Census Now that it's over which do you like better, the Sequel Trilogy or the Prequel Trilogy? (read: hell)

yes, but that is simply incorrect.

 

And certainly his question to Palpatine in TESB: "How is this possible?" (the revised 2004 version of that scene)

 

I preferred the more ominous voice in the original scene. I'd have just reshot it with Ian lip-synching, but left the voice intact.

 

People's pet peeves about script elements can be discarded. They have been problematic since the first sound you heard in the first movie. When people grill any Star Wars movie over a script element but love another Star Wars movie, it says more about them than about the movie in question.

However, there's is one huge difference between the two trilogies: in one trilogy people act, and in the other people read lines.

 

You’d think that would give your opinion more weight.

And yet here we are.

 

Only in your mind, young Padawan

If you only listened to what most people think, you'd be no different from the dozens of studio executives who turned Lucas down when he brought this little screenplay of his about chirping robots and walking carpets...

 

If it wasn't for Adam Driver, John Boyega, Daisy Ridley and Rian Johnson, Return of the Sith would win me to the PT side. So, ST for me.

 

Oh yeah that's the other thing the ST has for me. No bad acting.

 

There is no bad acting in the PT, either. It's really no different from the acting in the OT.

 

The OT has bad acting though.

 

The charisma of the original trio in the OT carries it well, as does Peter Cushing and Peter Mayhew.

 

And to this point, I'll always have the same answer: Lucas knew what he wanted. It kinda lived up to the kind of acting that you can see in the actual Saturday matinee serials he grew up watching and which inspired Lucas. There's something entirely kind of goofy about it, to some degree. Which is why it is so much fun, imho. If you've seen THX-1138 or American Graffiti, you know he could get a totally different kind of performance from his cast. Of course the kind of acting you get in the SW movies is a deliberate choice - he knew darn well what he was doing. And that only adds to the fun, as far as I'm concerned.

 

Yes, you use the buzzwords. "Gravitas", "gets to shine", "indelible impression". I read a number of those too, when the PT came out. They mean nothing, because they exist in a vast vacuum of indifferent acting.

 

...To you

 

Mark Hamill (in an interview with Frank Oz) said that Lucas hired him because he looked permanently bewildered and innocent.

 

If you listen to an album, and there's one good minute on it and the rest is just badly played, is it a good album?

 

tina, you seem to be vacillating between "the acting is actually wonderful" and "the acting was intentionally hammy". or maybe you're just trolling.

 

But that good minute is a matter of your personal taste. Fine! But maybe other people think the whole album is sheer delight....

First of all, I wouldn't exactly call it "hammy". I save that term for William Shatner, exclusively.
Secondly, only Sith lords deal in absolutes. I think the acting is just perfect for this kind of material.

When I want to see more conventional "good" acting I can always watch some Olivier or Brando or anything along those lines.

Go and watch the "Adventures of Captain Marvel" (1941) or "Commando Cody: Sky Marshal of the Universe" (1953) if you don't understand what I mean in the sense of Lucas trying to live up to those old serials in every sense except for cutting-edge special effects and a more sophisticated music score.

 

I think you're just emotionally attached to those films, and you're less inclined to attach yourself emotionally now. And I think that dynamic works for all of us, just at different times and at different levels.

 

There are certainly different types of acting but in TPM they too often seem stiff and unclear about what to do.

 

That's the thing. That's what sub-par direction is. Not telling your actors how to interpret their lines. It's so clear. The first halves of the first two films consist of people talking past each other. In contrast, in the ST every lead actor conveys exactly the right emotion in every frame.

 

Nothing could be further from the truth. I'm always re-examining the movies I have enjoyed in the past with a critical eye. Film really is my passion, I watch about 95% of all present-day theatrical releases and constantly catch up with movies from before my time, either via TCM or the Criterion Channel.
Last week I went to the 9-movie marathon at the theater - this was actually the first chance I had to watch the original 6 movies theatrically one after another, while also having previously watched 2/3rds of the sequel trilogy.
The only one of the three trilogies that held my full attention all the way though was the prequel trilogy. And I still keep finding new things in there all the time.
I rest my case!

 

so when you said that "natalie portman brought something unique and unforgettable to the whole sage", your meaning was that she perfectly delivered a performance reminiscent of campy 50's saturday matinee serials? hmmm, okay.

 

What she brought was just what I think was needed. And it's really awesome as far as I'm concerned. Sorry to hear that wasn't you experience...