Star Wars Discussion Thread

3,663,946 Views | 34555 Replies | Last: 15 hrs ago by TrustTheAwesomeness
YouBet
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
TCTTS said:

Yes, it was beyond obvious. But actually hearing it from Ridley herself - especially after Kennedy said that Palpatine was part of the plan all along - carries a lot more weight, and kind of officially stamps it with the "Disaster" label many had been giving it. It's the confirmation we never had, for seven years, straight from the source. That, and we didn't know the particulars. Actually hearing the different iterations it went through, along with the indecisiveness, is pretty sobering.
Doesn't this kind of put KK in a precarious position now? Maybe not and no one cares but damn what a cluster.
TrustTheAwesomeness
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
TCTTS said:

Yes, it was beyond obvious. But actually hearing it from Ridley herself - especially after Kennedy said that Palpatine was part of the plan all along...
Agree. At least in the Prequels, George had a plan. A horrible plan, but he stuck with it.
TCTTS
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Yeah, at this point, I don't think anyone above her cares enough about something like this. Especially with The Mandalorian being such a sensation. That show has been her saving grace. I could be wrong, and maybe there's a plan to replace her before the new batch of movies start up again, but who knows.
Ulrich
How long do you want to ignore this user?
TV Casualty said:

Ulrich said:

Brian Earl Spilner said:



Can't say I disagree...

I feel like I just watched a puppy find out that Santa Claus isn't real. Poor guy.


I'm confused as to how this is some sort of revelation to people. It was obvious after the last jedi that they had no idea of a story arc for the trilogy. Even after the force awakens there were clues pointing to them not having a clear plan.

How anyone could have watched TLJ and the rise of Skywalker and still thought they had any plan for these three movies was just being delusional.

Pretty much. I decided that KK was a disaster and they were winging it early enough that I was probably being premature, but nothing has happened to change my mind. It was like JJ and RJ were fighting over the plot and themes of the trilogy right on screen, plus all the firings and rewritings for creative differences in the saga and stories.

But if you are bought in so much that you can ignore all that and believe the company line (I deleted a bunch of specific things because this was nearing 1,000 words), it's going to be that much more upsetting because not only were you wrong, you were lied to by people you trusted and you probably defended those people... for years... against cynical jerks like me who you now fear are going to dance in the rain of your sweet sweet tears.
MuckRaker96
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Or you just like the movies because they are about Star Wars.
Cinco Ranch Aggie
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
MuckRaker96 said:

Or you just like the movies because they are about Star Wars.
I have been under the impression that simply liking these movies is against the rules, or something ... I mean, look at that back-stabbing "praise" for the prequels just a few posts above.

One may not like the delivery of the prequels, but GL had a coherent storyline that he followed through to its natural conclusion. The sequels started off pretty good despite being a safe, almost carbon copy of Star Wars (ep IV), but from then on, it was clear they had no freaking idea what they wanted to do with those movies. I put a lot of the blame for that on Rian Johnson, but even more so on Kennedy and JJ Abrams. I find it telling that of all of the Star Wars movies, the ones I rarely find any desire to watch again are the entire sequel trilogy.
Ulrich
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I'll put TFA on from time to time. I'll probably rewatch TRoS if it comes on tv. No intention of watching TLJ again.
MuckRaker96
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Cinco Ranch Aggie said:

MuckRaker96 said:

Or you just like the movies because they are about Star Wars.
I have been under the impression that simply liking these movies is against the rules, or something ... I mean, look at that back-stabbing "praise" for the prequels just a few posts above.

One may not like the delivery of the prequels, but GL had a coherent storyline that he followed through to its natural conclusion. The sequels started off pretty good despite being a safe, almost carbon copy of Star Wars (ep IV), but from then on, it was clear they had no freaking idea what they wanted to do with those movies. I put a lot of the blame for that on Rian Johnson, but even more so on Kennedy and JJ Abrams. I find it telling that of all of the Star Wars movies, the ones I rarely find any desire to watch again are the entire sequel trilogy.


Its cool, I gave up trying to argue my opinions of star wars last December. I love all of them unabashedly and I like the sequels way more than the prequels. In 1983 I was happy with the 3, now there are 11, a crazy good tv show, 2 Incredible cartoon series and a theme park that I've been to on both coasts. I totally get why people get frustrated, I'm just not one of them.
YouBet
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
MuckRaker96 said:

Cinco Ranch Aggie said:

MuckRaker96 said:

Or you just like the movies because they are about Star Wars.
I have been under the impression that simply liking these movies is against the rules, or something ... I mean, look at that back-stabbing "praise" for the prequels just a few posts above.

