4806 réponses à ce sujet

[TheChris92]

You guys are forgetting a key aspect of the prequels & why they suck overall.

 

We are all well-versed on how many fans of the OT had rose-colored glasses. True, legitimate point. Also keep in mind when ep. 4 & 5 were released they were breaking new ground in many ways, whereas the prequels didn't innovate much at all. The script, effects, acting & overall story arc had been done in some capacity.

Not so much that they didn't innovate as the much as the dialogue being shampoo-drinkingly awful, and the camera shooting is all over the place like a Paul Greengass film without the presence of a handheld camera. There's no middle ground for George Lucas, however, he's a generally awful filmmaker, as evident by his other shallow projects like Willow or Kingdom of the Crystal Skull. If anything, he should be credited for the idea of Star Wars, as much as Anthony Newley & Leslie Bricusse should be credited for the concept of the song Feeling Good, while Nina Simone/Lawrence Kasdan/Keshner should be heralded for breathing life into it.

Whatever good ideas Lucas might have, they've always been overshadowed by the awfulness of his approach to narrative -- Giving the most iconic and well characterized villain in cinema a backstory that can at best be compared to that of a late saturday-night-1990's-something-teenage-drama is simply inconceivable; Among many other things.

The prequels reflects its idea of its audience intelligence through its story -- They both feel and run like that of entertainment for people with low attention-span.

 

Like I mentioned earlier -- Star Wars decline into awfulness, however, had already started with that of Return of the Jedi when Lucas railed in the reins again.

[RealKorra]

i don't like it because it's not good as it was back then.

[Milan92]

Not so much that they didn't innovate as the much as the dialogue being shampoo-drinkingly awful, and the camera shooting is all over the place like a Paul Greengass film without the presence of a handheld camera. There's no middle ground for George Lucas, however, he's a generally awful filmmaker, as evident by his other shallow projects like Willow or Kingdom of the Crystal Skull. If anything, he should be credited for the idea of Star Wars, as much as Anthony Newley & Leslie Bricusse should be credited for the concept of the song Feeling Good, while Nina Simone/Lawrence Kasdan/Keshner should be heralded for breathing life into it.

Whatever good ideas Lucas might have, they've always been overshadowed by the awfulness of his approach to narrative -- Giving the most iconic and well characterized villain in cinema a backstory that can at best be compared to that of a late saturday-night-1990's-something-teenage-drama is simply inconceivable; Among many other things.

The prequels reflects its idea of its audience intelligence through its story -- They both feel and run like that of entertainment for people with low attention-span.

 

Like I mentioned earlier -- Star Wars decline into awfulness, however, had already started with that of Return of the Jedi when Lucas railed in the reins again.

 

Hey! I agree with all your points, but leave poor Willow alone! D:

[TheChris92]

A vastly awful adventure film that paled in comparison to that of Rob Reiner's The Princess Bride.

[Rawgrim]

I do like Darth Maul and Count Dooku. I do wish that there were More Dark Jedi and Sith running around during the Prequels. As for Prequel Content, The Clone Wars CGI Cartoon is what should have been the Movies in my personal opinion.

 

Anakin and Ashoka defeating the entire Separatist army alone? Being immune to direct hits from ship cannons? Maul surviving with no hint of any explanation given?

 

No thanks.

[Vroom Vroom]

Anakin and Ashoka defeating the entire Separatist army alone? Being immune to direct hits from ship cannons? Maul surviving with no hint of any explanation given?

 

No thanks.

Although Maul surviving was BS it was explained that his hatred and the Force kept him alive and that he fell out an intake shaft which led to Naboo's waters, similar to the shafts Luke fell down in Episode V. The only reason I am lenient on Maul surviving is because there is precedent with both Darth Sion, Simus and Maw. Simus was literally just a head:

 

[Rawgrim]

Although Maul surviving was BS it was explained that his hatred and the Force kept him alive and that he fell out an intake shaft which led to Naboo's waters, similar to the shafts Luke fell down in Episode V. The only reason I am lenient on Maul surviving is because there is precedent with both Darth Sion, Simus and Maw. Simus was literally just a head:

 

 

It wasn't explained on the show. The show just said "he had a lot of hatred in him". Which means being angry is enough to survive being sliced in half, falling down about 1 kilometer into a hole, and then managing to crawl off the planet with no medical aid at all. Makes me wonder where that determination was when he cried like a little girl when Palpatine defeated him in combat in some episodes later. Cried and begged. Very sith like.

[SmilesJA]

Not so much that they didn't innovate as the much as the dialogue being shampoo-drinkingly awful, and the camera shooting is all over the place like a Paul Greengass film without the presence of a handheld camera. There's no middle ground for George Lucas, however, he's a generally awful filmmaker, as evident by his other shallow projects like Willow or Kingdom of the Crystal Skull. If anything, he should be credited for the idea of Star Wars, as much as Anthony Newley & Leslie Bricusse should be credited for the concept of the song Feeling Good, while Nina Simone/Lawrence Kasdan/Keshner should be heralded for breathing life into it.

Whatever good ideas Lucas might have, they've always been overshadowed by the awfulness of his approach to narrative -- Giving the most iconic and well characterized villain in cinema a backstory that can at best be compared to that of a late saturday-night-1990's-something-teenage-drama is simply inconceivable; Among many other things.

The prequels reflects its idea of its audience intelligence through its story -- They both feel and run like that of entertainment for people with low attention-span.

 

Like I mentioned earlier -- Star Wars decline into awfulness, however, had already started with that of Return of the Jedi when Lucas railed in the reins again.

