The biggest fault in AOTC was...

Discussion in 'Attack of the Clones' started by blur75, Jan 11, 2004.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Garth Maul Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    May 18, 2002
    star 6
    Or, the other way 'round. ;)

    How do we define the "right" or "best" way to look at Star Wars?

    It's hard to say.

    I would guess that the majority of SW fans out there thinks that Lucas made a mistake with Jar-Jar. No flames, please. And this is an opinion, not a fact, but I would call it an informed opinion.

    Anyway, there are people out there who enjoy the character of Jar-Jar, for a variety of reasons.

    Their feelings are valid to them and are valuable for that reason alone.

    Of course, if you're talking to someone about the philosophy of film, you'd probably accredit more value to that person's opinion than a 10-year-old child.

    But, on the other hand, that film philosopher is coming from a certain viewpoint as well, so her opinion may not really have any more validity.

    So, to throw some postmodernism into the debate (which I generally hate doing), there is no absolute truth, and I would say particularly in art.

    Given the number of gushers and the number of bashers, it is evident that each side has some valid points to make.

    It's not like there's 100 million people loving the PT and 1 person hating it. Or the other way 'round. ;)

    It's the nature of the beast.

    Look at the topic of this thread: "The biggest fault in AOTC was..." - and you could get 1,000 different responses. Same with "The best thing about AOTC was...".

    That's the beauty of SW.

    Anyway, enough philosophizing. Back on topic.

    If I was to pick ONE fault overall with AOTC (and it may be my favorite SW movie), I would say it is the editing.

    Not with specific shots except in a few places like the Hangar Duels scene, but the overall cut.

    I suppose I just disagree with what Lucas decided to keep vs. cut in some cases: notably, I would have rather seen the deleted scene with Padme's family/home than the meadow scene.

    I would have shortened the droid factory scene (although it was extremely cool) to allow for more character depth.

    But then again, maybe it's just me. 8-}
  2. Leias_love_slave Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Oct 26, 2003
    star 5
    It's all subjective.


    I know that when TPM came out, I loved Darth Maul. The shot of him standing in the doorway of the Naboo hangar, peering from under his hood and then removing it to reveal his crown of horns is still one of my favorite moments in the series.


    I would have gladly traded some Jar Jar screen time for more Maul.


    But I've met a couple of people that hated Maul. They thought he was just a stupid guy in devil make-up.


    There's nothing I can say to change their mind. They see it their way. I see it my way.





    (They're just wrong. That's all.) ;)

  3. RolandofGilead Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Jan 17, 2001
    star 7
    "Ah, anidanami. lol I find it very interesting that you believe personal opinion to be the "God's honest truth""

    I'm sorry, I thought that was my point in arguing with bashers in the first place. Maybe from now on it would be less confusing for some of you if I typed IMO before every post. I thought that was implied with everyone's posts.

    And my argument is just as valid as any other. The problem with PT Bashers is that they don't apply the same critisicms to the OT. Explain to me how someone can complain about whinakin, and then tell me how deep Luke was in ANH? They are the same. They are meant to mirror each other, but some people have no understanding of this.

    And don't tell me about the OT being generally favored in the critics circles because it's simply not true. I don't care how many positive reviews rotten tomatoes has, they have an agenda anyways. I was there. I listened to the reviews. I remember people complaining that RotJ was only a toy commercial. That the Star Wars movies (yes even ANH) were nothing but commercial drivel driven by special effects rather than story. Jaws and Star Wars are both universally blamed for killing artistic filming in Hollywood and ushering in the age of the blockbuster. Those very same complaints that we're hearing day in and out against the Prequels were first hurled in the "glory days" of the OT. And for those keeping track, that's an indisputable fact, not an opinion.

    My opinion is that the greatness and the faults of all five movies are distributed equally. The fact is, these complaints against the PT are nothing new.
  4. Go-Mer-Tonic Jedi Youngling

    Member Since:
    Aug 22, 1999
    star 6
    So with all opinions being equal, why settle for the ones that suck?
  5. Darth Geist Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Oct 23, 1999
    star 5
    Explain to me how someone can complain about whinakin, and then tell me how deep Luke was in ANH? They are the same.

