STAR WARS...I understand it came out early this morning, the first showings at 12:01.
For those who didn't pay attention, I hated the first two movies of this prequel trilogy. Well, hate is a strong word. The first one kinda bored me and the second one made me want to gnaw off my own leg and throw it at the screen. Is that hate?
Anyway, no amount of loyalty to the original trilogy will make me see the final chapter in the movie theatre at a rate of $7.50 per person (Total of $15 because my husband will go too.) As it is, we've already wasted $30 in the theatres on the first two movies.
I wanted my money back. They really should do that for bad movies, I think.
Sooooooooooooo.....I'm looking for 10 (TEN) guinea pigs to watch it first. I am looking for a report that basically tells me that not only will I get my money's worth, not only is this movie everything the first two should have been, but I will almost make up for the money I lost in the first place.
Ten rave reviews. And anyone who comes on and says it sucks will cancel out a rave review.
So go on, but NO SPOILERS PLEASE!
I think it's worth the money. I don't know if it's good enough to make up for having to sit through parts I and II, but it was very good on it's own.
The acting and dialgue are still problematic in places, but nowhere near as wretched as they were in the second installment.
The effects are amazing, the action is intense and entertaining. There are still a coupld plot holes, but for the most part I thought Georgie tied it together fairly well this time.
I wouldn't rate it up with teh LOTR trillogy as done by Jackson, but it was very good (enough so that I'm going to see it again - something I NEVER did witht he first two).
**** stars out of five.
one star lost for bad acting by Portman and poor dialogue.
Well, so far I'm still thinking no, but I appreciate the honesty.
BTW, I do plan on watching this movie at some point. It is really a question of spending the money to see if in theatres or getting it through Netflix. (Not quite free but paying for that service anyway so close enough.) I'm afraid I do have to see the tie-together after all that, it's more a matter of principle that I won't throw my money at a movie just because it's got a big name, especialy if it has proven time and again that it doesn't deserve it.
.
If I only had to pay $7.50 to see it I'd be there in a flash!
To attend a movie here is $12.50 each and there are five of us! ($62.50 for the arithmetically challenged)
My advice, wait for the DVD and watch it in your undies.
[This message has been edited by hoptoad (edited May 19, 2005).]
So that makes me turn my gaze toward Mr. Lucas, wondering if the acting skills of ANYone could have redeemed the script(s). I mean, c'mon... Samuel Jackson (and Liam Neeson in II) turning in a bad performance? We all know they are capable of much more. I suspect there were other issues going on behind the scenes that affected what we ultimately see on the screen.
Ok. Rant over.
However, I went with several friends.
And I am pretty forgiving when it comes to SF/F movies (I have a technical background, but I consider STAR WARS to be space fantasy, so I don't worry about the bad science).
I'm also pretty forgiving of poor acting in SF/F movies.
I liked how much Ewan McGregor sounded like Alec Guiness some of the time. That was pretty cool.
I liked the big lizard he rode on, and may get one if they are available in the action figure collection (though I haven't been that much into SW action figures).
I liked how the ends tied up and how it fit with the movies that come after it chronologically.
So, while I think it was worth $8.00 to see it at 12:15 am, I don't think it was great enough to make it up to you for wanting to chew your leg off and throw it at the screen, Christine.
My husband is probably going to wait until it comes to the dollar theater (do y'all have those where you live?), and I'd recommend that you consider doing that, too.
Actually, I liked Episode II best of the six movies. 'Course, I'm a romantic, and liked the sweet side of Anakin. I saw III for $5.50 this afternoon and thought it was pretty good, although was sorry to see it was too dark for young kids.
I picked up the book, Star Wars: The Labyrinth of Evil, at the library last week. It claimed to be the pre-quel to Episode III, which I thought rather strange, but I read it before I saw the movie. And was glad I had.
