels like something got cut between those two phrases, and that's why it doesn't sound right.

"I'm haunted by the kiss that you never should have given me. My heart is beating, hoping that that kiss will not become a scar."

This would make decent high-school literary magazine poetry. But as film dialogue? Stilted at best, unmentionable at worst. And speaking of which, just when I thought it couldn't get worse:

"You are in my very soul, tormenting me."

Did I say decent high school lit mag poetry? I take it back.

"If you are suffering as much as I am, please tell me."

Dude! I'm suffering! I'm SUFF--oh, snap, you ain't talkin' to me, are you?

The tragic thing about this whole speech is that Hayden Christiansen delivers it so well. The emotion comes across perfectly. But the dialogue itself doesn't fit the emotion; as torn up as he sounds here, his speech should be a great deal less purple and more basic.


Based on what criteria do you assign "hollow and synthetic"?

The arena conflict was essentially just a bunch of extras waving saber props at air with droids painted in, and it didn't even benefit from a fresh John Williams score. The later battle scenes just seemed random and chaotic; we don't really, truly see the battle won or lost. Contrast this with the battles in the LOTR movies or the last act of TPM.

Brainwashed, I tell you!

Not at all. I hated the love story -- esp. the fireplace scene -- as passionately and immediately as I did Jar Jar Binks that May afternoon nearly six years ago, but liked the rest of the movie much better than TPM. Unfortunately, AOTC hasn't aged as well as TPM has, in my eyes.

 

kupo

I just can't share your love for the dialogue (though your appreciation of it, hey, more power to ya!).

Well, I'm not saying I loved the dialogue. It's not dialogue par excellence. I'm just saying there is nothing wrong with it. It isn't bad dialogue. It isn't dialogue so bad it makes the movie bad. "e2 is a bad movie because the dialogue was bad" is just a wrong statement.

"I've been dying a little bit each day since you came back into my life...I truly, deeply love you." Sorry, that is BEYOND cliche. George is such a creative person, and his visuals are more than a testament to that, but apparently he struggles at finding fresh and inventive ways to describe one of our most sacred and cherished emotions. Describing love so flatly takes away all of its magic.

Her words are true, though. She has been dying a little each day. She loves Anakin. By fighting her feelings, she is killing her feelings. "I truly, deeply love you" is a true statement. If someone loves someone, and states it- then it's the way they feel. I don't see how anyone can say "That is so cliche" without consistently stating "Love is cliche". Anytime anyone says in any literary work "I love you" then it should follow that you should say "That is so cliche- and it's bad dialogue" which would cause virtually every romantic scene in the history of literature to fall into the category of "bad" through that criterion lens.


The whole speech about the "kiss never given" becoming a scar...ugh! I understand that George wanted melodramatic dialogue for stylistic reasons, but, it's always been like that in SW. This movie just went WAY over the top. You need to walk a fine line between adding stylistically to the films while still connecting with the audience. Lines like these are just beyond cheesy and unnatural, it becomes extremely difficult to identify with or care about these characters.

I agree that a person can say "I find romantic talk to be cheesy". But, the problem is- I'm not talking about a person's subjective response to emotive statements. I'm talking about inherant qualities of words. Anakin was talking about the kiss that was given becoming a scar. ie, something very positive becoming something very negative. It's the way that he felt. Relaying his feelings can't be inherantly "wrong" in their statements. That's like saying "every love song, or every love poem, ever written is bad".

"If you follow your thoughts through to conclusion..." I don't mind this dialogue, in and of itself. Its problem is contextual. The fireplace scene is extremely moody, it has a very specific ambiance, there's a lot of emotion (well, there's SUPPOSED to be). This line, even for Padme the politician, just comes across as far too analytical and scientific. Its placement is highly odd.

