PT Jim Raynor's "RLM's Episode I - Review A Study in Fanboy Stupidity"

First of all, again, you really need to keep up with what happened. A member called Cryo's statements silly, to me, that is the same as calling cryo silly, to which the member denied it...

Second, I never said I didn't do it.. However, I don't pretend I don't do it by hiding behind a theory that because I am insulting someones thoughts, opinion comments or theories, that somehow I am not insulting them. If someone strongly disagrees, then they say they strongly disagree. Adding descriptors onto it like silly, ridiculous, stupid etc etc are only meant to add a layer of insult on top of the disagreement.

No, that isn't a child's game. Nice try though. As a member of these boards, I thought better of my actions and wanted to avoid the ire of the mods. That's not child like. I am pretty sure I even put a footnote in my post as to why I edited my statement. And BTW, as someone that has setup forums in the past, if these forums are worth their salt, that the mods have a feature that allows them to see edits. So they had my words even if they were edited out by me.

After that post I still stood by what I said in the next couple posts. I wasn't trying to hide it (because there was no way to really hide it) just trying to avoid the ire of the mods. Very different.

Edit: Realizing that I broke the rules, admitting I broke the rules, and adjusting my post accordingly isn't child like... as much as you want to make it so..

 

Okay.....

Might be because I try -- try -- to treat people with respect; usually.

Huh? What? You throw your own assertions, or former assertions, into contradiction. You were just a few posts back harping on ROTS getting no VFX nomination and making out that was rather shameful and because of X. But here, you present indifference to the idea that TFA didn't win; even though -- unlike ROTS -- it was still nominated. It isn't a competition, but I just happen to think ROTS not even being nominated was rather absurd, especially given that TFA was. TFA: a movie that hardly pushed the boat out in any area of effects. But whatever.

Well, I think there are plenty of plain-looking effects in TFA. Very little that takes the breath away. Perhaps nothing. Whereas, in all three prequels, I was dazzled and remain so to this day. The worlds, the characters, the battle sequences -- all far superior in the PT (and, for that matter, the OT), in my opinion.

I don't really care what he thinks to be honest. I don't need to root my opinions in those of a forty-something actor who got paid to dress up fancy and wave a glowing stick about. Ewan McGregor isn't God. And while you have -- as usual -- skipped right past what I said, I also remarked that Alec Guinness also held negative views toward the OT (or, by the time he agreed to do a cameo in TESB, he had started to increasingly look down his nose at it all: "Dull rubbishy stuff"). Plenty of people think that Star Wars is nothing but a bunch of "bad movies". Of course, there is a ton of affection for the series in popular culture, but this also has the effect of blotting out all the disdain and indifference that also exists toward it.

I explained some of that to you quite recently. Must have a short memory:

http://boards.theforce.net/threads/...tch-all-thread.50040625/page-24#post-53835547

Well, in TPM's case, you have to knock a bit off for its 2012 3D takings. The number then reduces to 80-something million tickets sold. And in AOTC's case, you really have to mentally squint and add a bit given its quieter marketing and lower-than-average number of theaters it was released on in 2002. AOTC is really closer to 60 million (ROTS' ticket sales) when you do this. So it's more like the PT lost one-third of its audience, not half. What can I say? People are fickle. More will always come out for an "event" movie like TPM and TFA than they will -- generally speaking -- for sequels. Same was true for the OT.

I also said that, in line with what you yourself have previously insisted on, TFA is only fit to be compared to TPM, as they are both the first of a new trilogy, after a long break and on the back of an enormous marketing blitzkrieg. And there we see that TFA by no means obliterated the ticket sales of TPM. On the contrary, given that TFA was exhibited more ways, including being shown on IMAX, where tickets cost a good deal more, the gap between them isn't all that great. So they both look a bit weaker (but still strong overall) when you make these adjustments. The original movie remains way, way out in front.

No. The parallel you are trying to draw is the one that doesn't "stack up". With muddy, obscure language. "Cinema numbers"? Do you mean demographics, ticket sales, box-office takings, what? Because, prior to the Great Depression and then television, cinema was the prime form of entertainment and drew huge numbers of people in North America. Cinema has never fully recovered from the blow television dealt it. That's why "Gone With The Wind" outstrips even Star Wars.