Warning: Possible spoilers, but not really, since this is only what is behind those three scrolling paragraphs at the beginning of Episode III:
The book was indeed the pre-quel. Palpatine is kidnapped in it, General Grievous is introduced (although I know he's in the Star Wars cartoon movie, too, but knowing his immediately preceding role was helpful), Padme's pregnancy is hinted at, we get more time with the nicer Anakin (with more foreshadowing of his future switch), and it ends with the battle over Coruscant with the words "to be continued." And it was -- in the movie. The book definitely gave greater depth to the movie for me.
Special effects were great in III, as I expected. The lizard thing was cool, and Grievous was an interesting foe. I'll see the movie again, I'm sure.
Warning: Another spoiler alert.
One loose end not cleared up: How is it that Leia in a later movie "remembers" her mother as beautiful and sad if she never saw her mother?
Of course, if I wanted to wait until I go to Arkansas for my sister-in-law's wedding I can catch it for $4.
Anyway, I saw a comment I just had to respond to:
quote:
Actually, I liked Episode II best of the six movies. 'Course, I'm a romantic, and liked the sweet side of Anakin.
Um, did you see a sweet side of Anakin I missed because George Lucas can'r write romance to save his life and by the time the second movie began they had already really skipped Anakin turning from a sweet kid into a hot-headed jerk.
I read this out to my husband just now and he said (reltaed to my sex topic) that's why you can't write a sex scene because no one will agree what a good romance/sex scene is!
It is so gratifying to know I'm not the only one who feels this way. Would he listen? From interviews I've seen he is in an utter state of denial. He can do no wrong in his own eyes.
Its one thing not to listen to the movie critics who have an anti-SF&F bias, but its quite another thing to ignore your own fanbase.
But it seems to be the trend nowadays, hear only what you want to hear, ignore the valid concerns of those whom you disagree with.
Hogwart's could be in space now- the jedi could have their own house. Aliens could be in the other houses and when Vader goes bad- Hermine could use her way-back time necklace (under the advice of the wizards and yoda) and stop him early. Potter of course would have a wand and a lightsabre- and he would be a fighter pilot. Snape and Anakin could have wizardry duel. We then learn at the end that the Vader and Potter are actually twins. And that Yoda knew!
Etc, Etc. I would be a better movie than this latest star wars movie which I thought was about on par with Blade Trinity. Cheesy, but good special effects. But not worth $8.50.
In response to your second SPOILER ALERT question:
SPOILER ALERT!!
We figured that she was remembering the woman who adopted her, Bail Organa's wife.
Space opera refers to a nickname for westerns (horse opera) and implies that the science fiction story you are reading could be translated easily into a western. I wrote an article when the first trilogy was still fairly new, arguing that you really couldn't translate STAR WARS into a western, in rebuttal to people who were claiming you could. (What do you do with the DEATH STAR and the droids, for example?) While Han Solo translates fairly easily into western format, the translation I came up with was more reminiscient of WILD WILD WEST than it was of a real western.
Science fantasy is fantasy with all the trappings of science fiction and so on, but not much in the way of real science. Some could argue that STAR TREK is also science fantasy, though they seem to take the trappings a little more seriously than STAR WARS does.
By the way, Orson Scott Card has said that he doesn't write science fiction. Rather what he writes is fantasy with science as the magic.
And I think there are an awful lot of so-called "science fiction" writers out there who do the same but don't admit it.
[This message has been edited by Kathleen Dalton Woodbury (edited May 20, 2005).]
http://www.hatrack.com/revengeofthesith.shtml
~LL
So yes it could have been a western. The deathstar could have been cannon, explosives, or train weapon. The jedi would be similar to the gunslingers in Dark Tower. The droids would have been farmers-or lackeys of some type.
Luke says to her, in Return of the Jedi (Ewok camp): Leia, do you remember your mother? Your REAL mother?
and Leia replies something to the effect of: A little. She was pretty and always a little sad.
At the time, the knowledge that Leia is adopted is viewer knowledge (and Luke's knowledge only). There was never any reference prior to that point that Leia was adopted, so that was a bit of a gap in the dialog I thought.
Thanks for linking it. For once, I agree with him about something.
quote:
Star Wars was orginally a Samurai movie.
