Don't worry, it IS an honest pat on the back. I do not master in sarcasm very well.
Does the Star Wars series have only one good movie?
- Thread starter Mage
- Start date
Cool. Thanks, man. 
In the Trek BBS it can be damn hard to tell sometimes.
In the Trek BBS it can be damn hard to tell sometimes.
To me the great movie in the series is Star Wars (as most people know the '77 movie). It was so enormously innovative, not only in visual effects, but in music, art and sound design, editorial style and even basic storytelling, that it really opened a new chapter in cinema. It was a cultural phenomenon the likes of which hasn't been seen since. The dialogue may be a little flat, but do we remember The Wizard of Oz for its dialogue?
Absent the groundbreaking factor, "Empire" seemed more ordinary to me. The pacing around some of the Dagobah scenes has always lost me a little. Still a really good movie, just not great.
RotJ has its moments but overall just OK, and the rest of them I didn't think were very good at all.
Yes, how absurd of people to think of films made several years apart by different directors as separate movies.
Justin
Absent the groundbreaking factor, "Empire" seemed more ordinary to me. The pacing around some of the Dagobah scenes has always lost me a little. Still a really good movie, just not great.
RotJ has its moments but overall just OK, and the rest of them I didn't think were very good at all.
Yes, how absurd of people to think of films made several years apart by different directors as separate movies.
Justin
I agree with what you said.. but i also love the dialogue in the film.. perfectly suitable for the type of film it is. And I'll take petty bickering between the three leads any day (it's enormously fun) over pages and pages of dry political exposition. Hey, listen, every single line of the '77 film is quotable and recognizable. How often does that happen with any film? And how many other big budget films have a sense of whimsy and adventure that this film does?
It saddens me to think there are people here who don't believe the original film is a great film.
It saddens me to think there are people here who don't believe the original film is a great film.
Honestly, I think the only Star Wars movie that's totally lacking is A New Hope. Let me explain before flaming.
Return of the Jedi sucks. But, the only redeeming factor is Ian McDiarmid's deliciously evil Emperor Palpatine. That guy is a total bastard, but he's still likable.
Now, we're in the prequel era. Phantom Menace sucks, but Ian McDiarmid kicks ass again as likable Senator Palpatine and Darth Sidious causing all kinds of mayhem.
Attack of the Clones totally blows, but it's good seeing Ian McDiarmid playing unassuming Chancellor Palpatine getting all sorts of emergency powers granted.
Revenge of the Sith Palpatine gets to kick some ass. It's cool seeing him playing the Jedi and Republic to his advantage, whooping some Jedi ass, and enjoying every minute of it. I've heard a lot of complaints about McDiarmid's acting in the confrontation scene with Mace Windu: "NO! NO! NOOOOO! YOU WILL DIE!!!!" But to me, I see that as the only prequel character showing any kind of passion. Sidious is evil. Sidious is also getting caught in the act of destroying the Republic, but he's not going down without a fight. Afterwards follows some awesome scene-chewing by McDiarmid. To me, McDiarmid makes the Star Wars saga. Fuck Vader, fuck Luke. Okay, not literally, but figuratively. To me, McDiarmid's Palpatine makes the saga.
That's why I don't care about A New Hope as much. Sure, I like Han Solo and Princess Leia. I grew up with them. But Ian McDiarmid is the best actor out of the whole six movies. Empire's a better movie with McDiarmid replacing Clive Revill and A New Hope suffers from his absence. So, to me, the prequels may be shittier than the originals, but McDiarmid's acting alone saves them.
Return of the Jedi sucks. But, the only redeeming factor is Ian McDiarmid's deliciously evil Emperor Palpatine. That guy is a total bastard, but he's still likable.
Now, we're in the prequel era. Phantom Menace sucks, but Ian McDiarmid kicks ass again as likable Senator Palpatine and Darth Sidious causing all kinds of mayhem.