Episodes II and III were less successful than TPM. I am not quibbling that point. And TPM was less successful than TFA. So TFA is the "daddy" of Star Wars movies since the original. Duh. However, it isn't necessarily the mind-blowing success you make it, not on the international stage:

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/alltime/world/

We've been over this so I won't post all the facts and figures again. "Jurassic World", another 2015 blockbuster film built on nostalgia, made close to $1.7 billion to TFA's almost $2.1 billion. Not all that phenomenal a gap. Also, "Furious 7", another 2015 movie that is the seventh in a series, actually made slightly more than TFA in foreign markets. There are also two "Avengers" movies (Marvel also owned by Disney) in the Worldwide Top 10. So TFA did well, but Star Wars is really just another franchise of lucrative box-office movies owned by a corporation now.

Polls and general opinion don't matter all that much. I've been clear on that. Why I've gone this road is to prove it is possible to argue about the meaning and interpretation of facts and figures. I don't like seeing people trying to further put down movies I love and act like it's all one way. It's just another form of dogma and I stand opposed to dogma.

But yeah -- These things really don't matter too much. I think Mark Hamill put it perfectly at Oxford Union earlier this year:


Via a post by mikeximus -->

http://boards.theforce.net/threads/anyone-prefer-the-force-awakens.50039242/page-17#post-53378982






“My point, my larger point was, it doesn’t matter if it’s good as long as it makes money. So, because The Force Awakens made a lot of money, I can’t be… it doesn’t… it’s not ergo, it’s good…”

The deeper bigotry -- despite my metallic wording -- was, to me, you snidely dismissing the work of others, based on some thinly-articulated disdain of animation.

To me, you very much revealed your opinion in that moment. I won't throw any box-office figures pertaining to successful animated movies at you.

 

If one wonders why I haven't really dug into this thread for a number of pages... well, I'll let Sisyphus explain.

 

The oldest trick in the book around here is to make an offensive remark, leave it for a minute so your target reads it, then edit it away to avoid any action. Quite sneaky. Rather than your 'slip the knife in & hide the evidence' method of assault I'd prefer Cryo's gunfight at high 'noon approach. More honorable.

TFA & TPM had outstanding visual effects. The effects work in Fury Road & The Matrix were even better IMO & deserved the awards that came their way. That doesn't diminish the work in those two SW movies.

The way TFA combined real & impressive stunt-work with CGI, & real environments with digital effects certainly dazzled. I think it's the best looking SW movie so far, though of course it does use the latest technology.

I don't believe that. You've dedicated alot of your time to discussing it & even said his opinion is "a bit sad" that "it sucks on some level". Might be more accurate to say you wish you didn't care.

As we've gone through before, Guinness has never given a broad negative appraisal of the SW movies as completed movies. He may've thought some dialogue sucked but what did he think of ESB when all the acting was on display, all of the effects were done & the magnificent music by John Williams was added? Ewan saw the benefit of all of that with Eps 1 & 2 & still thought they were no good.

Apologies. You found some parts of Eps I & II "jerky & cold". You sounded like Anthony Daniels
It's great that you came to appreciate them to a far greater extent. Still since you did have such a mixed opinion of them I can't see how you can feel surprised or how you can argue with those of us who haven't become more enamored with those two movies. You should have alot of empathy for that position.

108m compared with 84m (on initial release) is an obliteration. Or close to it. Esp when we consider that TPM had the benefit of a pristine reputation & goodwill for all things SW. TFA on the other hand followed the PT. Which you yourself admit has been bashed & sullied from pillar to post. Makes TFA's achievement all the more remarkable. TPM had a cushy armchair ride by comparison.
Also it's you who keep making the comparisons with TFA. I merely said that Eps 2 & 3 lost around half of the cinematic audience, & that the 90m+ attendance numbers are back now with TFA. Far more than that even.

I love that quote. Use it myself when people point only to box office figures as a measure of quality. Curiously, Mike & others pull out that one sentence & present it as Hamill having a dig at TFA. He wasn't at all. He was having a crack at movies like Transformers that earn loads of $$ but have quite poor/mediocre reputations. People rarely say they're particularly good movies. He goes on to say that TFA doesn't seem to be in that category. As far as he could tell (back then) it's been very well received. He needn't have worried. Around 90% positive ratings from the public & critics, American Film Institute Award as one of the top 10 films of that year, etc etc. It was one of those movies that makes billions and gets near-universal acclaim. Which is about as good as it gets.