People talk in reality. They say things. The context of their statements comes from themselves, not from their environment. Padme can say anything she wants to. To say her dialogue is bad because she didn't say it in the right environment is just wrong. Also, the whole thing with Padme and Anakin is to show that she is fighting her emotions. She loves him. That is why she is all dressed up all of the time. Her "senator" persona is fighting against her "lover" persona. When her "lover" persona is being stirred- she falls into "senator" persona to keep her distance. Sure, her statement is analytical. Because she's using "senator" persona to push away "lover" persona. When this happens, you are going to see odd "senator" persona in "lover" persona environs.

"Perhaps with merely your presence the mystery behind the attack will reveal itself" (that may not be word for word). That's utilitarian dialogue at its finest. I cringe every time I see this scene.

It's a statement of fact. It's what's on his mind. A statement of fact can't have an inherant "wrong" or "bad" about it.

"I don't like sand..." This little speech has kind of become the trademark of bad dialogue, so I almost fe

 

Is it just me, or do at least half of the members on these forums rank ESB as their favorite and AOTC as their second favorite. My personal ranking is ANH>ESB>ROTJ>TPM>AOTC

I thought AOTC was somewhere in between crap and OK. The romance dialogue is horrendous. Hayden's acting is wooden. The lightsabre fight was basically a few close-ups of Hayden and Chris with blue and red lights on their faces.

The action was OK. I thought the Obi/Jango fight was mildly entertaining. The Battle of Geonosis is underwhelming and doesn't hold a candle to the OT battles.

IMO, AOTC deserves all the criticism it gets.

 

The romance dialogue is horrendous. Hayden's acting is wooden.

I respect your opinion, of course. What I am asking is why? If I say "The dialogue in Casablanca is horrendous" don't you think someone is justified in asking "Why do you say that?" Why is it horrendous? Based on what criteria is dialogue 'horrendous'? What makes dialogue inherantly good or bad?

Why is Hayden's acting wooden? This one I have to really disagree with. While watching the film again- I set out to "see" the wooden acting. I could only wonder how this conclusion was being reached. What was wrong with his acting? These statements are being stated objectively, while, in fact, there is never any objective standard given for them.

That is what I really want to know from someone who say "bad" and tries to quantify bad as something objective. As I said, I am convinced that people who do not like the movie (which is fine, subjectively) are only mimicing the "objective" (I enclose in quotes because they're not objective) reasons first uttered by someone preceeding them in thought. That is, someone first said "wooden acting" "bad dialogue". Then, it became a sort-of mantra for all that followed in their comments.

The lightsabre fight was basically a few close-ups of Hayden and Chris with blue and red lights on their faces.

Does that make a "bad" movie? Is ANH a "bad" movie because of the Obi-Wan/Vader duel? I am willing to wager you will say "no". So, the question is why does the fight make this a "bad" movie? It doesn't make sense. It is irrational.

The action was OK. I thought the Obi/Jango fight was mildly entertaining. The Battle of Geonosis is underwhelming and doesn't hold a candle to the OT battles.

The Geonosis battle doesn't hold a candle to the battle of Hoth? Again WHY?

You see? All that is going on is that you are stating irrationalities as if they are objectives for determining film quality.

This is the whole argument against "bad" movie followed by subjectives (irrational subjectives at that) being disguised as objectives.

 

Hey I'm new here, I like this forum, makes me smile

I do respect your opinion, I like that movie it is good and all that jazz, but so far it is the second worst star wars movie, (after TPM). I do respect your opinion though, I couldn't be bothered to read the whole thread, did someone already say that?

 

I think that AOTC was better than TPM, even though the saber dueling was just a bit better in TPM. But go figure, since they had a real martial artist play Darth Maul. Not to mention the kick ass stunt work in that duel. The best of the series, IMO.

But overall, AOTC is the most entertaining SW film so far IMO. The arena scene is awesome and you really get to see the Jedi get serious. And the "psycho" music they play when Anakin loses it after his mother dies gives me goosebumps every time I watch it.

I watched it again last night and it (along with having recently watched the entire Clone Wars cartoon) has me really pumped for tonight.

 

Anakin can pause there. He's allowed to. He is the one making the statement. He says it how he says it.