Attack of the Clones totally blows, but it's good seeing Ian McDiarmid playing unassuming Chancellor Palpatine getting all sorts of emergency powers granted.
Revenge of the Sith Palpatine gets to kick some ass. It's cool seeing him playing the Jedi and Republic to his advantage, whooping some Jedi ass, and enjoying every minute of it. I've heard a lot of complaints about McDiarmid's acting in the confrontation scene with Mace Windu: "NO! NO! NOOOOO! YOU WILL DIE!!!!" But to me, I see that as the only prequel character showing any kind of passion. Sidious is evil. Sidious is also getting caught in the act of destroying the Republic, but he's not going down without a fight. Afterwards follows some awesome scene-chewing by McDiarmid. To me, McDiarmid makes the Star Wars saga. Fuck Vader, fuck Luke. Okay, not literally, but figuratively. To me, McDiarmid's Palpatine makes the saga.
That's why I don't care about A New Hope as much. Sure, I like Han Solo and Princess Leia. I grew up with them. But Ian McDiarmid is the best actor out of the whole six movies. Empire's a better movie with McDiarmid replacing Clive Revill and A New Hope suffers from his absence. So, to me, the prequels may be shittier than the originals, but McDiarmid's acting alone saves them.
Ian McDiarmid was one of the two best actors in the entire STAR WARS Saga along with Sir Alec Guinness. The man deserved an Oscar nomination for Best Supporting Actor for his work in Episode III and there were even a few rumors at the time that he was actually being considered for a nod(he would never have won, of course)before it all fizzled. McDiarmid imbues Palpatine in all his stages of development with a deliciously Machiavellian air that makes the audience pay close attention to everything he does, and even if that person in the theater is one of the minority who doesn't know that Palpatine and Darth Sidious are one and the same person he or she can sense that something very wrong and deeply manipulative is going on with Ian's character. He's the puppet master of the entire six-film series and the TRUE bad guy, not Vader. Anakin/Vader is never completely consumed by the Dark Side and retains enough of his original humanity for Luke to be able to retrieve it. Palpatine/Sidious is pure evil. Shadowy and largely unspoken and unseen evil, and an evil that is so cunning and skilled that it can successfully shield itself and prevent the Jedi themselves from sensing and discovering his Dark Side powers until it's too late for them to be able to defeat it.
Last edited:
Star Wars (1977) is a great film. Empire only slightly less so. Return and the prequels are much less so, but they have good parts.
I agree with your points cooleddie74 completely.
I think something has been very revealing about the overreaction by many fans to the prequels. That many recent recent new genre films and tv shows are given a pass for similar flaws. Particularly newer franchises. Because they did not have life times to build up unrealistic standards and expectations.
I think something has been very revealing about the overreaction by many fans to the prequels. That many recent recent new genre films and tv shows are given a pass for similar flaws. Particularly newer franchises. Because they did not have life times to build up unrealistic standards and expectations.
I do allow a middleground, if I implied something other then that at any point, then I am sorry.
But claiming that the pacing was good because it was normal for the time it was made in, is not a good arguement in my book. It's not about being slow, there's nothing wrong with slow pacing. It's being slow at bad moments. And that's thanks to George Lucas' bad directing.
I'm not a prequel-hater, I'm just somebody who realizes that Lucas does not tell a story through writing and actors, but through visual means. We have had plenty of directos doing the same thing. The difference is, is that George has always done to much visually. To many effects shots, that are to long, and take momentum out of scenes, aka, bad pacing. Sure, there were great moments as well, in both the old trilogy and the prequels as well. But take for a moment the shot in ANH where the Falcon is fleeing from a few Stardestroyers, and Han comments on how he knows a few maneuvers. We got a shot, of the Falcon doing next to nothing! Makes no sense, leaves people wondering on what Han's maneuver will be, and take the momentum out of it. George just wanted another space shot there. If it was a shot like, say the Falcon making a nose-dive like it did in Empire, it didn't take the momentum out of it and told a thrilling scene, with the audience cheering for Han's great maneuvers. That's GOOD pacing.