    They both whine, but any similarity stops there. Luke is kind, he's giving, he's confident without being a blowhard, and he's personable enough to make several good friends over the course of one adventure.

    Anakin was kind, but somehow the Nicest Boy in the Galaxy slipped away off camera, replaced by the Anakin we know today. He's self-absorbed?even his eulogy to his mother is all about his own self-pity?he's arrogant without a right to be, he kills defenseless children, and no one will ever accuse him of being kind or giving.

    They're hardly "the same." Now, given the choice, which of the two would you hang out with?
  6. Darth_Insidious Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Apr 26, 2002
    star 4
    Roland, no, it isn't fact. Your personal experiences are not indicative of how well the OT was recieved on the whole. Go on and on about bad reviews, but ANH was nominated for more awards (by critics groups no less) then I care to count. ANH and Jaws are considered the films that launched a new age of cinema, yes. They are not considered destroyers. Both had praise heaped upon them in spades, and both continue to. Both were nominated for the Best Picture Oscar and both are on the AFI's Top 100 list. Neither of those happen to movies that were recieved badly.

    RT has an agenda? [face_laugh]
  7. RolandofGilead Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Jan 17, 2001
    star 7
    "Anakin was kind, but somehow the Nicest Boy in the Galaxy slipped away off camera, replaced by the Anakin we know today. He's self-absorbed?even his eulogy to his mother is all about his own self-pity?he's arrogant without a right to be, he kills defenseless children, and no one will ever accuse him of being kind or giving."

    Ah, but that's the entire point of the Prequel Trilogy and the key that leads him down the path to the Dark Side where his son prevailed. At first, whiney Anakin is no different than Luke. His complaints and whining are annoying but as natural as his son's. They are both teenagers pushing at the restraints their family holds them with.

    But the main difference in these characters is what happens when that family is taken away. Luke reacts by letting go of the past, and wishing to go off and help others. Anakin seeks revenge. Everything that comes after that Tusken Slaughter is a result of that choice, and is tainted with the Dark Side. Their journeys are now completely opposed to one another.

    This is why Anakin is so self-absorbed at the funeral. Why he lashes out against the Jedi, why he acts so aggressively in the Arena battle. It's all intentional. He is falling to the Dark Side right before your eyes.

    Let's not forget that by the end of this story, Anakin is no longer the hero. He's not supposed to be the kind of guy you'd want to hang out with. We won't want him to be redeemed until his own son finally sees something good still left in him.

    EDIT:
    "ANH and Jaws are considered the films that launched a new age of cinema, yes. They are not considered destroyers."


    You need to read Easy Riders/Raging Bulls, or watch the documentary. Star Wars is continually credited for killing the age of the Film Auter and introducing massive commercialism into the industry.
  8. Philip023 Jedi Youngling

    Member Since:
    Aug 30, 2002
    star 3
    So with all opinions being equal, why settle for the ones that suck?

    Perhaps because they are based on merit? I'm not sure. All I know is that I've attempted to qualify my opinion with reviews that seem to justify it. Next thing you know everyone provides comments that stomp on critics.

    lol

    The problem with PT Bashers is that they don't apply the same critisicms to the OT.

    Sure we do. But let's continue with your statement. If critics apply the same critique to the PT as they did with the OT and proffer a poor review of each one - but from those critiques, the consensus is that the OT was better - then are they applying a double standard? How do you explain that? Does every critic have double standard as it relates to the OT/PT?

    I remember people complaining that RotJ was only a toy commercial.

    lol I remember that too. But keep it in context. At the time, SW toys ruled the market. by the time ROTJ came out, there had to be a backlash - particularly against the Ewoks, which critics saw as sensless pandering and marketing to children. (I'm not saying that those critics were legit, just what I remember.) The same backlash came against TPM when it came out as being overhyped and the greatest thing since sliced bread or the quarter. there doesn't seem to be a double standard there, does there?

    And yes, I think it was Francis Coppola that lamented the loss of George Lucas as one of the great film directors of our time. True, SW changed filmmaking. But Coppola might have had a point, particularly at the director part.