 

Agreed. As PT-defending goes, I much prefer Cryo's approach to the venomous, bombastic approach of a handful of others on this board who treat each criticism of the PT like a personal affront and then seem to act in much the way they accuse others of acting in turn...

Absolutely agreed! TFA is by far the best looking, most quintessential Star Wars feeling experience I've had with the franchise on screen, and I still thought Fury Road deserved the win! In fact, I'd argue Fury Road and Ex Machina were better films, too, I just enjoyed TFA more personally and found it more rewatchable (not that they weren't as well). Same goes for Matrix vs. TPM. Both were visually fantastic films, but Matrix edges out on that front too, and still holds up quite well, all things considered.

 

Oh so we goin this route now....

While watching this thread is devestatingly entertaining, I think there is a track of "user disdain" going on in this thread. Ain't a mod but just sayin, once we start throwing more punches, Blaster and Lightsabers start to show up.

 

Adding to the fire, because I'm insane(And not an Angel. Obviously.)

TFA was only "best looking", mostly because of the CGi and not practical effects. But since you couldn't tell the difference in pretty much most places....

Ahh who am I kidding....

PT isn't as great looking....visuals aren't original, CGI has no weight and the spectacle lacks.. PT never even ground broke the CGI technology every movie... Shiek did that..

 

Of course, the CGI in TFA looked great. And that's probably due to years and years of perfecting that particular visual effects technique such that they've gotten really good at compositing actors, sets, models, and CGI together.

The PT was pushing the envelope and breaking new ground with a lot of the stuff it was doing. People like to talk about Gollum, but I thought Jar-Jar in TPM looked great. But I will say, there were some moments here and there where things looked phony, particularly in AOTC. There were also scenes where the compositing looked iffy. One that comes to mind is when Obi-Wan jumps onto the lava surfing platform for the first time; it kind of looks to me like he's not actually there in the environment. A few of the creatures also look a bit cartoony, like Taun-We and Lama-Su. Despite some moments like these, the effects in the prequels definitely reach some great heights; the opening space battle of ROTS comes to mind as a sequence that is truly breathtaking.

 

People talked about Gollum bcs of the performance as much as, if not more than his look. In terms of "acting" Gollum was the digital equivalent of Daniel Day-Lewis. JarJar was more Adam Sandler.

 

Yeah that too. Gollum was a great character, well-acted, and a ground-breaking CG creation. Though, to be honest, I still think that Dobby was the best looking CG character of 2002.

Edit: On second thought, I'm not really sure which is better as I'm basing this on my distant memories of Dobby and Gollum haha.

 

Definitely Gollum IMO. Apart from just looking better the way they filmed the character meant that he interacted with the environment more. With trees, grass, water etc.

 

Thanks for that! Though it's probably more like handbags at dawn.

"King Kong" and "War of the Worlds" were very good in some respects, but I honestly can't think of a movie that had better VFX in 2005 than ROTS. Subjective, I guess, but it feels it was deprived of a nomination in that category, and several of the other technical categories. C'est la vie.

It's a looker. But nothing extraordinary, IMO. It also had twice the budget of each of the prequels, so there was absolutely no reason for it to look shabby -- especially given that Disney now own all of Lucas' prestigious production companies and facilities.

No, that's you speaking on my behalf. Ultimately, I don't care. Or rather, I think it's a bit sad he's not more of a fan of the first two, but I can't let it affect my opinion of the movies. That's the distinction you're not grasping.

AG called the screenplay/subject matter of TESB "dull rubbishy stuff" and later lamented a young child who had frantically repeat-watched the original movie getting hung up on "secondhand childish banalities". We don't have Alec Guinness' complete opinion of the latter SW films (as far as I know), but it's not like he went out of his way to say anything nice about them. He even told the kid if he could promise him never to watch the first one again. Pretty strong. So it's not like there isn't precedent -- legacy! -- for Ewan having a drab opinion of Eps. I and II.

It's the same with you trying to hand-wave away Viggo Mortensen's negative appraisal of the LOTR sequels. In all these cases, we can debate the full extent of their rueful/disdainful attitude toward popular fantasy movies these actors were involved in, but it veers into speculation only; and relatively meaningless speculation at that. The point is, all three have implied not being fond of certain films they took key roles in, suggesting some degree of psychological distance or dissatisfaction with at least those entries.