And again, you comment that one of the plus points of ANH was that it was nominated. Most movie fans will say that the Oscars, especially in later years, are more about giving those little statues to movies that did well, then movies which were actually 'best'. How many topics on how many forums and discussions in real life haven't there been where people were discussing the Oscar-outcomes afterwards, with don't understanding that Film A won while Film B was better, or that actor X got the Oscar while actor Y did a much better job.
The Oscars are just that, a statue to represent the status of a film at a certain moment. Time will tell if a movie was actually 'best'.
Just because a movie isn't great doesn't mean it isn't good; conversely, it's not good just because it's not dreck.
IMO the first two were very good to great, TPM and RotS pretty good and the other two just OK. The protagonists were much more interesting in the OT but by Jedi they'd gotten pretty bland.
IMO the first two were very good to great, TPM and RotS pretty good and the other two just OK. The protagonists were much more interesting in the OT but by Jedi they'd gotten pretty bland.
Different directors? Haven't you heard, the auteur theory is dead, dead, dead and no one ever mindlessly cites the name of the director like they're actually saying something!
Both The Empire Strikes Back and The Return of the Jedi are George Lucas movies. Whatever share Irwin Kershner can claim, Leigh Brackett and Lawrence Kasdan could have claimed more.
But if by some twisted logic you actually regard the two as different movies, however can anyone like a movie that cops out of Han Solo getting killed?
I don't have any sleepless nights because I go to bed knowing that TESB and ROTJ are different films, with different tones, made several years apart, by different directors, neither of which was George Lucas.
S
Stone_Cold_Sisko
Guest
I do kind of think that ESB is the only really good movie, and I'm glad you made this post actually.
I also agree that ANH suffers from some of the same problems as the other films - particularly bad dialogue and bad acting, but I think you're overstating some of it's other flaws. For example, I actually think the pacing is remarkably good. I dunno if it's nostalgic or what but I could rewatch it.
The ultimate test is, when I come across a Star Wars movie (or, say they're going to come in theaters in 3D), am I able to sit and rewatch the entire movie?
Prequels: no. I tried it, and gave up. Sooo many meetings. and scenes of people arriving. or departing. or walking down halls. or walking up halls to arrive at a meeting. or to depart the planet. or depart a meeting. or... zzzzz. I used to be one of those people who tried to suggest Revenge of the Sith was kind of on-par with the OT. Then I tried watching it on HBO... oy. Let's just say it's the better of the prequels, and not dwell on the backhanded nature of that compliment.
ANH: Mostly yes. Occasionally I get a little bored.
ESB: Yes.
ROTJ: Entire movie? No I get bored during the Jabba rescue or Ewok scenes. But it's worth it to get to the Luke/Vader stuff.
I really do think Empire Strikes Back is the only truly great film in the entire series. I attribute it to Lucas ceding the most control over to someone who better understood the subtleties and nuances of filmmaking (Irvin Kershner, director, who was clearly better at working with actors, and added many humanistic nuances on set, little things like say, Artoo tip-toeing in the rain to peer into the window of Yoda's hut, etc etc). Mind you the story was still clearly George's so I'm not one of those who says "star wars is only good without lucas" - but the point is, Lucas did what Lucas does best: Come up with a cool story. He's a storyteller, not a writer. He skipped the stuff he was bad at: writing dialogue, genuine characterization, and working with actors.
I also agree that ANH suffers from some of the same problems as the other films - particularly bad dialogue and bad acting, but I think you're overstating some of it's other flaws. For example, I actually think the pacing is remarkably good. I dunno if it's nostalgic or what but I could rewatch it.
The ultimate test is, when I come across a Star Wars movie (or, say they're going to come in theaters in 3D), am I able to sit and rewatch the entire movie?