That'll be this one:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0051808/
And in my article, I came up with John Wayne's War Wagon for the Death Star. (And I said it was all a range war with the droids as sheep herders, the rebel alliance as farmers, the empire as either the railroads or the cattle barons, and Han Solo as a freighter--who did a little bank robbing (see Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid) on the side.)
)That's what I figured about Leia's remembrance, but the specific phraseology seemed not to fit. Elan's comments make it all fit less. But hey, who's keeping score?
Space opera certainly seems hard to pin down, from your horse opera comparison to a Tor editor's "Big...large governments slugging it out...winks at hard SF facts" to a list I saw somewhere with some pretty impressive SF writers and works listed, including Asimov and Dune. So I think I'll switch to the science fantasy label which to me is in the same ballpark, but far more appealing.
quote:
Um, did you see a sweet side of Anakin I missed because George Lucas can'r write romance to save his life and by the time the second movie began they had already really skipped Anakin turning from a sweet kid into a hot-headed jerk.
Sorry, Christine, but I didn't think Anakin was a hot-headed jerk in Episode II. Not that he didn't have bouts of hot-headed jerkiness, but he still had some poignant innocence that even Lucas' questionable writing skills couldn't destroy.
Part of it was due to Christenson, who (pardon the cliche) was perfect for the part, part of it due maybe to what I heard was some real chemistry between Hayden and Natalie Portman, part of it due to what we knew was going to happen to Anakin.
If this weren't so, if he had come across only as a hot-headed jerk, then who would have cared if he gave in to the dark side? The whole story was predicated on him going full circle, otherwise the balance the Jedi expected could not have been attained, and the whole Star Wars fan base wouldn't have been as engrossed in that saga as they have been.
Anakin's scene when he finds his mother in the hut was heartbreaking. And I liked the fact that Anakin and Padme married and didn't just 'get together.' Their love scene just before they were carted into the arena in Episode II was the best love scene I'd seen in a long while.
How did you miss all that?
I can't get over the fact that Christine thought that the Anakin in Ep.I was a "sweet kid". He's a willful, manipulative little monster who's only slightly redeemed by the fact that he really is more special and important than everybody else.
Card may not have laughed at any of Anakin's lines in Ep.II, but I laughed all the time. Particularly at that scene with his mother. I didn't even feel bad about it.
Still, that's a major improvement over the lines in Ep.I, where you're just cringing and wanting to cry. My little relatives insisted on watching that movie about a dozen times a few weeks ago (okay, it was three times, but that's more than enough to dispell all my guilt over being such a bad uncle-if I felt any, which I don't).
quote:
Well, probably because you made all that up in your own head sometime or other, it was never in the movie I saw (yes, at the dollar theater).
Kolona, I know what was *supposed* to have happened, but I'm afraid that unlike Card, who gave a lot of credit to the idea despite the abysmal writing, I could not find the story through the writing...it was just too bad. I wanted to see Atikin as the good man who would become Darth Vader, in fact I expected to see that in Episode II, but I never did. The character I saw was already more than halfway gone to the dark side.
I can continue to enjoy the original trilogy mainly because I pretend the prequels did not happen and that the backstory is precisely what I have imagined in my head this whole time, which is a much better story.
Let the STAR WARS prequels be a lesson to every writer here: AN INTRIGING BACKSTORY DOES NOT GUARANTEE A COMPELLING STORY.
So far, the prequells have given us nothing that we could have discerned from the original trilogy. It is really important to see Anakin turn to the dark side? It is really important to see how Anakin becomes Darth Vadar? What makes the orignal trilogy so great is that it leaves so much to the imagination. The viewer helps in the creation of the story by filling in the blanks, so to speak.
The fundamental flaw Lucas made with the prequells is that he assumed he had enough material for a trilogy . . . and he didn't. The original trilogy grew over a series of years and was more or less an accident. He had a 200-plus-page screenplay and knew there was no way he could make it into one movie. So he divided it into three. But with the prequells, he didn't take the time--in my opinion--to develop a coherent story that could fill three movies.