He's not allowed to if it takes the audience out of its suspension of disbelief. It did that to me, and apparently not to you. (I wonder what concensus a poll would reveal?)

More to the point, he's not the one solely making the statement; it's the writer and director as well. Was the pause written in? I doubt it; it doesn't appear in the novel based on the script. If I'd been directing, I'd have demanded a retake. Or a minor rewrite (I'd lose the "don't worry" probably. Or maybe change the whole line to a nod to an earlier remark: "I know better than to argue with a Senator!" Cut to a smile from Padmé. Y'know, create a little more chemistry).

Now, if you can show a source that says something to the effect "In cinematic dialogue- it is mandatory that a pause not follow a rhetorical affirmation: this is called Aeschylus' third maxim of theatric dialogue" then you would have a point. Otherwise, the statement is just nonsensical.

Talk to an actor sometime. They'll tell you how important pauses and timing are in a performance. But they won't tell you they got it from a book. It's something that must be learned or known intuitively. I think Christiansen messed up here, and Lucas didn't make him get it right. (Ironic, given his rep as Mr. Faster-more-intense to allow such a slow and lackadaisical delivery slide.)

You're taking a principle and applying it across the proverbial board when it doesn't apply. In other words "kiss" does not equate to climax of conflict in any form of "normal dramatic curve".

]When did Han kiss Leia? At the end of ESB? No. Near the beginning. The conflict is set up by the very kiss itself. That is the point of the kiss.

I disagree. First, this kiss appears in the middle of the film, and secondly only after considerable rising action in the form of romantic tension between the two. In large part, the romantic conflict is almost settled at this point, as the tension almost completely plateaus for the remainder of the arc. Contrast with AOTC, where the tension between Ani and Padme is much more low-key. And then what little tension there is gets seriously introduced and dampened in the same single scene at the lake, much earlier in their story arc.

You know by Padme saying "I shouldn't have done that", that she is fighting her emotions for Anakin. You want her to give in. You want her to tell Anakin that she loves him. You want them to be together. This "kiss too soon" is just wrong.

It sure felt wrong. Her attraction to him comes out of nowhere. Prior to the lake scene, the only reaction to him we've gotten from her is her getting upset at him leering at her. Even there, there's nothing to really suggest that she's attracted and not repulsed.

It's interesting, though, that you bring up ESB's love subplot. The parallels in structure are very apparent, as if Lucas deliberately tried to set up a pattern.

Sure, sometimes the kiss is the climax- sometimes it's not. So, when you appeal to some "normal curve", you're applying it erroneously across the board as if "no romance drama can have a kiss at it's inception" which is just wrong.

Point conceded, with a caveat: since Lucas has said this love story is written for 12-year-olds, a more classic story arc would have been more appropriate.

But unlike real life, a story has to make sense, or it's unsatisfying. As dull as TPM generally was, everything in it made sense to me. But this love story in AOTC? Not really, no.

Okay, and I can respect that. But, the whole point of what I am saying is that a person can't objectively state "this movie is bad because I can't understand why she loves him".

Fair point. The problem is that that story is supposed to be the main point of the film, and the story fails. We're essentially asked to take for granted that she loves him. At least in ESB we get to really see her resistance to the idea wearing down, and entertainingl

 

respect your opinion, of course. What I am asking is why? If I say "The dialogue in Casablanca is horrendous" don't you think someone is justified in asking "Why do you say that?" Why is it horrendous? Based on what criteria is dialogue 'horrendous'? What makes dialogue inherantly good or bad?

The lines used for the romace scenes were just...bad. There's no other way to describe them. That's just my opinion.

Why is Hayden's acting wooden? This one I have to really disagree with. While watching the film again- I set out to "see" the wooden acting. I could only wonder how this conclusion was being reached. What was wrong with his acting? These statements are being stated objectively, while, in fact, there is never any objective standard given for them.

Hayden has this idea that he has to talk like Vader. While talking like Vader is fine if you're James Earl Jones playing a cyborg, it sounds awful when coming from Hayden playing a human.