    The fact is, these complaints against the PT are nothing new.

    Certainly not. But to suggest that bashers give the original Sw a free pass is untrue. I think the prevailling viewpoint is that the OT was better. Certainly popular culture judges them so. Its a little twisted but movies are judged by popular culture and critics. But I would be loath to say this is a flawless critique. Certainly Citizen Kane did not garner universal rave reviews or box office success, yet its place in history is indestructable - save for Ted Turner's colorizing efforts in the early 90's.

    perhaps history will judge the PT a little better than myself but for right now, its second fiddle to the OT, and dare I say, another trilogy that just concluded.
  9. Darth Geist Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Oct 23, 1999
    star 5
    At first, whiney Anakin is no different than Luke.

    Even before Shmi's death, though, Anakin is boorish and disrespectful, with a chip the size of Nebraska on his shoulder.

    Sure, Luke wanted to do his own thing, but he deferred to his family's wishes, and even when his temper does slide, he certainly doesn't take it to Anakin's extreme.

    The difference is in their attitudes, and it's there from the start.
  10. Cyprusg Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Nov 16, 2002
    star 4
    I think there were far worse issues in Attack of the Clones than the CGI.

    But... I agree with the original point.

    The most noticable flaws in CGI are the complete bluescreen backgrounds. Like some scenes in Kamino and the scene where Obi-wan, Mace, and Yoda are talking to each other. There are a few other scenes I can't recall.

    Also, human CGI doubles look HORRIBLE. CGI just isn't to the point to mimic things like capes, robes, human muscles, textures, etc.. etc.. So they should only use CGI doubles for either really far away shots, or when it's a must.

    Unfortunately George Lucas seems to be more about showing off what ILM can do rather than making the prequels look as realistic as possible.
  11. Go-Mer-Tonic Jedi Youngling

    Member Since:
    Aug 22, 1999
    star 6
    I didn't know they used CG doubles until I was told.

    I still can't beleive how well they did those bits. It just looks so real.
  12. anidanami124 Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Aug 24, 2002
    star 6
    Ah, anidanami. lol I find it very interesting that you believe personal opinion to be the "God's honest truth".

    First this is what you said:

    And how is your opinion valid? Are you basing it on critical reviews, personal opinion, prevaling opinion in this forum?

    What your telling RoG is that his opinion was not valid. Why is his opinion not valid? Because he does not use a critical review? Because he's using his personal opinion?

    So when a person explains all of the glorious things about either film, you're telling me that I can't challenge that person? I can't ask him why he thinks one way but 300 people think a different way?

    I'm not sure why, when a person offers up an innocent comment on the acting inability of Portman, SW lovers cannot look at the comment made, analyze it, and provide an explanation as to why they think otherwise, rather than crying double standard.


    What are you trying to? Why does not it matter to you if someone uses critical reviews or not. Is RoG's opinion worth nothing because he does not have a criticl review? So what. If someone posts all the points as to why they like Natalies acting why is it in valid? Because 300 other people don't agree? Because there opinion is personal and not critical review. If someone dose not agree with you they don't agree with you. People are going to have different opinions. They don't need to have a critical review in there opinion to have it be valid.

    If we need to know have critical reviews just to give are opinion then it thorws out in point of being here. Because people are here to talk with other with out having to back up there views with someone else critical review or having to worry about what 300 other people think.

    Why should I or RoG have to worry about what 300 other people think about SW? If I spent my whole time doing that I would not be able to enjoy Star Wars.

    Also, human CGI doubles look HORRIBLE. CGI just isn't to the point to mimic things like capes, robes, human muscles, textures, etc.. etc.. So they should only use CGI doubles for either really far away shots, or when it's a must.

    There was a part in AOTC where Obi-wan was CGI. Did you know he was CGI for the stunt they were doing?
  13. Cyprusg Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Nov 16, 2002
    star 4
    I didn't know they used CG doubles until I was told.

    I still can't beleive how well they did those bits. It just looks so real.


