Reasons why The Phantom Menace is better than Attack of the Clones...

Thats Lucas' directing and dialoge for ya im affraid.

 

For me, The Phantom Menace feels like a classic film. When I watch it now, I get that same, comfortable, nostalgic feeling I used to only get when watching the Original Trilogy, and that, to me, is what makes it feel like a Star Wars film. In many respects, Star Wars is like a fine wine; it gets better with age.

Attack of the Clones hasn't quite reached that indefinable "classic" status yet, but it's close!

 

I actually like both "The Phantom Menace" and "Attack of the Clones". I cannot think of any reason, including dialogue, as to why I would consider placing "Menace" above "Clones". "Episode I" seems, to me, to exist primarily as a rather lengthy piece of narrative exposition, one that lacks a certain conviction and depth of feeling - it is entertaining and subtly complex, but I never felt completely absorbed in its story. Lucas spends so much time attempting to lay the foundation for characters, ideas, and introductions, that foreward momentum is essentially nullified - we are too aware, I think, of the creaky nature of the plot machinery. So that leaves a few things to enjoy: a) the dazzling conceptual detail and visual effects wizardry; b) the sly Machiavellian political scheming of Palpatine; c) Liam Neeson's gently endearing performance as Qui-Gon Jinn; and d) the visionary scope of the action sequences. I enjoy all of those things and more - indeed, I believe "Menace" to be one of the most unfairly maligned films of recent years, but I don't find it satisfactory. I tend to admire individual moments more than the whole - it's very good, yet I am not sure that it achieves greatness.

By the way, this thread is beginning to develop an eerie resemblance to this one.

 

The resion TPM is better one word MAUL way better than dooku. The best sith in the starwars galaxy he could even take on vader at his best i recon do you agree?

 

It's become a bit of an urban legend that Hamill was a poor actor in ANH. This simply was not the case.

100% agreed, hawk. If the general consensus was that Hamill was a bad actor in ANH when it came out, it would not have become the phenomenal hit it was. Hamill had to carry much of the film, and we believed in Luke. He was fantastic.

 

He was terrible. Even my parents thought he was terrible. And so is Harrison in ANH for that matter. People loved the films for being big fun upbeat and creative space opera type adventure films.... not for any sort of amazing acting performance.

 

"It's become a bit of an urban legend that Hamill was a poor actor in ANH. This simply was not the case. I'm amazed at what people consider good acting. I believed Lukes character but I can't believe the performances in the PT. Too wooden, and mechanical. Hayden is ok but Natalie is pretty terrible."

I'm sorry, but I just thought Hamill wasn't that great in ANH. I did feel like he had his moments, but overall I felt it was pretty poor. However, as I've said, I believe he did a good job in ESB and ROTJ. I'll admit that it may just be the character I disliked (all of Luke's whining, which people also put against Hayden in AOTC), but I tend to think it was just Hamill's butterflies for a first leading role. As for the PT, I think that Ewan McGregor, Christopher Lee, and Liam Neeson are all examples of great performances in the PT thus far. I agree with you about Natalie though, her performances seem "forced" to me (no pun intended), like she's trying too hard. It should just be natural.

 

Wow, I thought I was the only one. A couple of more reasons.

Seeing the Jedi at the peak of their power - no diminished ability to use the force in TPM. There may be no better moment in Star Wars then Qui-gon's exasperated, "It won't be a problem."

Seeing Obi-wan tap into his anger to defeat Maul. Subtle, but immeniantly important as to why he fails as Anakin's teacher IMO.

 

That's misinterpreting the scene, I think. Obi-Wan first gave in to anger, but then he overcame his fears and vanquished his foe filled with inner peace.
He became a Jedi in that scene and he never gave in to anger again(except, maybe, at the end of ROTS).



Anger - it's angry
/LM

 

I don't know, if that's the case then why couldn't Qui-gon beat Maul?