I do try to extend empathy at times, but it really depends on the context. I would never say my opinion was all that mixed on the prequels as a whole. I liked and admired the whole series from a reasonably early time. But it's true I only came into a fuller satisfaction and admiration, oh, I don't know, probably around 2010 or 2011. It helped that there were things that subconsciously (and maybe consciously) recalibrated my opinion along the way. Overall, I just got more comfortable with them, I suppose.

That's partly why I've emphasized the films having a poetic construction. It seems I found greater enjoyment the more I stuck with them and learned to read them; or let them read me. Reifying them as poetry also helps indicate a tempo of discovery. You're not necessarily meant to like them and process their granduer and intricacy and eccentricity all at once. You have to let them unfurl. That's been my experience, anyway. Part of a journey of self-growth.

You also have to understand -- to link this back to Ewan -- that I was only a teenager when I first saw these movies. As I progressed through my twenties, I became surer about some things, less sure about others. In life generally. The prequels are a bit like a crystal that have aligned with my way of seeing the world. As I went down the road of life, I saw more inside of them and appreciated more the craftmanship and cultivation behind them. I would like to think that someone of Ewan's age, who began filming TPM when he was 26 (he is overall 12 years my senior), could have recognized their value and seen a bit more inside of them, given his strong intellect and natural abilities as an actor and a human who has seen life, being a bit further down the road than I am. But, you know, as I said, ultimately, it doesn't matter.

You raise a good point about the tremendous goodwill for Star Wars back then. It had everything going for it. Unfortunately, this is also where focusing on raw numbers gets us nowhere. Because then, from my end, that means conceding that TPM, and the PT generally, wrongly slanted things a certain way, rather than the artist being bold, exploring his passions, and creating something unique and relatively personal. In other words, it's almost like you're fishing for sympathy for TFA, or admiration, that it did so well in spite of the "wrongness" of the prequels, even though I hold the prequels to be non-wrong and very bold, and TFA to be a conservative retreat into fan placation. That's where you and I are a little at odds.

Furthermore, I would just like to point out that the US and world populations have increased a little bit since 1999. Living standards have also increased. This means, other market factors aside, more people can theoretically head out/are able to head out/are willing to head out and see more stuff, or more stuff more times. Given these increases in demographic power, it's not entirely fair to square TPM and TFA off against one another, as if there weren't actually some impassable gulf between them. Numbers do bring us a certain immediacy, but numbers also exist in a soup of other numbers and unquantifiable (and/or difficult-to-quantify) factors.

It might be a little different if TFA literally did two- or three-times the box-office takings of TPM or the other prequels. But that patently isn't the case. What we can comfortably say is that it lit up the world stage and made Disney very happy. So it's a smashing success. However, TPM still has a high standing for its age, and especially its reputation. It is perhaps not too surprising that the highest-earning Star Wars movies are also the first of each trilogy. Those are the movies that occupy the winner's podium. Only it seems you want to exclude "Chewie" his medal.

I'm not entirely certain Mark Hamill was having a crack at TFA myself. Perhaps not. But I think his larger point is an entirely solid one. Box-office takings alone signify very little. Yes, you can cite high public approval ratings, or the consensus of critics, or even how many film bodies induct it or put it on a film list or whatever, but the only thing that ultimately makes a film good or not is the viewer. Artistic truth rests in the eye of the beholder. Some acclaimed movies -- and acclaimed things in general -- do very little for me. The best we can say is that Star Wars is still relevant and hasn't been abandoned or forgotten.

Thanks for this. I grow impatient with the criticism at times, but other times I do recognize that a good conversation can emerge, and sometimes a few points can be cleared up -- if only in my mind. Which is not to sound belittling. I think we all write what we do to tighten up our own perceptions. We're not really having a conversation with others as much as with ourselves.

Thank you. I do think we have to be a little careful here not to get too hot under the collar. Sometimes, a person's opinion being dismissed as "silly" can read as too broad. Depends on the poster. Usually, though, I don't know if I'm inclined to be quite as bleak about it as Mike. I mean, I'm fairly sharp-tongued. If I see something that I think sounds silly or ridiculous, I'll normally say so; whether I soften accordingly or not. On the other hand, I do appreciate Mike's defence. Dismissing something is easier than seeking to understand something. It can be too much of a reflex response in all of us.

 

I'm a fan of both Mr. Binks and Gollum.
"Is that legal?"

 

Trying to wind down this debate Cryo. If I haven't addressed a comment it's bcs I agree or you explained it adequately.