    I'm dumbfounded by this. I mean it's not like I look for CGI when I'm watching a movie but anytime a movie does a CGI double of a human character it just distracts me because it looks so bad. Whether it's Matrix, Lord of the Rings, or Star Wars. It doesn't look real and probably won't come close for another 10 years.
  14. DarthTerrious Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    May 16, 2001
    star 5
    Philip:

    But to suggest that bashers give the original Sw a free pass is untrue. I think the prevailling viewpoint is that the OT was better.

    Yeah but there in lies the problem, you're comparing the films off against each other, they are apart of the same story. Where is the sense in comparing them? You simply can't.


    Geist:
    If you're going to compare father and son, you'd be better off comparing AOTC with ESB not ANH. I think you'll find that you're basically comparing a character in the middle of his journey with one at the beginning of his. Which makes the comparison invalid and have absolutely no credibility.


  15. Shelley Jedi Youngling

    Member Since:
    Sep 9, 2001
    star 5
    "ANH and Jaws are considered the films that launched a new age of cinema, yes. They are not considered destroyers."

    They most certainly are. ANH, or "Star Wars" as it is usually called, is typically blamed (much) more than "Jaws." That the resurgence of quality movies in the 1970s was brought to a screeching halt by the double whammy of "Jaws" and SW, which turned the studios into monolithic money-machines, is the overarching thesis of the "Easy Riders, Raging Bulls" book that RoG mentioned. Several filmmakers mentioned in that book also hold that belief, among them Peter Bogdanovich.

    I've lost count of the movie critics and journalists I've seen say SW destroyed movies. Pauline Kael was the most outspoken critic, but she was not the only one. (Ironically, I've been told that Kael actually liked TPM, and though she didn't formally review it, she praised it in an interview given a few months before she died.) Mick LaSalle, the critic for the "San Francisco Chronicle," who wrote a lengthy dis of ESB when the OT was re-released in 1997 and who savaged the DVD for TPM, sneered in the beginning sentence of his review of "Wing Commander" that it was proof of how SW ruined movies.
  16. Philip023 Jedi Youngling

    Member Since:
    Aug 30, 2002
    star 3
    ah, well I dunno.

    I suppose since I work in research and process economic data I'm always looking at things from an analytical standpoint. You have to back up what you say. I guess I'll have to throw out objectivity, rational thought and reason when I come in here.

    To be honest, I think CGI does do SW a diservice. As I stated previously, I think that with too much CGI, the film starts to lack human connection. I think that plays as much a part in the actors performance in the movie as much as it does with our personal feel or connection with the characters.

    I opined that there seemed to be more connection with the characters in the Rohan charge of the orcs in ROTK than with the gungans fighting the droids on Naboo, yet both were cgi. And to that, even though it sounds like I've contradicted myself, I think because there is no focus on one single character that is CGI (save for Gollum) the film focuses more energy on the live characters and their situations. The result is better.

    I think the same can be said for the OT. There seems to be a more human interest and pull to the characters because CGI is not through and through the movie.

    Where is the sense in comparing them? You simply can't.

    Well I think the thread has morphed into a comparison of special effects and their 'effect' on filmmaking. OT didn't have it, the PT does. some people like the OT better perhaps because there wasn't alot of CGI. Others like the PT better because it doesn't look as hokey as the OT. Some think they are on the same par. So to answer your question, the sensible question would be whether the PT is hamstrung by its use of CGI and whether the OT is perhaps better because it doesn't rely on CGI. But that's not the topic of the thread.

    Biggest fault with AOTC: overreliance on CGI and as a result, the story, acting, direction suffered.
  17. Darth_Insidious Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Apr 26, 2002
    star 4
    I'm well aware of the fact that there are a number of elitists who subscribe to the theory that Spielberg's Jaws sent the Golden Age of film into a decline, and Lucas' Star Wars knocked it down for the count. They blame Star Wars for inspiring things like Independence Day. As they should, because Star Wars launched the FX extravaganza. While it has inspired less than stellar films like ID4, movies like T2 and Jurassic Park are also its heirs.

    But that's irrelevant in this line of discussion. These people can blame Star Wars for changing the direction of cinema, but not all of them necessarily think of Star Wars as anything but an amazing film that can't be held responsible for lackluster immitations.