 

To me, TPM was a waste. The downfall of the film was baby anakin & jar jar stinks. You cannot convince me otherwise. If he was going in that direction, it should have been more focussed on the sith. Darth Maul should have had more screen time instead of showing a stupid pod race and that bumbling idiot of a character Jar Jar. Yeah, Yeah, that's how anakin was able to get off that planet. Who cares. It was a horrible movie.

In AOTC, Uncle Georgie realized his mistake and atleast tried to correct it. I could see the direction he was going in, but I just could not overcome the poor acting, dialogue and being rushed through the whole Anakin & Padme romance. Any other movie you have thought Anakin was a psycho stalker slasher. Well on second thought, he is.

I do love the Clone Wars Cartoon. I think that should have been the 2nd movie. But that's my opinion.

ROTS looks as if Uncle Georgie has pulled his head out of his arse. We'll see.

CRH

 

He was terrible. Even my parents thought he was terrible. And so is Harrison in ANH for that matter. People loved the films for being big fun upbeat and creative space opera type adventure films.... not for any sort of amazing acting performance.

Wow, that's a bummer to hear that you feel that way. Except for his few whiny lines, I don't see how you figure he's terrible at all. It's the little things with Mark in ANH. Maybe it's stuff that you don't even really notice. To me, for the most part, he's completely at ease as Luke, perfectly cast.

It's actually ROTJ, where have some issues with his performance. But I think that has much do with Richard Marquand's directing.

 

My point is, Star Wars has never had that great of acting overall. Sure there were great moments in the OT and Alec Guinness was fantastic, but overall the films are not the kind you watch for acting. It's the overall adventure that matters here.

 

Ok, I hear ya. It's just that "Star Wars was never about good acting" gets thrown around really loosely around here. Let's put it this way, the acting in the OT is much better than its reputation. And there's been some good acting in the PT. I feel that Jake and Natalie get overly bashed, and Hayden gets overly gushed over.

Maybe one reason why TPM has more of the adventure feel to me than AOTC is that you're together with this group the whole time, being lead by Liam's excellent Qui-Gon Jinn. AOTC feels kind of lonely. Qui-Gon Jinn is definately missed. Obi-Wan's alone on his investigation. Anakin and Padme are off together, but those aren't the funnest circumstances. It feels lonely compared to TPM.

 

It feels lonely compared to TPM.

You may be quite close to the truth. Let me explain:

Remember it was Palpatine (in AOTC) who gives the idea for Obi Wan to get involved. So in AOTC he's actually sitting pretty, while EVERYTHING seems to be falling into place.

Meanwhile, in TPM Palpatine/Sidious has to improvise and change plans because in TPM its the Jedi who summon Qui Gon and Obi Wan to be Ambassadors, togetherto solve the conflict, which inturn disconcerts Palpatine/Sidious.

TPM therefore...perhaps, has a more "connected" fullness about it because we can see the workings on how the true bad guys "compete" with the Jedi in going about their plans.

But in AOTC we see one part of it, but not the other part , when at the end we see that the bad guys really get their way, without really doing much.

Does that make sense?

 

No

 

Alright yes.

 

He was terrible. Even my parents thought he was terrible. And so is Harrison in ANH for that matter. People loved the films for being big fun upbeat and creative space opera type adventure films.... not for any sort of amazing acting performance.

Terrible? C'mon, that's a bit harsh. Terrible is the drivel that spews out of Natalie Portman's mouth. Hamill is totally convincing as Luke. Occasionally whiney but in no way terrible. I'm suprised you said that Strilo.

My point is, Star Wars has never had that great of acting overall. Sure there were great moments in the OT and Alec Guinness was fantastic, but overall the films are not the kind you watch for acting. It's the overall adventure that matters here.

Disagree. ANH was corny (hey, it was the 70s) but the acting was fine. Guiness, Cushing, the imperials and Vader were all terrific. They were passionate and became their roles unlike the PT where Ian is carrying everyone else. Harrison, Hamill and Fisher were all good. No great performances and a tad cheesy but they were good.

In TESB, I can't even imagine anyone attacking the fine, measured performances. Apart from a few rebels, there isn't any weak links in the cast and Vader is like ice.

