Why was AOTC not loved by the public and media?

It's like people don't trust their own opinions or something.

Yeah. Just like George Lucas when he had Greedo shot first.

[image=http://www.roger-one.net/pix/personnages/greedo/greedo02.jpg]

I'm sure there are people that didn't like Episode II initially and have yet to change their mind.

 

Because people don't know how to get over it. Honestly, if I see a movie that I don't like, I shrug my shoulders and go on my way and obsess about movies I do love. People don't bash Star Wars because its fashionable. They do it because they can't move on. Just look at what their reactions are to the Revenge of the Sith teaser. Almost every reaction from them I've heard goes something like "Oh it looks awesome, but I don't know if I can ever trust Lucas again." Boo hoo hoo. Cry me a freakin river!

 

I didn't mean to imply that it would be literally like the Godfather. I was trying to say more. . .

I suppose referring to Anakin's trajectory. Michael's was a slow, tragic transformation. In contrast, I, at least, felt robbed. He started off showing how Anakin was good, which is a good starting point. I would never imagine that the TPM Anakin, under normal circumstances, would become the OT Vader. So I was really looking forward to see what kind of long-term pressures could cause that transformation.

Instead, we get to AOTC, and suddenly we have a character that could very easliy fall to the Dark Side. At the same time, the movie doens't spend much time with this progression, so that it's condensed into Episode III. On the one hand, then, we've completely avoided the question, by making the key moments in development seemingly take place now between Episode I & II, instead of just "prior to IV." Is that really an improvement? On the other hand, what development we will see is going to be squeeezed into part of one movie. Considering that (in my eyes, anyway) the whole purpose of the prequels was to show this singular development, and that they got some 6+ hours of film devoted to them, to show so little of the actual progression towards evil is kind of disappointing.

 

The reason it was not embraced because it was not intended to be a realistic love story. "I wanted to write a love story in a style that was extremely old-fashioned, and frankly I didn't know if I was going to pull it off. In many ways this was much more like a movie that from the 1930s than any of the others had been, with a slightly over-the-top, poetic style ? and they just don't do that in movies anymore. I was very happy with the way it turned out in the script and in the performances, but I knew people might not buy it. A lot of guys were going to see this movie, and most guys think that kind of flowery, poetic talk is stupid--'Come on, give me a break.' More sophisticated, cynical types also don't buy that stuff. So I didn't know if people would laugh at it and throw things at the screen or they would accept it. Let's face it, their dialogue in that (couch) scene is pretty corny. It is presented very honestly, it isn't tongue-in-cheek at all, and it's really played to the hilt. But it is consistent with the over all Star Wars style. Most people don't understand the style of Star Wars. They don't get that there is an underlying motif that is very much like a 1930s western or Saturday matinee serial. It's in that more romantic period of making movies and adventure films. And this film is even more of a melodrama then the others."

It's meant to be over-the-top, melodramatic, corny and slightly unbelievable. Let's face it, two people meet each other for the first time since they were kids, and in two or three days they're married - how on earth do you make that credible? The answer is, you don't. You play it like Romeo and Juliet - no reason for them falling in love, it just happens, it's romantic, passionate, corny, ridiculous, and completely unbelievable. It was all intended this way. Han and Leia is a more believable, "true love" relationship.

 

Good point, but how come I feel differently about Han and Leia's development? I know they shouldn't be the 'same,' but I am drawn more to their story.

 

One must remember that Han and Leia are not engaging in forbidden love therefore you don't sense any nervous tension amongst them. Anakin and Padme are putting their lives at stake for their love, obviously their will be a tremendous amount of anxiety on both characters parts and when hear the dialogue come off not smoothly that is the anxiety you are feeling from both Anakin and Padme.

 

I had never thought of their romance like that, and Lucas' commitment to that style is to be commended. But it still doesn't impact me like ESB's did (the climax in the carbon freeze chamber is one of my favorite movie scenes of all time). Now, I'm not saying AotC needed a scene like that (it was done in different ways), but I just prefer ESB's style.

 

"I don't want you to give up your future for me" - Padme knows that Anakin's overstepping his Jedi responsibilities, will ruin it for him.

She holds it basically all inside, till the bubble bursts - ie. facing death. Not forgetting that the diplomacy (her job) to try and solve the galaxy's mess had failed.

 

Sometimes great post go ignored. Lets see that again.

"He started off showing how Anakin was good, which is a good starting point. I would never imagine that the TPM Anakin, under normal circumstances, would become the OT Vader. So I was really looking forward to see what kind of long-term pressures could cause that transformation.

Instead, we get to AOTC, and suddenly we have a character that could very easliy fall to the Dark Side. At the same time, the movie doens't spend much time with this progression, so that it's condensed into Episode III. On the one hand, then, we've completely avoided the question, by making the key moments in development seemingly take place now between Episode I & II, instead of just "prior to IV." Is that really an improvement? On the other hand, what development we will see is going to be squeeezed into part of one movie. Considering that (in my eyes, anyway) the whole purpose of the prequels was to show this singular development, and that they got some 6+ hours of film devoted to them, to show so little of the actual progression towards evil is kind of disappointing."