 

Sigh,

 

George Lucas created the world of Star Wars and he gave an iconic villain a deep and interesting backstory. He's far from an awful filmaker and deserves credit for what he's done.

[TheChris92]

he gave an iconic villain a deep and interesting backstory.

 
That he definitely did not.
 

He's far from an awful filmaker and deserves credit for what he's done.

He is awful, and the credit for Star Wars's success isn't any more placed in his favor than to the rest of the people that made it as such.

[Rawgrim]

I think Stannass is a more suiting name myself. It describes the content of his character quite well.

 

On the show, yes. But that goes for a lot of characters after season 3.

[Rawgrim]

 
That he definitely did not.
 
He is awful, and the credit for Star Wars's success isn't any more deserved than to the rest of the people that made it as such.

 

 

Indeed. and Tolkien doesn't deserve much either. Since his publisher published the book. and Peter Jackson made movies of the books later....

[TheChris92]

Indeed. and Tolkien doesn't deserve much either. Since his publisher published the book. and Peter Jackson made movies of the books later....

Eh? Comparing George Lucas to Tolkien now? Okay.

[SmilesJA]

 
That he definitely did not.
 
He is awful, and the credit for Star Wars's success isn't any more placed in his favor than to the rest of the people that made it as such.

 

Oh yes he did and he's far from awful given how he helped revolutionize filmaking. He was the driving force behind Starwars and deserves most of the credit.

[DeathScepter]

With Palpatine did say that the Path of the Dark Side paves the way to un-natural force abilities. Combining Training from Hell ie Sith Assassin Standard Training, Zarbak toughness and Sith endurance force abilities, I am not surprised. 

 

Of course Darth Sion and Malgus are tough assholes in addition as well. Darth Vader is just as Tough.

[SmilesJA]

Eh? Comparing George Lucas to Tolkien now? Okay.

 

The point he's making is that if you're going to say that Lucas doesn't deserve a lot of the credit for greating an excellent series, then you might as well apply the same to someone like Tolkien as well.

[SmilesJA]

 

 

 

He deserves credit as being the creative force behind Star Wars. But without the help of the directors, writers, producers, actors etc. who helped him fine tune it and bring it to life, I doubt the original Star Wars movies would've turned out as good as they did. The prequels reinforce that notion.

 

He received a lot of help on the prequels as well. Lucas had people review his scripts for episode one and two (this was ghostwritten). The only script that Lucas did not receive help on was episode three.

[Rawgrim]

Eh? Comparing George Lucas to Tolkien now? Okay.

 

Not comparing the quality of their work. I used Tolkien as an example....you know....since he also created a major franchise....

[TheChris92]

Oh yes he did and he's far from awful given how he helped revolutionize filmaking. He was the driving force behind Starwars and deserves most of the credit.

Haha, no.

If by revolutionized, you mean over-reliance of overly extravagant CGI effects, then yes, I suppose he did do that alongside the likes of James Cameron, which has become an evident trait for a lot of recent fantasy film.

[Rawgrim]

I was actually talking about book Stannis. Show Stannis has the benefit of Stephen Dillane actually making the character somewhat likeable and sympathetic, instead of just a jaw-clenching ****** who is inexplicably fawned over by certain people.

 

 

 

He deserves credit as being the creative force behind Star Wars. But without the help of the directors, writers, producers, actors etc. who helped him fine tune it and bring it to life, I doubt the original Star Wars movies would've turned out as good as they did. The prequels reinforce that notion.

 

Best read the books again then. He is more likable in the books. Doesn't burn his daughter for food 5 hours after slaughtering his entire cavalry for food either.

[Rawgrim]

Haha, no.

If by revolutionized, you mean over-reliance of overly extravagant CGI effects, then yes, I suppose he did do that alongside the likes of James Cameron, which has become an evident trait for a lot of recent fantasy film.

 

He revolutionized cinema with the first SW movie. You know. the one who doesn't have CGI in it.

[Rawgrim]

The point he's making is that if you're going to say that Lucas doesn't deserve a lot of the credit for greating an excellent series, then you might as well apply the same to someone like Tolkien as well.

 

Exactly. I knew at least one person would grasp what was said in my post

[Vroom Vroom]

It wasn't explained on the show. The show just said "he had a lot of hatred in him". Which means being angry is enough to survive being sliced in half, falling down about 1 kilometer into a hole, and then managing to crawl off the planet with no medical aid at all. Makes me wonder where that determination was when he cried like a little girl when Palpatine defeated him in combat in some episodes later. Cried and begged. Very sith like.

It's somewhat believable as his wound was cauterized by the lightsaber which does a clean cut. I don't know if it is still canon, but back then Zabrak's had 3 hearts, so he was able to take more punishment than a human. Him crying and begging made sense though, he knew exactly what he was in for as he had suffered torture at Palpatine's hands before, also he was not a Sith, just a pretender. 

[TheChris92]

The point he's making is that if you're going to say that Lucas doesn't deserve a lot of the credit for greating an excellent series, then you might as well apply the same to someone like Tolkien as well.

Why would I apply that to Tolkien when books=/=film? Tolkien created the world of Middle Earth, all of it. Lucas laid the groundwork for an idea, originally titled Blue Harvest, later spanning 3 films, then 6 (who's saying I said otherwise?). Point being that Star Wars success isn't generally in Lucas's favour any more than the crew whom he worked with. If one examines the quality between the content where Lucas involvement is heavy, to that of where it was restricted (see earlier Indy films) than one could distinguish the difference.