So if there's a second lesson here, it's this: DON'T CARELESSLY EXPAND A STORY FOR CONTRACTUAL REASONS.
And that's what Lucas did. In 1980, when STAR WARS was rereleased with the the subtitle EPISODE IV, Lucas made a contract with the audience that there was another trilogy that came before this one. But he didn't take develop the backstory in a real story . . . and now we're back to my original point: Lucas thought his backstory would make a compelling story.
Ever since I realized this, I've always been on guard with writing my own stories to make sure I begin as close to the ending as possible, because the worst thing a writer can do is to bore the audience by showing them things that don't have to be shown.
And that's true of the prequells, as well. Lucas would have made a better trilogy if he had cut Episode One and exanded Episode II into two movies. The ending of Anakin really began when he came back into contact with Padme, and that's were the trilogy should have began.
I haven't seen Episode III yet, Christine, so I can't say anything about it. I am going to see it next weekend, however. It's certainly a movie you'd want to see in the theather, I think.
[This message has been edited by Jerome (edited May 21, 2005).]
quote:
I haven't seen Episode III yet, Christine, so I can't say anything about it. I am going to see it next weekend, however. It's certainly a movie you'd want to see in the theather, I think.
Why? Why? Why? Why? Why?
And again, Why?
Why should I continue to line the pockets of a man who has continued to create crappy movies?
Why should I encourage more people to exploit big names to make more money?
Why should I prove to the movie industry that back writing doesn't matter?
This reminds me of my sister-in-law, who can't understand why her son is a little monster when every time he's bad she puts him in her lap and hugs him and tell shim to be good.
It's the SAME THING....we're giving George Lucas, nay, the ENTIRE MOVIE INDUSTRY positive reinforcement when they feed us crap based on a name. Go ahead, I'll keep giving you my money because I've got to see light-saber fights in the theatre....my flat-screen TV could never do it justice.
A good movie doesn't need a big screen to do it justice. A good movie is good because it has compelling characters, believable dialogue, dramatic conflict, and poignant artistry.
Christine -- The only reason I said you should see it in the theater is because it's the kind of movie that works best in the theather . . . unless you have a home theater. I generally don't go to movies. I'd rather use my $7.50 to buy a new paperback than on a movie. I don't like the crowds. I don't like the seats. I don't like missing part of the movie if I have to use the men's room. And I don't like watching a movie without popcorn and a drink (and I'm NOT going to pay those prices).
More importantly, however, is that most movies work just fine on television. Epics are the exception -- BRAVEHEART, TROY, THE LORD OF THE RINGS, KINGDOM OF HEAVEN -- and STAR WARS is an epic. So any epic I want to see, I try to see it in the theather.
All other movies I get through Netflix.
SPOILER ALERT SPOILER ALERT
... if C3PO had a job working on moisture vaporators (or whatever it was he told Luke's Uncle Owen he had experience on when he was first purchased from the Jawas), how would he have known that if he was given directly to Captain Antilles and had his memory wiped? And that line I recalled from Return of the Jedi where Luke asks Leia, "Do you remember your REAL mother?" That line is clear to me cause I just re-watched that movie a couple of days ago.
But those are all nits to pick. I think I'm finally realizing George Lucas isn't the cinematic godling society has made him out to be, and I am OK with that. The man has given us some pretty entertaining cinema over the years, and I don't feel my life is worse off for having plunked a few bucks in his pocket.
The reality is that George Lucas did for science fiction movies what Tolkien did for fantasy novels... each redefined a genre and invigorated it with life. Maybe there has been better science fiction than Star Wars. But modern culture without Star Wars is very hard to imagine.
Unfortunately, Lucas's weaknesses overshadow almost all of his strengths--not because he has more weaknesses, but because they're more noticable than his strengths. He's not a good writer, and he's not a good director, and he shouldn't be allowed to do either. I think he can come up with good story ideas--this is the man who not only gave us STAR WARS but INDIANA JONES; he also gave us HOWARD THE DUCK, but everyone can have a flop now and then--and he's a great in the post-production phase. His biggest problem is that there's no one out there to say, "Hey, George, that stinks."