Does that make a "bad" movie? Is ANH a "bad" movie because of the Obi-Wan/Vader duel? I am willing to wager you will say "no". So, the question is why does the fight make this a "bad" movie? It doesn't make sense. It is irrational.

I like the ANH duel. And the AOTC duel is only a small part of why I dislike AOTC.



The Geonosis battle doesn't hold a candle to the battle of Horth. Again WHY?

Because Hoth was a great battle. The shots of the AT-AT's approaching Echo Base are classic. Weather it be the the Rebels trying desperately to repel the Imperials, or the Snowspeeders trying to take down the AT-AT's, or the AT-AT's blowing up the generator. The Hoth battle was entertaining. I was not even mildly excited while watching Geonosis. It was boring. The OT battles had a human factor that Geonosis just doesn't have. It was a bunch of clones and droids, who can be re-made. The OT battles were REAL humans sacrificing their lives.

I also felt that Geonosis needed more structure. IMO, the whole battle was a CGI-filled mess. It was basically the Republic and the CIS firing at each other. Laser blasts going everywhre. That's it. Neither side had any objectives.

When watching Yavin, you want the Rebels to destory the DS. At Hoth, you want Luke to take down those AT-AT's. At Endor, you want the Rebels to survive long enough for the shield to be taken down. At Geonosis, you want to lie down and sleep.

And remember people, all of the above is just my opinion. I'll repsect yours, if you respect mine.

 

respect your opinion, of course. What I am asking is why? If I say "The dialogue in Casablanca is horrendous" don't you think someone is justified in asking "Why do you say that?" Why is it horrendous? Based on what criteria is dialogue 'horrendous'? What makes dialogue inherantly good or bad?

The lines used for the romace scenes were just...bad. There's no other way to describe them. That's just my opinion.

Why is Hayden's acting wooden? This one I have to really disagree with. While watching the film again- I set out to "see" the wooden acting. I could only wonder how this conclusion was being reached. What was wrong with his acting? These statements are being stated objectively, while, in fact, there is never any objective standard given for them.

Hayden has this idea that he has to talk like Vader. While talking like Vader is fine if you're James Earl Jones playing a cyborg, it sounds awful when coming from Hayden playing a human.

Does that make a "bad" movie? Is ANH a "bad" movie because of the Obi-Wan/Vader duel? I am willing to wager you will say "no". So, the question is why does the fight make this a "bad" movie? It doesn't make sense. It is irrational.

I like the ANH duel. And the AOTC duel is only a small part of why I dislike AOTC.



The Geonosis battle doesn't hold a candle to the battle of Horth. Again WHY?

Because Hoth was a great battle. The shots of the AT-AT's approaching Echo Base are classic. Weather it be the the Rebels trying desperately to repel the Imperials, or the Snowspeeders trying to take down the AT-AT's, or the AT-AT's blowing up the generator. The Hoth battle was entertaining. I was not even mildly excited while watching Geonosis. It was boring. The OT battles had a human factor that Geonosis just doesn't have. It was a bunch of clones and droids, who can be re-made. The OT battles were REAL humans sacrificing their lives.

I also felt that Geonosis needed more structure. IMO, the whole battle was a CGI-filled mess. It was basically the Republic and the CIS firing at each other. Laser blasts going everywhre. That's it. Neither side had any objectives.

When watching Yavin, you want the Rebels to destory the DS. At Hoth, you want Luke to take down those AT-AT's. At Endor, you want the Rebels to survive long enough for the shield to be taken down. At Geonosis, you want to lie down and sleep.

And remember people, all of the above is just my opinion. I'll repsect yours, if you respect mine.

 

respect your opinion, of course. What I am asking is why? If I say "The dialogue in Casablanca is horrendous" don't you think someone is justified in asking "Why do you say that?" Why is it horrendous? Based on what criteria is dialogue 'horrendous'? What makes dialogue inherantly good or bad?

The lines used for the romace scenes were just...bad. There's no other way to describe them. That's just my opinion.