Prequels: no. I tried it, and gave up. Sooo many meetings. and scenes of people arriving. or departing. or walking down halls. or walking up halls to arrive at a meeting. or to depart the planet. or depart a meeting. or... zzzzz. I used to be one of those people who tried to suggest Revenge of the Sith was kind of on-par with the OT. Then I tried watching it on HBO... oy. Let's just say it's the better of the prequels, and not dwell on the backhanded nature of that compliment.
ANH: Mostly yes. Occasionally I get a little bored.
ESB: Yes.
ROTJ: Entire movie? No I get bored during the Jabba rescue or Ewok scenes. But it's worth it to get to the Luke/Vader stuff.
I really do think Empire Strikes Back is the only truly great film in the entire series. I attribute it to Lucas ceding the most control over to someone who better understood the subtleties and nuances of filmmaking (Irvin Kershner, director, who was clearly better at working with actors, and added many humanistic nuances on set, little things like say, Artoo tip-toeing in the rain to peer into the window of Yoda's hut, etc etc). Mind you the story was still clearly George's so I'm not one of those who says "star wars is only good without lucas" - but the point is, Lucas did what Lucas does best: Come up with a cool story. He's a storyteller, not a writer. He skipped the stuff he was bad at: writing dialogue, genuine characterization, and working with actors.
I love the original Star Wars.
I thought Empire had some good moments but suffered from the cliffhanger ending, the overly clean look of the sets and--sorry folks--the Grover voiced Yoda. I think it is a truly overrated film.
RotJ was just plain bad.
The prequels largely unwatchable.
I thought Empire had some good moments but suffered from the cliffhanger ending, the overly clean look of the sets and--sorry folks--the Grover voiced Yoda. I think it is a truly overrated film.
RotJ was just plain bad.
The prequels largely unwatchable.
Couldn't agree more.
SAVING PRIVATE RYAN anybody? SHAKESPEARE IN LOVE won Best Picture...but which is the movie that has ingrained itself more deeply into the American psyche over the past fourteen years? Which film has made the deepest and most lasting emotional impact? Which film has won the undying devotion of both casual fans as well as actual surviving veterans of the original D-Day campaign? Which movie is shown every year on both Memorial and Veterans' Day and is aired completely uncut and unedited to preserve its intended greatness?
SHAKESPEARE won the statue, but RYAN won the nation.
Last edited:
I like Shakespeare in Love, I own it on DVD, but yeah I've seen SPR more times. There's some of that formulaic and patented Spielberg sappiness that seriously undermines SPR, without which I might consider it a truly great film. As it stands, it's just an outstanding technical achievement, as far as I'm concerned.
---
Back to Star Wars. The VW Star Wars ad during the Super Bowl was cute.
---
Back to Star Wars. The VW Star Wars ad during the Super Bowl was cute.
Good to see the cantina is so iconic.
I like Shakespeare in Love, I own it on DVD, but yeah I've seen SPR more times. There's some of that formulaic and patented Spielberg sappiness that seriously undermines SPR, without which I might consider it a truly great film. As it stands, it's just an outstanding technical achievement, as far as I'm concerned.
---
Back to Star Wars. The VW Star Wars ad during the Super Bowl was cute.
Good to see the cantina is so iconic.
I posted that VW ad on my Facebook page a few days ago. I love it. Maybe now they'll make action figures of the Tonnika Twins since different actresses reprised the roles in the new commercial? The original actresses from the '70s have never released the rights to their likenesses so Kenner/Hasbro has never been able to produce figures of them, but now that two new ladies have played them perhaps the characters can finally get made after all these years?
I realize that last rant was terribly esoteric, but in the action figure collecting community the Tonnika Twins are two of the few characters from the Mos Eisley Cantina who have never been turned into a 3-3/4" scale action figure. Legal hangups have prevented their liknesses from being turned into toys and other collectibles...until now. I kinda hope.
That rant was awesome.
Similar threads