Truth, be told.

 

Neobaggins quotes: At the same time, the movie doens't spend much time with this progression, so that it's condensed into Episode III. On the one hand, then, we've completely avoided the question, by making the key moments in development seemingly take place now between Episode I & II, instead of just "prior to IV."

Sorry, but that doesn't jive with me. Let's face it, the entire PT is supposed to be about Anakin's fall to the dark side. And since that fall is made up of moments, we get moments like the Tusken slaughter. They have to be balanced though, against Anakin's desire to do what he believes is 'good' behaviour. And we see, in the picnic disussion, that even a 'good' Anakin is ominous and controlling.

 

NeoBaggins - Very true - and even true for the whole story: both of Anakin and the Republic itself.

Mimic - I said in a previous thread, it is very simple. Act I's responsibility is to "introduce." Act III's is to "resolve." The burden of drama and the development of character and story fall on the shoulders of Act II.

 

And AotC succeeded perfectly with that

 

Let's face it, two people meet each other for the first time since they were kids, and in two or three days they're married - how on earth do you make that credible?

It's down to the performances. I've seen films where it's been obvious within a few minutes screen time that the characters were in love. It requires good acting and good directing.
They have plenty of screen time together and it never looks like these characters are in love.

g

 

I think they're in love

 

I think they're in love

Truly madly deeply? Or just truly deeply?

g

 

Madly, I think - it'll destroy them

 

Why will it destroy them?

 

Jedi aren't allowed attachment - it's forbidden

 

Hudnall, you mention that Act 1 is meant as an introduction, and Act 3 is for resolution. Characterization takes place in Act 2. That is simplistic at best; in an age of post-modern film and art, the traditional conventions of storytelling are tossed out the window. Remember that, in one sense, we are 'introduced' to the characters (Vader, Obi Wan) in Episode 4, not one. We see an honest Obi Wan after his death, not before. And we see Anakin for the first time as he lays dying.

 

Because people don't know how to get over it. Honestly, if I see a movie that I don't like, I shrug my shoulders and go on my way and obsess about movies I do love. People don't bash Star Wars because its fashionable. They do it because they can't move on. Just look at what their reactions are to the Revenge of the Sith teaser. Almost every reaction from them I've heard goes something like "Oh it looks awesome, but I don't know if I can ever trust Lucas again." Boo hoo hoo. Cry me a freakin river!

I thought you weren't obsessing. Someone doesn't like your precious movie and you do what? Write a nice long paragraph about how wrong they are. I think you should take your own advice and move on.

 

As a serious Star Wars fan, I approach this subject a few ways.

First, I enjoyed the movie. I enjoyed the fact that it felt like a Star Wars movie enough, and added enough cool stuff, that I would enjoy watching it for years to come.

But then again, in no way did I think this was a good movie.

I left the theater thinking it was good, convincing myself it was good (as with Phantom Menace), but I had already conditioned myself to expect what I had already heard were the glaring flaws in the movie. Acting, plot holes, etc. So I was prepared. I was pleasantly surprised by the good things. Also, I couldn't believe they pulled off the Yoda duel. But later viewings were a bit more objective overall, as they tend to be...

However, the real test of a classic is how it stands the test of time. Unfortunately, I don't believe either prequel movies will last, and I do believe most of their success rides on the quality of the first two films.

What do I base this on? I was seven when the first movie was released, and like the current Lord of the Rings films, the world was blown away by Star Wars. The world literally fell in love with that movie, and the next one. It was everywhere. Not so with the prequels. We want it to happen, we are hoping it will happen again...but alas, it just isn't. Currently, the marketing and such is for the hardcore fans, but in the 70's...there were so many fans we demanded marketing. Lucas didn't expect or anticipate it, and he met the need. Now, he seems to exploit that same fanbase, riding on the glory of the past. He seems to be dangling that ghost of the seventies right out in front of us, always elusive.

That's the way it feels. Like the Jedi? Here's a ton of Jedi (albeit with undeveloped personalities)! Like Boba Fett? Here he is again! Here's Chewbacca! Here's storm troopers!

The new stuff? Bleh...not much good. Darth Maul was good. Jango was recycled but cool. Pod racing could have been cool if the creature design wasn't so ridiculous. Add to that an anemic love story and really bad acting? Well, just call me a jaded old Star Wars fan.

 

You're a jaded old Star Wars fan

 

Let's face it, Star Wars (OT) changed the way movies are seen. And so it makes sense that the reception a movie receives nowadays is different from what happenned when a movie was popular in the late seventies/early eighties.

 

Exactly - the newer films are only different in your mind - you must unlearn what you have learnt

 

Darth-Mimic I don't think you're argument holds. SW is not a radical departure from story-telling tradition. For instance, you mention that it started with Episode IV. That's called starting in medias res, and was done even in Homer's Odyessy and is in fact of a convention in epic tales.