Chalk & cheese though. Guinness wasn't enamored with the script & didn't like obsessive SW fandom. Neither of those things are a movie. We were talking about negative assessments of the movies, as movies. Even if after seeing ESB he thought some of the dialogue was poor he could still have thought it was a great fantasy film. You yourself in another thread just said that bcs GL thought the acting was great in TFA, that doesn't mean he thought the whole movie was good. Same principle here.
Show me a negative appraisal of one or all of the OT movies by the cast & then we can talk about a legacy.

No I said it was interesting & notable. All of that is kid's stuff though compared to the long line of PT cast-members slamming those movies. Cold, pointless, dull, flat, wooden, disappointing etc etc. No successful high profile film series has copped anywhere near that kind of pasting from its cast.

 

Ah! I was perhaps thinking of something similar.

It's more like, in AG's case, a sullen apathy seems to have taken hold. Though I could be wrong. He was definitely keen on the first movie once he saw it with all the effects and music with an audience. I just think, all in all, actors aren't really the best judge of the material because: a) they're not the filmmaker (usually), and b) we are. I don't mean in any objective sense (obviously we're not the filmmaker either), but in terms of trusting our own instincts. As Alec himself says: Stretch out with your feelings!

Can't do that. Although there have been plenty of sardonic comments made by the cast over the years. People love to poke fun at the movies. The one thing they're not really considered from is a more artistic angle.

Well, the OT is more like "American Graffiti", and the PT is more like "THX". It's like the actors still can't figure out exactly what it is they were a part of; or just how eccentric Lucas' methods are.

 

Thinking back to the films in 2005... one, I hated War of the Worlds. Awful film, complete waste. I loved elements of King Kong but it was a bloated affair that could have benefitted from having half the nonsense edited out. Peter Jackson forgot how to edit a film after LOTR, imo. Graphically, did any film compete with ROTS for visual achievement? ROTS to me was largely just a video game on screen. Some of the visual elements were breathtaking, if not my cup of tea in other parts. Visually, the best looking film of the year was Batman Begins, but in terms of technical achievement, I do agree that nothing did as much as ROTS that year. I enjoyed the visual poetry of King Kong more, but again, much like ROTS, its plot left me wanting... though the characters resonated on a far more personal level with me.

 

Revenge of the Sith had too much going on beneath the surface to be fairly classed as a video game.
It looked animated in parts, yes, but the scope was epic. It pains me to see even the most critically acclaimed of the PT still goes largely unappreciated.
A longer movie might have done something to alleviate this? It is pretty synthesised, but this just means you can watch it repeatedly and have a different take each time. There is a lot put into each frame.

 

Operatic art -- largely thrown on the slag heap or treated like the droids collected by the Jawas.

Absolutely. And so many ways to interpret.

This article examines ROTS in a very felicitous way by celebrating it as a uniquely "Star Wars" experience:

http://checkingonmysausages.blogspot.co.uk/2009/05/examining-star-wars-saga-via-revenge-of.html

 

Cool article. I will give it a proper read when I am less inebriated .

I think ROTS is really designed in layers. It is hardly able to be read in a few viewings, it has a timeless quality in that it's symbolic elements don't wear as thin to me as the base literal reading seems to. I've watched it so many times, and while I think the ending, the plot points that set up the OT, can seem a little rushed and even underwhelming perhaps after all this time, it sends reverberations backwards and forwards throughout the six original films. Characters in the PT don't say anything without a real reason - if you look for it, most dialogue is painstakingly selected from what it will resonate with relative to the rest of the plot. It isn't like watching real people, but it isn't supposed to be. It's an intricate myth, as pretentious as it may sound people don't give it the weight it calls for.

 

Spoiler

 

I personally feel Alec Guiness didn't have a very high opinion of the OT: fairytale rubbish. He certainly didn't view it as some form high of art. I guess he could appreciate them as as a fun time at the movies, but certainly not worth obsessing over. Overall I think both Alec Guiness and Ewan McGregor feel/felt they aren't/weren't, and don't/didn't want to be defined by their contribution to the Star Wars saga. I'm inclined to agree with them as I would define neither the OT or the PT as their best work.

 

Slicer87

Could you try and not write your answers inside my text?
It makes answering them a bit of a hassle.

Same Nute that attacked a weak planet and apparently began a planet wide genocide.
And who wanted to murder Padme and was filled with glee at her being eaten alive by monsters.
Yeah pretty much a bad guy.