    Proof? The AFI is considered around here to be the creme de la creme of elitist snobs, yet they still ranked Star Wars #15 on their Top 100 list only a few years ago. Jaws is on the same list.

    Of course there are a few critics who hate the film, it's bound to happen with anything. They represent the vast minority.
  18. Sith Interceptor Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Dec 22, 1999
    star 4
    How anyone can fault the CG clonetroopers is beyond me.
  19. Cyprusg Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Nov 16, 2002
    star 4
    Movie critics might call Star Wars the destroyer of quality movies, but movie theaters will think differently.

    ANH and Jaws started the boom in movie attendance. In the 70s movie attendance had been declining every year. Since Star Wars and the sequels attendance has been gaining ever since.

    Either way, I don't think Star Wars or Jaws is directly responsible for the decline in quality movies. It was bound to happen, movie studios are a business like any other business. Art was bound to take a back seat to income.
  20. DarthMaul13 Jedi Youngling

    Member Since:
    Nov 26, 1998
    star 4
    Just like JohnWilliams00, I also saw the OT for the first time in 1996, the special edition in 1997 and TPM in 1999. I didn't grow up with Star Wars. I was introduced to it very late and I find the originals to be much superior to the prequels.

    People have an easier time pointing out the flaws in the prequels because they are more apparent, more obvious and the weak story and characters can't hide them. For a man like Lucas who has much more money and time at his disposal than he did with the originals, there is no excuse why the PT is more flawed than the OT.

    And some gushers need to stop dumbing down the OT to make the PT look good. Yes the acting and dialgoue in the OT wasn't that great, but the prequels have taken it to a whole new low.

    Just my opinion.

  21. DarthMaul13 Jedi Youngling

    Member Since:
    Nov 26, 1998
    star 4
    "Roland, no, it isn't fact. Your personal experiences are not indicative of how well the OT was recieved on the whole. Go on and on about bad reviews, but ANH was nominated for more awards (by critics groups no less) then I care to count."

    That is true. Films that are so panned by critics don't receive awards. The originals have won more awards then the prequels have thus far. Even the "badly acted" ANH got a best supportning nomination for Alec Guinness.

    Academy Awards


    The Phantom Menace - 0 Oscars, 3 Nominations
    Attack of the Clones - 0 Oscars, 1 Nomination

    Star Wars: A New Hope - 7 Oscars, 10 Nominations (Best Picture)
    The Empire Strikes Back - 2 Oscars, 4 Nominations
    Return of the Jedi - 1 Oscar, 3 Nominations

  22. JohnWilliams00 Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Jan 29, 2002
    star 4
    Perhaps to some, the flaws of the OT are like a mosquito bite, whereas the flaws in the PT are like being stabbed in the eye with a knitting needle.



    (Just playing 'devil's advocate'.)


    Leias_love_slave said this perfectly. I will admit the OT has flaws just as I will point out the same flaws in the PT. But imo the level of flaws is a huge difference between the two trilogies.
  23. Darth_Insidious Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Apr 26, 2002
    star 4
    SI, the clonetroopers were amazing and looked real quite often. However, going with extras for close ups and CGI for backround and distance would've made them look 100% real 100% of the time. It wasn't necessary for them all to be CGI, and it would've worked out better if they weren't. Which of course isn't to say the don't work now, they do, just not perfectly, whereas with the method described above they would have.
  24. Darth Geist Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Oct 23, 1999
    star 5
    If you're going to compare father and son, you'd be better off comparing AOTC with ESB not ANH.

    Even at his most reckless, Luke never copped an attitude like his dad's, nor was he ever as self-centered.

    Anakin was only a passable Jedi, but he thought he was hot stuff. Luke was the best Jedi around (by default, but that just meant he had powers no one else came close to) and never let it go to his head. The only reason he left his training was to save his friends from mortal danger.

    The comparison holds up, any way you look at it.
  25. Durwood Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    May 18, 2002
    star 5
    Well, I couldn't be happier with the prequels. As I'm fond of saying, it's a great time to be a Star Wars fan! You know, I think I just found my new signature quote.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.