One may not like the delivery of the prequels, but GL had a coherent storyline that he followed through to its natural conclusion. The sequels started off pretty good despite being a safe, almost carbon copy of Star Wars (ep IV), but from then on, it was clear they had no freaking idea what they wanted to do with those movies. I put a lot of the blame for that on Rian Johnson, but even more so on Kennedy and JJ Abrams. I find it telling that of all of the Star Wars movies, the ones I rarely find any desire to watch again are the entire sequel trilogy.


Its cool, I gave up trying to argue my opinions of star wars last December. I love all of them unabashedly and I like the sequels way more than the prequels. In 1983 I was happy with the 3, now there are 11, a crazy good tv show, 2 Incredible cartoon series and a theme park that I've been to on both coasts. I totally get why people get frustrated, I'm just not one of them.
Rich.
Decay
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
We all agree the prequels aged well, right? Nostalgia, coherent plot now that we know all the story beats, Ewan McGregor and Ian McDiarmid, John Williams' score, the quaint but mostly effective VFX, pod racing, and some whack ass aliens.

I enjoy them now more than I ever did.
double aught
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I wish I could, but I can't agree with that. The effects were even frustrating at the time. Soo much CGI. A ridiculous amount. There was hardly anything real in the movies. The stories weren't that good. The acting and dialogue were really bad.

They're bad movies, especially AOTC. It was just boring, which is maybe the worst thing I could say about a movie.

There are some highlights though, to be sure:
Maul
John Williams
Palpatine
TCTTS
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I've said it before and I'll say it again...

The Prequels = good story told with bad filmmaking

The Sequels = bad story told with good filmmaking
TXAG 05
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Can a turd age well? Nostalgia for the prequels? No.

Pod wasn't wizard then and isn't wizard now.

I want to say the sequels are better than the prequels, but I'm not sure.
Decay
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
That's why I started with nostalgia, it fixes most of those actual issues. In my mind I find it endearing. But yeah the acting is mostly garbage.
Ulrich
How long do you want to ignore this user?
TCTTS said:

I've said it before and I'll say it again...

The Prequels = good story told with bad filmmaking

The Sequels = bad story told with good filmmaking

Ding ding.

The sad thing about the prequels is that they could have been great; the sad thing about the sequels is that they never had a chance to be great.

They've all got redeeming qualities. But: in the early 00s Lucas got too wrapped up in the promise of cgi that wasn't quite there yet and neglected to utilize great actors and a very good underlying story. In the late 10s Disney trusted tactical maneuvering and demographic targeting, but missed the step where you write an outline for your billion dollar story.
Ulrich
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Hot take: in 20 years, a Rise of Skywalker director's cut will be considered a good standalone movie.
MuckRaker96
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
YouBet said:

MuckRaker96 said:

Cinco Ranch Aggie said:

MuckRaker96 said:

Or you just like the movies because they are about Star Wars.
I have been under the impression that simply liking these movies is against the rules, or something ... I mean, look at that back-stabbing "praise" for the prequels just a few posts above.

One may not like the delivery of the prequels, but GL had a coherent storyline that he followed through to its natural conclusion. The sequels started off pretty good despite being a safe, almost carbon copy of Star Wars (ep IV), but from then on, it was clear they had no freaking idea what they wanted to do with those movies. I put a lot of the blame for that on Rian Johnson, but even more so on Kennedy and JJ Abrams. I find it telling that of all of the Star Wars movies, the ones I rarely find any desire to watch again are the entire sequel trilogy.


Its cool, I gave up trying to argue my opinions of star wars last December. I love all of them unabashedly and I like the sequels way more than the prequels. In 1983 I was happy with the 3, now there are 11, a crazy good tv show, 2 Incredible cartoon series and a theme park that I've been to on both coasts. I totally get why people get frustrated, I'm just not one of them.
Rich.
Ha, far from it, but when you have 8 year old twins who were born so premature that the doctor said they had a 5% chance of survival before they were born, you spoil the **** out of them.
double aught
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Outstanding.
Saul Goodman
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
This is accurate.

Although in the prequel v sequel discussion, if I had to sit down and choose either of those trilogies to watch, 8 times out of 10 it would be the sequels. I'm able to see past a weak story easier than bad filmmaking. Not sure what that says about me, but that's how I feel.
TCTTS
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Honestly, same. Save for chunks of TPM, the prequels simply don't feel like movies to me. In terms of the writing, performances, vibe, look, etc, IMO, they're on the level of a children's cartoon, with human "actors" inserted into weird, intangible environments that are half computer generated nonsense, half stage play. I'm literally incapable of watching them and processing or gleaning any kind of drama, excitement, or appreciation. They're just these strange, wooden, and wacky pieces of hybrid content that ultimately just come across as nothingness to me.