Killing sandpeople, yeah that must have been really hard. They have really advanced weapons.
What other Jedi did Anakin kill during order 66? He killed a bunch of kids yes, again not a big challenge. Where there other Jedi knights or masters there? Plus he had a clone army to help him.
He is a good pilot but Obi-Wan is no slouch either as he managed to evade all of Jango's attacks in AotC.

Which has zero to do with what I wrote.

But Neo does find out that what he thought was salvation was in fact just another system of control.
And he broke away from that and had to find another way to really make peace.

What Obi-Wan did to Anakin in RotS wasn't a kindness, to me it was horribly cruel.
He left Anakin to die a slow and very painful death. The compassionate things would to me be, to end Anakin's suffering. But Obi-Wan leaves him to burn.
That suggest hatred, not love.

The story is simple yes but that doesn't mean bad. And it is told more through images and less through dialogue. The first ten minutes tells you all about this world and not through a lot of exposition.

Except as I've said, the film doesn't show this.
When Griev ship gets hit and begins to crash, it is right over Coruscant, same as when Anakin first approached it. It hasn't moved one bit.
It is still right over the planet.

No clear formations is seen, just loads of ships. There are seps ships around Griev's ship but again no movement is seen or mentioned. A simple line of dialogue would help if the visuals aren't clear. Griev makes no orders to move, just to fire.
We don't see anything stopping his ship from leaving. Nor is anything ever mentioned.

And leaving would not be hard, have the sep ships form a wedge around Griev ship and simply blast forward. Crashing into or destroying any ship in their way. Costly yes but gets the job done.

If that was the goal then why didn't they use Ion Cannons? They disable ships but don't blow them up.

And if this was the goal, why bother with landing so much troops? Simply get the Jedi out and then blast the planet from orbit or use bombers. Gets the job done and wastes far less soldiers.

A far better tactic would also be for the republic to destroy the rings of those TF ships that sit in orbit. Without them, the big spheres can't leave and without the spheres, the rings are weak.

The republic have a limited number of troops, 200 000 with a million more underway.
The kind of zerg rush they used would be very costly. It is WW1 tactics really, which was a war known for how many soldiers it wasted.
The seps have lots of droids so they can afford this kind of tactics but the republic can't.

The film showed two or three ISD's getting blown up prior to that.
Ackbar gives the order to focus all fire on the SSD, then we see some X-wings blowing up one of the domes on the SSD which causes the bridge shield to fail. Then one fighter crashes into the bridge, blowing it up and causing the SSD to loose control and crash into the DS.
Explained quite well.

With the admiral dead, it would make sense for the rest of the imperial forces to become unfocused as their leader is gone. The sight of their biggest ship getting destroyed would also demoralize them
Once the DS 2 goes, all hope of victory is gone so they would likely flee.

First, this is weak excuse for having poorly designed battles. You could make them much clearer and still have the sith as the ultimate puppets masters.

Second, the monster fight is good as each protagonist deal with their monster in their own way.

But once the Jedi show up, the combined IQ goes down a lot.
The Jedi use frankly retarded tactics on Geonosis. They had two jobs, rescue Anakin and co, which needed about ten or some Jedi to get them out. The second part was to neutralize the seps leadership and Dooku. So instead of spreading out and then jumping down into the arena like morons, they should have had Mace and 3-4 other master, with 5-10 Jedi guarding the corridor.
Mace could put his blade to Dooku's throat and say "Surrender or Die." If Dooku does not comply, he dies and the seps are left without a leader. With this much support, Mace would have time to force a surrender or death from Dooku before the droids broke through.

But he like all the other Jedi have to be idiots in order for the plot to work.

I know that they filmed parts of a scene where the Jedi destroy a droid control ship but the seps have learned from their mistake and the droids reactivate. This showed some actual brains.
But it wasn't in the film so it doesn't count.

Even Yoda is quite stupid. He goes to Dooku's cave and doesn't bring any soldiers that could have destroyed Dookus' ship or blown up the exit for the ship. No, he comes all alone.
Despite him knowing that preventing Dooku from escaping was vital.

The ANH battle was quite a lot clearer and it showed the might of the Empire compared with the small rebel ship. Plus it wasn't as long.
The RotS battle was stopped from being great by the lack of clear strategy and lack of buildup.
Again to me.

Bye for now.
Old Stoneface