I'm going to see it this Saturday, and I'm looking forward to it. I'll give everyone my review then.
[This message has been edited by Jerome (edited May 22, 2005).]
An organic canoli is simply a canoli made with organic ingredients. My husband and I have enjoyed such unlikely confections before.
Sincerely yours,
MaryRobinette
(Mrs. R.A. Kowal)
My wife insists on organic everything. We even have organic baked beans in our cupboard.
Going to see Star Wars tomorrow night. Will report in on Tuesday -- if I don't blow up the entire world after seeing Jar-Jar, who gets my vote for most annoying character in any movie, ever.
The point is that I thought it wasn't as good as Ep.I.
quote:
Am I the only one that thinks $7.50 isn't really worth getting hysterical about? Hell, I'd pay $10 to watch a monkey poop.
You're right, I don't give a damn about 7.50.
But am I the only one with any principles left?
It's the principle of the thing! It's not MY $7.50....it's everyone's $.7.50 (or more, or ocassionally less) that is making the movie MILLIONS AND MILLIONS OF DOLLARS.
You want to know what I'm upset about? I'm upset by millions of Americans who all agree that a movie is subpar and yet still continue to give their hard earned money to a hack who can't write to save his life. I'm not just upset about that, I'm pissed as HELL. And I have a right to be because it's all your fault...everyone who has responded here who gave their money to this movie, all of you in combination..you don't even have the right to complain about bad movies being all that's out there. It's your fault they are. You want to demand more than stop paying for less. You want to watch your monkeys pooping all the time, then by all means keep paying for it.
Principles are often counterweighed by, "WHy bother? I can't do it alone." These are reasons people give not to vote, not to recycle, not to stop shopping at Wal-Mart...Well, I can't do anything about the rest of the Americans, but I can start by living by a certain set of principles that have nothing to do with $7.50 and everything to do with demanding, in my small voice, that I want more. It's how capitalism is supposed to work and is in large part why it's broken.
THAT'S my problem. Frankly, I can't believe nobody understands that.
[This message has been edited by Christine (edited May 23, 2005).]
I couldn't agree with you more, and that makes me hypocritical as all get out. And my wife uses that exact same reasoning you mentioned when I try to dissuade her from shopping at Walmart.
The moviegoing public does give reinforcement to the industry. Unfortunately, once a movie is seen, there is no refund. If there are sequals, thats the only way to punish.
And yet, Saturday I took my wife too see it. This time around Lucus managed to make an okay movie, not great, but not atrocious. The only reason of seeing it in the theater is for the effects, and maybe that's not reason enough. Special effects are a crutch that has ruined too many movies.
I must be getting old, but the opening 15 minutes was too fast paced. I had a hard time figuring out what was going on. And the wide continuity gap between II and III didn't help. General Grevious? Huh? Where'd he come from?
I feel it should have started at a moderate pace and then built up to the action, action that was a bit slower, that could be followed. I feel eventually all the non-stop hard-to-follow action evokes a who-cares?
Well, I am crazy. I was beginning to think I was just plain nuts!
Chris, if you live around a Target, especially the new Super Targets, I highly suggest them as an alternative to Wal-Mart. They have higher quality stuff at competitive prices, a cleaner food section, their clothes are about the same price for all they hold together longer...the only thing they don't have is a sewing department or much in the way of pet supplies. Then again, around here PetSmart is right next door.
It's funny, after the movie my wife said she was suprised. She thought that Anakin was only pretending to turn to the dark side, or in the end he'd come back. She doesn't follow SF&F very much.
And she's right, we are effectively rewarding him for doing a crappy job. But here's the thing -- his special effects are out of this world and the actions sequences, though entirely unecessary to the plot at several points, are nevertheless spectacular.
And for some people, that's all they want: a couple hours of mindless action and groovy effects to dissappear into for a spell. For most teens and younger kids that's all they want, and they'll see it again and again and again. Most adults are at least curious enough that they're willing to shell out $8-10 just to see what it looks like "this time".
