The Problem With Prequels

Yoda schum needs to learn that a placement of a few IMO'S can go a long way...

 

There is wisdom in what you say.

 

IMO and 50% of the worlds' population.

 

Wow, you must know alot of people all around the world personally then.

 

IMO and 50% of the worlds' population.

Then please to explain the countless polls that show a hell of lot more than 50% who like the prequels.

And please to explain why Attack Of The Clones is currently the #1 selling DVD, handily beating other "fan favorites" like Spiderman and The Fellowship Of The Ring (both of which are are pre-order titles just like Clones, if you're curious).

 

"I know misery loves company, but don't count on me joining your pitiful little band. While I can have my own ideas about what I'd like to see in the movies, I don't so desperately cling to my "expectations" that I am unwilling or unable to accept and completely enjoy Lucas' vision."

but you see, durwood, i never said i had any expectations other than i was hoping to see good films. lets start with the performance of natalie portman. what is the excuse for such an awful performance in any film, let alone a star wars film?

its just another straw man argument you have built that means nothing.

and i thought you werent going to respond to me unless my argument was well-reasoned, etc. because i am so (insert personal attack, lets say "pitiful" this time).

 

[image=http://www.witchcraft.org/video/images/wicker.jpg]

 

"lets start with the performance of natalie portman. what is the excuse for such an awful performance in any film, let alone a star wars film?"

see, there's your problem right there. It WASN'T an awful performance. It was mediocre at worst. Bashers just like to exaggerate all flaws way out of proportion. They can't help it

And as for watching the film again to realise how bad it is, I've seen AOTC six times and I still think it's brilliant. So there, Mr Fancy Pants!

 

Here's the deal with Natalie's performance. Those are the takes George decided to print (not sure if George even needed to say, "Print", shooting digitally) and use in the final cut. Like it or not, that's the way Georege wanted her to act.

 

I see nothing wrong with Natalie's performance. It certainly isn't the best in the saga, but it seems no worse than Mark Hamill's or Carrie Fisher's to me.

 

I really like AOTC
tho Portman gives it a best taste

her God-awfull acting is more anoying than Ewoks or Jar-Jar

evrytime she comes on screen I shake my head in disbelief
and think to myself , man Lucas how could u pick that worthless piece ....
to be the mother of Luke

so DrEvazan really got a point

 

"see, there's your problem right there. It WASN'T an awful performance. It was mediocre at worst. Bashers just like to exaggerate all flaws way out of proportion. They can't help it"

"I see nothing wrong with Natalie's performance."

"Like it or not, that's the way Georege wanted her to act."

take it up with durwood. heres his quote:

"Sure, she's nice to look at, but you can't tell me she did a good job of acting in Attack Of The Clones."

if theres one thing he and i seem to agree on, its that natalie portman didnt do a good job.

 

ooops that was a typo , I ment

"She gives AOTC a BAD Taste !

 

IMO and 50% of the worlds' population.

OK I was being asinine when I said that, but there must be SOME people who agree with me. Anyway, if you had read the thread properly I was in fact replying to Jedi_Learner who asked me what I thought GL reasons were for making the Prequels, so I didn't have to state "IMO" duh.

And Another Thing.

What GL did was very brave: to make a prequel trilogy of films set 40 years BEFORE the OT but made 25 years AFTER the OT, using todays technology whilst still pushing the envelope in special effects. Think about it; it's a nuts, and totally absurd idea. George Lucas has failed. In his vast experiment, what he has done is warn other film makers that you can't make prequels 25 years later, you have to make them in order.

Maybe if he had made them in order we wouldnt be having all the problems we are having now. Or maybe if he hadn't have waited so long and made them in the 1980's the gap in technology wouldnt seem so obvious.

 

Somebody mentioned that the Prequels are predictable.

Thats because their Sequels were already made!

Actually I think AOTC was ten times more intersting and action packed than ESB.

 

I don't know, but it seems to me since GL started the PT, there's been a lot more prequels being made. For example, Red Dragon comes to mind.

 

The Problem with Prequels.

The Trouble With Tribbles.

 

What we saw of the clone wars was just the beginning. I think the millions of clones being dispatched at the end of AOTC should at least hint that.

 

Actually the only expectation that I cling to about any film, is that I see a competently put together work, one that is entertaining, original (as much as any idea can be), or a new twist on an old idea. Having seen a lot of films, I tend to like film to surprise me to some extent. Lastly I'd like the film to be about something.
I agree with those who say that the idea for the prequels don't appear (in execution) to be thought out. Example, does anyone believe that without the movie Gladiator, there would have been an arena scene in AoTC? (And Lucas would have to show me an early draft with that scene included dated before Gladiator's release for me to believe it) Maybe it is homage, but damn that's a major part of a film to give over to homage. If there never had been a Gladiator, I would like to know what that scene might have been conceived to be like.

Oh by the way Red Dragon isn't actually a sequel, it's really more of a remake of a very good movie titled Manhunter.

 

Is Gladiator the only movie in the history of movies to have an arena fight?

 

Yes

The other movies with arena fight scenes were just copying Gladiator.

The movie directors of those films didn't add arena scenes until after they saw Gladiator. Then these directors went back in time and changed their movies to have arena fights, and thus presently we think those movies had arena fights first, but it all goes back to Gladiator mind you.

 

Actually the only expectation that I cling to about any film, is that I see a competently put together work, one that is entertaining, original (as much as any idea can be), or a new twist on an old idea. Having seen a lot of films, I tend to like film to surprise me to some extent. Lastly I'd like the film to be about something.
I agree with those who say that the idea for the prequels don't appear (in execution) to be thought out. Example, does anyone believe that without the movie Gladiator, there would have been an arena scene in AoTC?

I don't know if I believe it or not. I do know that I don't care.

Even if the arena scene was inspired by "Gladiator"--which was hardly the first movie in history to have an arena fight--I honestly don't give a crap. Does any other movie get nitpicked like this? Does any other movie have people examining it under a microscope and saying, "That scene was like the scene in [insert movie here]."

 

If we go by the logic that the arena battle in AOTC was a rip-off of Gladiator, then Gladiator was a rip-off of Spartacus.

It's not true though, because AOTC was being filmed in 2000. Also, the AOTC art department was well into drawing conceptual drawings for AOTC as soon as TPM was released. So the arena was most likely designed before Gladiator was even out.

 

George Lucas has failed. In his vast experiment, what he has done is warn other film makers that you can't make prequels 25 years later, you have to make them in order.

Why don't we wait until he's actually done with the saga before proclaiming his half-finished experiment a failure. Remember, he still has yet to bring the original films completely up to date.

As for the accusation that Lucas ripped off Gladiator, I must have missed the scene where Russel Crowe and a hundred other gladiators were fighting giant monsters and thousands of mechanical soldiers.

 

The contention that AOTC ripped off Gladiator just because it has an arena scene not only shows the limited scope of movie history knowledge that of a lot of members here possess but also shows how desperate some of them are to find fault with the film.

As for Lucas failing, um, box office?? Hear of it? No one can call the prequels a failure by any stretch of the imagination.