ROTJ...well Hamill is getting close to the "terrible" you mentioned as is Fisher and Ford. The dialogue is appauling in some scenes but still doesn't degenerate to the performances and dialogue in AOTC.

 

I like how it's okay for everyone to bash the prequels acting time and time again, yet one person voices dislike over the OT cast, and it's a mess of conflict.

I actually prefer the acting in the PT. I don't always like the *direction* it was led in, but I like the actors more and am better familiarized with their works beforehand. (Rather ironically, almost all of the main [human] cast members from eps I and II have been nominated for at least one or more Golden Globes, Oscars, etc. somewhere in their career. And almost all of them have won at some point.) Guiness is the real bright spot in ANH (not that I think the others were awful, but they were "newbies" and it showed). Harrison Ford shined in ESB, but he obviously bored by the time ROTJ rolled around. Carrie Fisher was fairly decent throughout, though she was addicted through part of the series, so that affected her performance. Mark Hamill was fairly sidelined in ANH, he was much better by the time ESB rolled around, and he practically carried the movie in ROTJ. So they got better as the story progressed.

This being said, none of the performances in the saga strike me as god-awful, to the point where I can't watch. The ones that are are usually one-liner extras who obviously didn't give a flip about the role. But everyone has their own opinion and their right to it. I'm fairly laid back when it comes to movie-watching, so I'm not particularly bugged by a whole lot when I watch SW.

 

I like how it's okay for everyone to bash the prequels acting time and time again, yet one person voices dislike over the OT cast, and it's a mess of conflict.

Huh? Seems to me, it's the other way around. If you say you don't like Hayden's portrayal of Anakin, there's where you'll find a "mess of conflict". People have a field day with Hamill all the time, and all you may find is a few people casually defending him.

Mark Hamill was fairly sidelined in ANH, he was much better by the time ESB rolled around, and he practically carried the movie in ROTJ. So they got better as the story progressed.

Completely disagree with you. Hamill was at his worst in ROTJ. But like I said, I don't think it's his fault. Rather, director Richard Marquand.

 

All the actors in Star Wars give perfect performances in every single scene. Don't you dare saying anything negative about them.
I hate you all.



Did you believe that?
Get help: 555-2186-LUNATIC
/LM

 

^^^

IAN SUCKED!

 

I'm a sensitive soul
/LM

 

Huh? Seems to me, it's the other way around. If you say you don't like Hayden's portrayal of Anakin, there's where you'll find a "mess of conflict". People have a field day with Hamill all the time, and all you may find is a few people casually defending him.

Agreed. I liked Hamill's performance because he really turned into the character. Hayden was ok. Probably didn't deserve the pure hatred he got like Lloyd but I never really got into his character and I don't think he should be as whiney as Luke. Luke was a wet behind the ears farmboy but Anakin grew up a slave and got straight into Jedi training. I just don't buy into his character the way Lucas made him. He was just a rollercoster of emotions not even like Lil Ani from TPM. It's weird.

Completely disagree with you. Hamill was at his worst in ROTJ. But like I said, I don't think it's his fault. Rather, director Richard Marquand.

Yeah, totally agree. Luke became ultra serious in ROTJ. That's ok but most of the scenes were just a bit too wishy washy if you know what I mean. The line "you have that power too Leia" makes my skin crawl. Then Harrison's acting afterwards is almost as bad. This is PT material. I also blame Marquand and a weak script.

 

The one thing that I love about the PT compared to the OT is friendships and working together. In the PT, the main guys are seperated most of the time. Anakin and Obi are apart, Anakin and Padme, etc. And what happens? The heroes fail and the darkside conquers. In the OT, Han, Leia, Chewey, the Droids, etc, are working together for the most part throughout the movies. And what happens? The heroes succeed and the lightside prevails. I just always felt that there was an underlying theme of how important "working together" is to succeeding in your goals. I'm not saying it's the "point" of star wars, but just one of the many themes involved.

EDIT: I'm not trying to get into at PT vs OT thing again, I love both the PT and OT. I'm just trying to point out what I personally see.