Why is Hayden's acting wooden? This one I have to really disagree with. While watching the film again- I set out to "see" the wooden acting. I could only wonder how this conclusion was being reached. What was wrong with his acting? These statements are being stated objectively, while, in fact, there is never any objective standard given for them.

Hayden has this idea that he has to talk like Vader. While talking like Vader is fine if you're James Earl Jones playing a cyborg, it sounds awful when coming from Hayden playing a human.

Does that make a "bad" movie? Is ANH a "bad" movie because of the Obi-Wan/Vader duel? I am willing to wager you will say "no". So, the question is why does the fight make this a "bad" movie? It doesn't make sense. It is irrational.

I like the ANH duel. And the AOTC duel is only a small part of why I dislike AOTC.



The Geonosis battle doesn't hold a candle to the battle of Horth. Again WHY?

Because Hoth was a great battle. The shots of the AT-AT's approaching Echo Base are classic. Weather it be the the Rebels trying desperately to repel the Imperials, or the Snowspeeders trying to take down the AT-AT's, or the AT-AT's blowing up the generator. The Hoth battle was entertaining. I was not even mildly excited while watching Geonosis. It was boring. The OT battles had a human factor that Geonosis just doesn't have. It was a bunch of clones and droids, who can be re-made. The OT battles were REAL humans sacrificing their lives.

I also felt that Geonosis needed more structure. IMO, the whole battle was a CGI-filled mess. It was basically the Republic and the CIS firing at each other. Laser blasts going everywhre. That's it. Neither side had any objectives.

When watching Yavin, you want the Rebels to destory the DS. At Hoth, you want Luke to take down those AT-AT's. At Endor, you want the Rebels to survive long enough for the shield to be taken down. At Geonosis, you want to lie down and sleep.

And remember people, all of the above is just my opinion. I'll repsect yours, if you respect mine.

 

Am new here too and I have a lot of respect for what has been said on both sides of the argument. Personally my favourite SW film is TPM but I can see I'm gonna be in the minority there!

As for AOTC there's a lot to be said for reserving judgement. AOTC is there in a great many ways to set up ROTS. We see the start of the Clone Wars and the beginning of Annakin's descent to the Dark Side. Surely the success of these things will be determined by ROTS?

I disagree with the comments made earlier that is only ANH that stands up as SW film in it's own right - TPM does too. You can't therefore be judgemental on plot/script/action etc on the other films in there own right as they're all telling integral parts of the saga and are reliant upon one another. Best to enjoy AOTC for what it is in that sense and wait with great anticipation for ROTS (though not much longer now - yay!)

 

I also felt that Geonosis needed more structure. IMO, the whole battle was a CGI-filled mess. It was basically the Republic and the CIS firing at each other. Laser blasts going everywhre. That's it. Neither side had any objectives.

Basically, the Geonosis battle lacked the story element found in nearly all the other SW battles -- a beginning, a middle with rising action, and an end with a climax and resolution.

These mini-stories within the SW saga aren't at all complex. Take Hoth, for instance: There's some buildup to the first shots fired, then the rising action of our heroes getting shot up (Dack) or shot down (Luke), the Rebels having a victory or two, but ultimately the climax is Gen. Veers blowing away the shield generator. Simple but effective.

A) Beginning, B) middle, and C) end. Even the underwhelming space battle in TPM gives us this much: A) The pilots engaged the droid fighters ("Roger, Gold Leader."), B) Found that their guns couldn't dent the shields, and C) an unexpected hero wins the battle. Lamer than most SW battles (even the slapsticky Gungan fight had more drama), but still a complete story.

By comparison, the Geonosis "clone war" is simply a backdrop for the real final-act drama of AOTC: the duels with Dooku. Which is usually OK with me, as I prefer a good saber duel to big SW battles any day. But aside from a remark from Kenobi in the epilogue, we'd have never known what the outcome of the Geonosis war was. (And frankly, we still don't.)