For the record, I didn't pay a dime either time I saw it. The first was a special preview and the second came as a gimme for services rendered, as it were. So I really haven't contributed to the Lucas empire on this one. Nevertheless...
It's like Card said in his review -- the movie was terrible from the standpoint of dialogue and acting, and the plot holes are so big you could drive a truck through them. But what of it? I've already preprogrammed myself to expect horrible acting and dialogue and questionable plot motives, so if he delivers on the stuff I DO expect him to deliver on -- namely special effects and visuals (plus one heckuva score by JOhn Williams) and intense action -- then I at least walk away without feeling dissappointed.
To me it's the movies that promise one thing then deliver another that tick me off. I already knew the acting and dailogue would be painful, so that did not factor into my assessment as much as other issues did.
Lucas and Hollywood are swimming in money no matter what we do. If you don't like it and don't want to support it, don't go see it. But if someone does want to see it, no point in getting bent about it.
I'd be more concerned about all the people spending money to support crap such as Gangsta Rap or porn. Though I do see your point -- rewarding people for bad behavior only makes the bad behavior worse and more frequent.
It is a deeply flawed film, but it is still very entertaining. For whatever reason, that's good enough for many people (about 150 million dollars worth so far, apparently).
The good movies are often rewarded too. I think the real problem is Hollywood needs to realize that good films make money too. Look at Passion of the Christ, LOTR trillogy, Shrek and Shrek 2, Gone With the Wind, and Goodfellas just to name a few. All these films (and many more) were quite profitable in their own right.
And whoever it was that said this prequel really should have begun with the second film is absolutely correct. The Phantom Menace was a waste of time. Entertaining perhaps, but could have been left out entirely with no real loss to the story.
Just got back from seeing it, Christine.
Verdict: Wait for the DVD. The effects are cool. The story, a bit weak -- as expected.
By the way, our tickets cost £13.00. That's approx. 24 dollars US. Granted, cost of living and stuff is different here, and we did see this movie in Leicester Square at the Odeon (where London holds movie premieres -- and you do see the occasional actor or two hanging about). But it is not about the money. It's wanting our 2.5 hrs back...
I know what you mean about the time.
So I'm in the same boat as you, Christine. I need a bunch of rave reviews to even consider seeing it on cable (I won't pay any amount to see it in the theater - Lucas has seen the last of my money).
And I'm not getting them.
My husband and a pile of coworkers played hookey on Friday and saw it. He said that the entire audience was laughing at scenes that weren't designed to be laughed at (apparently Anakin's reactions to certain events were particularly entertaining). He said the acting was bad, the writing was bad, it was just bad. But he thought it was better than the first two. He gave it a 2 out of 10, and the 2 was for the lightsaber fights and effects.
So I probably won't even bother to watch the third one at all.
Lisa
ALSO.
My guess with the Grevious coughing is that he was a cyborg without lungs, (even though they called him a droid.) and yet his fleshy parts still thought that he should have lungs. So it was a phantom cough.
The dialogue will not impress you, but then, how great was the dialogue in Episodes IV through VI really? The only reason they have memorable lines is because they had the time and popularity to become canonical.
What REALLY impressed me about the movie is the attention to detail. Whether you see it in theaters or at home, watch Episode IV before III. Pay attention to the gestures and turns of phrase that characterize each character (especially Vader and Kanobi--Yoda is a bit obvious). Lucas (and/or the actors) were amazingly faithful in III. Unfortunately, it's a subtlety that will be missed by most, buried beneath the plot holes and dramatic and gory climax.
Wait for it to come to a second run theater, when your money will mostly go to the theater and buy some concessions while you're there. A larger percentage of the DVD sales go to Mr. Lucas, at least if we're looking at standard agreements.
Rob and I went last night to an independent movie house, because we like the people who own it and want to support them. The longer into a run of a film you wait, the less money goes to the production company.
That said I only thought it was a good movie. I thought that a lot of directorial opportunities were missed that could have made the series as a whole a lot stronger. i.e. the revelation later that Leia is Luke's sister is no longer a surprise. Chewbacca knowig Yoda is too convinient, especially in the fact that later he appears to know nothing about the jedi and thinks that Han Solo is only helping because he is a love sick fool.
