Discussion in 'Prequel Trilogy' started by Mond, Feb 20, 2012.
Color me shocked.
Is the tide turning?
I agree about ESB's script -- insanely overrated. What it has going for it is that Kasdan's a naturally talented writer. But it's SW, not Stoppard.
Anyway, congrats RotS!
(Hey, Temple of Doom gets some love too!)
ROTS is my favorite Star Wars film and TOD is my favorite Indiana Jones film so I really like this list.
Thank god. Someone has a damn brain! Let us repel the tide! Onwards!
Edit: looks like a small storm is brewing in the comments...again...
I imagine we will see more of this sort of thing as the "prequel kids" come of age and get media jobs.
Owen Glieberman also gave TPM 3D a (for him) very kind review, praising the film's ambition (and really, it's gotta be one of the most ambitious movies ever). Naturally there are "Lucas bribed you to do this" comments aplenty.
Yeah, it's not like any of those people have the DVD of it.
"The originals were just as bad as the prequels"... right. Get a new hallucination.
I gotta get me some of this Lucas bribe money. I'll be your prequel praise whore, Mr. Lucas! Bring on the cash!
Exactly. These are probably the same folks who, with a straight face, believe that TESB is the "low-point" of the whole SW saga, in terms of the script/dialogue and the performances.
I don't think ESB is the "low point" of the saga. Does anyone actually say that?
Though I have to admit, when people praise its dialogue, I have to wonder if they've ever seen a well-written movie before.
I've never been a fan of ESB's dialogue. The Han and Leia stuff, especially, is pretty egregious, and their hamhanded delivery doesn't make it any better. The Luke and Yoda stuff, even though it's mostly just a bunch of fortune cookie sentiment, works a lot better.
This is exactly the problem I have with peoples assumptions about PT fans. I haven't met a single person who thought that ESB is the low-point of the saga - quite the contrary actually. Granted, I haven't spent much time on the PT section of the board in a while. However I don't think you should make assumptions about folks who consider the films to be on the same level quality wise as far as the writing is concerned. There is some cheese in the dialogue for Sith and ESB, but I like it that way. Only difference is with the OT it was the delivery of said cheesy lines that fooled people into thinking the dialogue was terrific. That being said I thought the delivery of most of the ROTS lines was pretty damn exceptional (except "You're so beautiful/it's only because I'm so in love/NO BECAUSE I'M SO IN WUB WITH YOU"). And for the regard, I do not believe ESB is the low-point of the saga. All I'm saying is there plenty of silly dialogue (and I am in no way insulting either film) but delivery of the diaogue and drama of the story more than makes up for it. Irvin Kershner had a gift with his directing ability to make so-so dialogue sound great.
Anyway, I'm happy to see Sith made the list.
I knew a guy who always said that ESB was his least favorite of all 6 movies. It's not impossible to meet someone like that.
Also, the "you are so beautiful" line was indeed cheesy and it is delivered sort of cheesy as well. But the rest of tha scene is quite fine, and actually has a beautifully tragic feel to it. When Padme is asking Anakin about what to do with the baby's room and raising the baby by the lake on Naboo, etc and that wonderful violin solo is playing in the background, I get a lump in my throat everytime.
I'm one of those PT fans, and...*gasp*...I much prefer ESB to ROTS. Although not for the reasons people might think. If I spent as much time analyzing dialogue as some folks do, I'd never enjoy any movie.
It's funny that this article has appeared given the fact that Lucas said in 2003 or so that he did not expect people to like ROTS and he was hoping to just break even on it.
ROTS is by far my least favorite of the Star Wars films, I have only watched the entire movie through once, but it's not a badly done film. I'm not a fan of what I call "Murphy's Law movies"--everything that can possibly go wrong, does.
That being said, I do thoroughly enjoy the first 30-45 minutes of the film. At that point I click the "stop" button on my remote and go do something else.
As far as Temple of Doom, Willie Scott completely ruined it for me.