That's what's disappointing about these PT battles. Now that Lucas really has the ability to cut loose with the visuals, so much of it is being wasted on so little story. Hopefully when I see ROTS in a few hours I'll be able to gladly report improvement in this area.

Sorry I've ranted so about AOTC in this thread, which is supposed to celebrate it rather than critique. I'll try to be more positive about it in the future here, 'cause I didn't exactly hate the movie.

 

Let me start off by saying that I respect everyone's opinion here and no one can really tell you what the best film of the series is, because everyone is always going to have their personal preference...its a matter of your "point of view" as Obi Wan so eloquently put it. Now here is my opinion...to callAOTC the best of the series is an absolute outrage!!!!!! I won't bash it I actually liked the film, but it had sooooooooooooo many weak points. Yes the romance dialogue and most of the romance scenes were terrible!!!!!!!!!!! Yes, Hayden's acting (although it had its moments) left alot to be desired, but for the most part I did like it. However, and call me old school if you want, I still put all of the OT films ahead of AOTC. Since I have had the benefit of seeing ROTS before posting this, here is how I rank the films:

1) Empire
2) A New Hope
3) Revenge of the Sith
4) Return of the Jedi
5) AOTC
6) Phantom

**Keeo in mind I love them all for the simple fact hat they are STAR WARS...but Episodes I & II and far too many scenes that really tested my gag reflex. While they both contain SCENES that are some of the best the Trilogies have seen...they also contain, by far, some of the worst.

 

Please remember that we have a thread for what went wrong with AOTC. This thread should be leaning towards the side of what people LIKED.

 

Sorry, I was on a roll, couldn't help myself...don't blame me...the dark side made me do it.

 

I wasn't crazy about either The Phantom Menace or AotC. AotC was okay, but light years behind any of the movies of the original trilogy. The Phantom Menace was just a disappointment all around.

I have not seen RotS yet though, so I can't comment on where that ranks.

 

I've really never understood the negativity towards Attack of the Clones. Nor have I understood the negativity to the prequels in general. But this is also merely my standpoint. I found AotC to be an amazing movie. Great action, well paced transition as we moved toward the OT, and a look at the big picture surrounding Palpatine's plans.

 

The release of ROTS has settled the original question: at BEST, AOTC can only be the SECOND best SW film ever. (OK, that's definitely a matter of opinion -- one TFN user has already said he likes Clones a little better -- but on a pure moviemaking craft level, Sith stomps all over it.)

So why might someone prefer AOTC? I can give a few reasons:

--Yoda vs. Dooku. C'mon, this was just cool.
--A horde of Jedi in battle together, something never seen before (or after) in the whole Saga.
--Padmé as action hero.
--3PO's puns, bad as they were, are STILL much better than almost every Jar Jar gag.
--The fireplace scene. No, no, please hear me out. Once Ani gets his tormented speech out, the rest of the scene isn't all that bad.
--Jango vs. Obi-Wan. No matter how many times I skip around the DVD, no matter how much I'm hating this movie, I almost always stop and actually WATCH this chapter. In some ways, it's more interesting than even most of the ROTS action.
--Jango vs. Obi-Wan...in the apartment. This scene had more genuine tension than the rest of the "quiet" scenes in the film put together.
--Dooku & Obi in the prison cell. This was a good scene, too. (I'm very glad to see that much of ROTS shares the same quality.)
--Geonosian eye-candy. While I think the lack of storytelling hurt the final ground-battle, I must say that Lucas succeeded in his aim to create a disconnected documentary feel to the battle scenes. It's quite lovely to look at and I wonder how much was inspired by actual war footage (for ex: the gunship that gets hit and goes down next to our heroes' is directly based on WWII footage of an Allied bomber meeting a similar fate that I've NEVER forgotten).

I'm sure other, more enthusiastic AOTC fans can offer more reasons; I figure jumpstarting things is the least I can do after having trashed it so. XD

 

AOTC is ranked at nr.3 in my list after TESB and ROTS.

 

Is this thread redundent now?