But as immensely frustrating as the sequels are, they at least *feel* cinematic. They feature great performances, great cinematography, high energy, far less CGI, etc. Again, the sequel story as a whole sucks, but when you're watching just about any individual scene in the sequel trilogy, free of context, in the moment, you'd swear you were watching a fun, competent, exciting blockbuster. And as empty as the experience ultimately is, I'd take it over of the child's play of the prequels any day.
TCTTS
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG

dave94
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I get what you're saying, but I do think that there are moments in all three of the prequels that feel very cinematic and have emotion and depth and spots of good acting and all of that. The music is definitely solid throughout which helps immensely, but there is a lot of good stuff there too.

I'll never say that they are good movies front to back, but I do enjoy them still and they do feel like Star Wars to me.
TCTTS
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I'll give you the music angle for sure. The prequel scores are fantastic. And sure, in addition to TPM, ROTS has a couple of genuinely good cinematic moments. But I honestly can't think of a single redeemable thing about AOTC, save for Across the Stars and a couple of Natalie Portman's wardrobe choices. But, as a whole, I legitimately believe that the prequels feature some of the worst writing, and worst performances, I've seen in *any* movies outside of porn and straight-to-video schlock.
C@LAg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Ulrich said:

Hot take: in 20 years, a Rise of Skywalker director's cut will be considered a good standalone movie.
you cannot polish a turd.
AggieDub14 is formerly wmartin2014
C@LAg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
re: the prequels mean a LOT more to me , thanks to the Clone Wars series. The fact the Clone Wars series was able to have (mostly) coherent plots, good characters and characterizations, great music, some fantastic visuals, and weave in and out of the greater narrative making it actually make sense elevated the prequel movies from how I used to view them.

Yes, the movies are still gunk, but there is SO MUCH additional content and context around them that their incompetent, rough, ridiculous edges have been easily rounded and made easier to digest (and tolerate).

The sequel trilogy has no such thing. The books, comics and cartoons tie-ins have all been mostly meh. and so much of it is disjointed and not interconnected. And now Disney is kind of abandoning them as their books, comics, etc are pivoting to The High Republic.

In reality, the sequel trilogy just... exists out on its own. And I have no interest in ever revisiting them or their world.
AggieDub14 is formerly wmartin2014
dave94
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
TCTTS said:

I'll give you the music angle for sure. The prequel scores are fantastic. And sure, in addition to TPM, ROTS has a couple of genuinely good cinematic moments. But I honestly can't think of a single redeemable thing about AOTC, save for Across the Stars and a couple of Natalie Portman's wardrobe choices. But, as a whole, I legitimately believe that the prequels feature some of the worst writing, and worst performances, I've seen in *any* movies outside of porn and straight-to-video schlock.


The entire Obi-wan v. Jango sequence, from Kamino to the asteroid belt is really great. I think that's a universally liked part. And there is truly more than that to like, although I'm definitely not an AOTC apologist.
YouBet
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
C@LAg said:

re: the prequels mean a LOT more to me , thanks to the Clone Wars series. The fact the Clone Wars series was able to have (mostly) coherent plots, good characters and characterizations, great music, some fantastic visuals, and weave in and out of the greater narrative making it actually make sense elevated the prequel movies from how I used to view them.

Yes, the movies are still gunk, but there is SO MUCH additional content and context around them that their incompetent, rough, ridiculous edges have been easily rounded and made easier to digest (and tolerate).

The sequel trilogy has no such thing. The books, comics and cartoons tie-ins have all been mostly meh. and so much of it is disjointed and not interconnected. And now Disney is kind of abandoning them as their books, comics, etc are pivoting to The High Republic.

In reality, the sequel trilogy just... exists out on its own. And I have no interest in ever revisiting them or their world.


I don't know that they mean more to me, but I would say The Clone Wars has justified those movies.....if that's the right word. TCW is just fantastic in many spots and arcs. Definitely some filler crap in their too but overall great.

Ironically, the best thing about the post OT period has been Thrawn who was originally memory holed to Legends. However, he is so popular and the actual best thing they had post OT they had to re-canonize him.
Ag Since 83
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
TCTTS said:



I don't know, it sounds like an interesting show, but you know eventually they'd do the "ripped from the headlines" thing and have an arc where Exegol deals with a pandemic and the theater has to try and survive with minimal attendance and everyone yells at each other about whether or not to wear Vader masks. It would just get depressing
Cinco Ranch Aggie
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
dave94 said:

TCTTS said:

I'll give you the music angle for sure. The prequel scores are fantastic. And sure, in addition to TPM, ROTS has a couple of genuinely good cinematic moments. But I honestly can't think of a single redeemable thing about AOTC, save for Across the Stars and a couple of Natalie Portman's wardrobe choices. But, as a whole, I legitimately believe that the prequels feature some of the worst writing, and worst performances, I've seen in *any* movies outside of porn and straight-to-video schlock.