The devil just bought himself a coat because hell froze over.
I think the point of it isn't that TESB is a bad movie, it's merely saying ROTS ISN'T. All of the Star Wars movies have comic book-ish dialogue, that's part of their charm.
I'ma have to call BS on this "people who think ESB is the low point of the saga in terms of script etc." thing unless someone can provide a link to someone actually claiming that.
Actually, Lucas said back in like 1998 that though the 3rd prequel would be very very very dark, he also said that "it will probably fit in really well with the 21st century". That quote is an audio quote from the Behind the Magic CD-ROM, if anyone remembers that thing.
I do not however recall him ever predicting that people not to like ROTS and that he was just hoping it would break even because of that fact. Do you have a source for that quote?
I originally heard that in 2003 or so, maybe even earlier, and I've been trying to dig for the quote but can't find it at the moment. I have only found the quotes in which he said it would be "very very dark" and not suitable for small kids--that was among the time he was deciding to have it rated PG-13.
It's just silly rhetoric against PT fans. It annoys the crap out of me that if, for whatever, reason, someone compares the PT to the OT that automatically means any PT fan considers the best film of the OT to be crap
What a weird list.
There aren't all that many prequels, period, and most of them are rotten. They had to pad the list with reboots like Batman Begins and Casino Royale.
I actually enjoy RotS, but "one of the best prequels ever" is some pretty faint praise.
MEANWHILE, IN A TOPSY-TURVY UNIVERSE...
Meanwhile, a few days ago...Meanwhile, a few days ago...Meanwhile, a few days ago...Meanwhile, a few days ago...Meanwhile, a few days ago...
I like both movies. Guess I'm an alien than.
Anyways, is this pettiness really necessary? Is it not possible to talk about these movies without hurt feelings and whatnot?
I watched ROTS again last night, and just wanted to comment on the lasting power of this movie. Everything is so rich in meaning and relevance to the other chapters, it's the perfect complement to the OT. Definitely an effective and powerful prequel.
Having said that, I do find the dialogue in ESB (my equal favourite of the saga) superior. Revenge of the Sith is more ambitious, and there is more weight to a lot of what is said, but Empire genuinely allows for greater suspension of disbelief. You really feel like it is actually happening to these characters.
While there are moments of akwardness in Revenge of the Sith, there is symbolism, themes and mythos it carries because of, and for the other movies. It has much more to achieve than Empire Strikes Back, but perhaps that says something about the charm of ESB.
Anyway, both great movies.
I've always said Revenge of the Sith is an outstanding film. Not just a great Star Wars film, but a great film in its own right. Nice to see EW have seen sense. I think they were pretty negative about it back in 2005.
Were they? The EW review by Owen Gleiberman was quite positive. 67/100 is the Metacritic score which makes it a favorable review.
Kind of like how some PT defenders claimed that the positive reviews of the LotR films were due to bribes. Or the negative reviews of the PT is also due to critics being bribed by PJ or Newline.
It is also intersting that a negative review, even a mildly negative one, of the PT movies is proof that "ALL critics are idiots" or "ALL critics hates Lucas" or "there is an EVIL media consiparcy against Lucas".
But a positive review is treated as "finally the thruth is being told."
The thruth is that ALL SW movies has had BOTH positive and negaitve reviews, like most films. And on the whole, SW had had MORE positive reviews than negative. There have been some negative reviews but few films are made that have ZERO negative reviews.
The critics are just offering up an opinion and you are not obligated to agree or disagree with them.
Yes it is odd,
Temple of Doom is treated as a Prequel, while techincally true there is little to nothing in that films that sets up events in Raiders.
The Good, the Bad and the Ugly? That movie is set during the civil war but can a date be seen in the other films? And Lee van Cleefs character dies in this and is then alive in the next? And Clint Eastwoods character does have a name in all three films and they are different, Joe, Manco and Blondie.
Batman Begins, Casino Royale, Rise of the planets of the Apes and Star Trek (2009) are reboots, not really prequels.