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.

Well, so far I'm still thinking no, but I appreciate the honesty.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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!!

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.

http://www.hatrack.com/revengeofthesith.shtml

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.

quote:

---

Star Wars was orginally a Samurai movie.

---

That'll be this one:

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

An organic canoli is simply a canoli made with organic ingredients. My husband and I have enjoyed such unlikely confections before.

My wife insists on organic everything. We even have organic baked beans in our cupboard.

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.

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?

Well, I am crazy. I was beginning to think I was just plain nuts!

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.

Just got back from seeing it, Christine.

Verdict: Wait for the DVD. The effects are cool. The story, a bit weak -- as expected.