The were some great emotional moment for me and I actually enjoyed the fact that Lucas avoided the temptation to end the happily. (though not sure how this could have been achieved). Contrary to opinion earlier the intercut lightsaber battle I thought I was one of the best scenes, after anakins initial descent into darkness.
I would recommend seeing it for the closure it provides, and also because nothing can be the cinema atmosphere.
Just wanted to weigh in and say how glad I am that I stuck to my principles and did NOT see it in the theatres after the first 2 proved to be so awful. This one, IMHO, was right in line. The dialogue wasn't just bad, it was painful. I neither felt nor believed Vader's transformation. I had no clear sense of passage of time. The ending didn't make sense from what I knew of the original series. (Leigha said she knew her mother when she was little...so what's up with the death in childbirth?) And without my husband editorializing from what he knew about the books, I think I would have understood very little of what happened at all. The effects were there. (Come on, it's commonplace anymore...don't tell me that's really why we go to a theatre?) Yoda kicked a little butt again.
Anyway, just thought I'd share my opinions now that they are based in more than mere suspision.
That said, I found Revenge of the Sith better than the first two.
The poster that commented on the dialogue in 4-6 should watch the films again, the banter and dialogue and CHEMISTRY between Ford, Hammil and Fisher was so far beyond 1-3 as to be laughable.
Also did anyone else feel that Revenge would have been much better had it ended when Vaders mask is put into place and you hear James Earl Jones breathing. Had the film ended there I would have felt a much stronger emotional attachment, instead it rambles on for another 15 minutes and completely wimpers to an ending. This is particularly aggravating since the material they cover is understood and seeing it on film is completely unnecesary.
We know Padme dies, we know Leia is taken by Bail, we know Luke is taken by Owen, we know that Vader thinks they are dead.
We did not need to see it on film.
Lucas fumbled the ball with these films so badly that I wish there was a legal recourse for him ruining the franchise and have his rights to direct any future SW projects revoked!
quote:
Also did anyone else feel that Revenge would have been much better had it ended when Vaders mask is put into place and you hear James Earl Jones breathing.
I thought it would have been better if it had ended just after the "Long ago in a galaxy far, far away..." reel.
All in all, I thought the first movie was the only one of the three that even merited an "Ok, worth seeing once" rating. I know people will disagree with me, but I didn't find Jar Jar to be nearly as bad as everyone else. Further, the first movie presented us with a hero we could love and root for, someone whose destiny, good or bad, would matter. I wanted to see how that little boy could turn into Darth Vader, and at the end of that movie I thought I would get to see osmething like that.
I did not. By the beginning of the second movie we had already lost our hero to teenage angst and the influence of Senator what's hi name who becomes the Emperor. There was no moment, no turning point and I think that, more than anything else, was why I did not see the third movie in the theatres. Worse than the awful dialogue, worse than the god awful romance, and worse than Jar Jar was the fact that the story I wanted to see in the prequels was never shown and scarcely told. My husband commentated from what he knew of the books and that alone gave me any idea of where Vader really came from.
I felt cheated. I now have it in the back of my mind to try to tell the story myself. Well, not THIS story. Star Wars universe is trademarked and the deed is done. Neverthless, I was thinking about telling a real story of a good person, a hero, who for believable reasons turns to evil. Could be fun. For now, it's file under "to do."
I think the prequel trilogy could tell as much story with only visuals, physical acting, and a good score. The plot really isn't complicated enough to require spoken words, and we wouldn't be distracted by the horrid writing.
But seriously, I think it would be hard to tell the hero's story and end the tale in a satisfactory way in a single novel. It seems to me the readers might hate an author for ending the story with the hero turning bad.
On the other hand, the idea lends itself to a pretty good two or three part series, in my opinion. The end of the first book would likely make readers want to read a second at least.
Anywho, I'd say skip episode 3. The acting was brutal, and Lucas is the worst writer ever.