The entire Obi-wan v. Jango sequence, from Kamino to the asteroid belt is really great. I think that's a universally liked part. And there is truly more than that to like, although I'm definitely not an AOTC apologist.
Back in late 2002 and into 2003, when I would go into the local Best Buy, they had a promo using portions of the bolded sequence to try to sell home theater equipment. The sound effects in that sequence were awesome.

There's plenty to like in AOTC. Compared to the other entries of the original 6 movies, it is the worst because something has to be worst. Bad filmmaking? Okay, if you folks actively involved in filmmaking say so. To those of us who are not and just simply love Star Wars, I'm not bothered by any of that. I mean, I am one who believes that the old movie, King Kong Versus Godzilla, is a rollicking great time in front of a TV screen, and yeah, I know it's hokey, poorly made, and all of that, but I still enjoy the hell out of it.

As for AOTC, we got our first good look at the bowels of Coruscant, as well as a wider Blade Runner like view of the city, in the early part of the movie when Obi Wan/Anakin chase down the shape-shifting assassin. The battle of Geonosis was also a high point in the movie, starting with the attempted execution in the arena and culminating with the Yoda-Dooku duel. It also gave us this fantastic sequence near the end of the film:


Ag Since 83
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Cinco Ranch Aggie said:


There's plenty to like in AOTC. Compared to the other entries of the original 6 movies, it is the worst because something has to be worst. Bad filmmaking? Okay, if you folks actively involved in filmmaking say so. To those of us who are not and just simply love Star Wars, I'm not bothered by any of that.

I'm not actively involved in filmmaking. I love Star Wars.

AOTC is horrible filmmaking

And the bolded part makes it sound like it's on the same level as ESB and ANH but you have to get picky and rank them. That's laughable
Cinco Ranch Aggie
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Ag Since 83 said:

Cinco Ranch Aggie said:


There's plenty to like in AOTC. Compared to the other entries of the original 6 movies, it is the worst because something has to be worst. Bad filmmaking? Okay, if you folks actively involved in filmmaking say so. To those of us who are not and just simply love Star Wars, I'm not bothered by any of that.

I'm not actively involved in filmmaking. I love Star Wars.

AOTC is horrible filmmaking

And the bolded part makes it sound like it's on the same level as ESB and ANH but you have to get picky and rank them. That's laughable
And you get picky and crap on some of them. It's laughable to rank the individual movies? Or laughable that you believe I stated that AOTC is on the same level as TESB or ANH? Newsflash for you, I never suggested any such thing.
Duncan Idaho
How long do you want to ignore this user?
"original 6 movies"

Da fuq?
Ag Since 83
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
You said it's last only because one has to come last, which implies it's good and it isn't significantly poorer than the others.
Cinco Ranch Aggie
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Duncan Idaho said:

"original 6 movies"

Da fuq?
Since they added the episode IV subtitle to the first Star Wars movie in 1978, or was it 1979, I've always considered those first three movies, no matter how many years it took before they were finally made, to be part of Lucas' original story. Perhaps I should have just said "something had to be worst for the first 6 movies".
MuckRaker96
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I really dig Obi-Wan's plot in AOTC. He's a detective doing work; it's as close as we get to a "day in the life" of a Jedi out trying to do right in the world. The problem is that by splitting him way from Anakin/Padme you leave them isolated in terms of having a true lead actor helping them through scenes.

Jake Lloyd isn't a good actor, but he had Liam Neeson in almost every scene he was in. That makes you better by default.

AOTC has no Neeson, Palpatine gets just 1 scene with Anakin (and it's awesome), and Christopher Lee doesn't come into the movie until 1-1/2 hours and he gets what maybe 1 scene with Anakin? (the fight) which is also awesome. I know Natalie Portman is a good actress, and I really liked Hayden in the Glass movie he did (can't remember the real title) later in his career, but those two are a struggle together. Wish they had left in the deleted scenes of Padme going to visit her family and taken out Anakin surfing on the giant cow/tick abomination. That deleted scene gives you some quality supporting actors who draw out better performances from Hayden and Natalie separate.
First Page Last Page
Page 973 of 988
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.