Star Wars: The Complete Saga (1977-2005)

[Blu-21]

So overall would it be fair to say that AOTC is now the most hated Star Wars flick to date?

[wvuwhat]

Originally Posted by chip75

It's not just Star Wars, everything is either great or it sucks.

It's the internet mentality. You've got to take a side with everything nowadays.

Honestly, I've not seen any Star Wars movie in its' entirety. If all 6 movies were able to be found for around 50 bucks I'd probably watch them.

[snake1971]

I don't hate any of them. I just like them all and I find it more fun to watch them all regularly than lose sleep picking them apart. I'm sure I'll also like Episode VII too.

[Elvis]

Originally Posted by Blu-21

So overall would it be fair to say that AOTC is now the most hated Star Wars flick to date?

It's not a Star Wars flick but in name only! It's a cheap knockoff of Blade Runner and dare I even say The Fifth Element. Having said that I do like lots of elements of The Phantom Menace. Sorry just the King's opinion.

[BillieCassin]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Ack, stop it with that Lucas-esque "But it's ALL fake, what does it matter?" bullshit. The miniatures in II are badly photographed (they couldn't get the right lighting and depth of field with the new digital cameras) and they're laden with so much goofy CG that they're simply not believeable, they look terrible.

What's pretty funny is that Lucas himself, although he doesn't necessarily agree with it, has since stated that he does "get it". He's come a long way from the pithy dismissal on the 2004 commentaries. And I see why it doesn't matter to him, the films entirely look "unreal" to him because he is intimately aware of how every element turns into the end result to an almost unbelievable degree. He's never "watched" his own films in the way that we do (he has outright said he is "jealous" of us because he can't enjoy his own films the way we do).

It actually makes perfect sense, though. Our brains have very complex systems for processing images, and have a lot of built-in BS detectors. A rubber mask or a miniature is a real, physical object. Our brains can detect the difference between that and a computer generated image on a very base level. Intellectually we know there are three guys smushed up inside of Jabba running him, but we also know that everything in the film is constructed to some degree. But he does not set off those "BS" detectors on such a subconscious level.

For whatever reason, we are able to suspend that when we watch the films - Jabba is "real". However, once you start mingling unreal objects/beings with real ones, subconsciously for many it just feels like something is "off" because on one of the base levels of perception, we automatically know the object doesn't exist before we even get to the more intellectual part of how it's made and suspending that or not.

[Vlad Draculi]

Originally Posted by Blu-21

So overall would it be fair to say that AOTC is now the most hated Star Wars flick to date?

God no. The worst is TPM. The only issue with AotC is the lack of character development and the horrible horrible dialog from Anakin and Padme.

[Agent Bond]

So overall would it be fair to say that AOTC is now the most hated Star Wars flick to date?

TPM by default due to Jar Jar.

[octagon]

Originally Posted by Blu-21

So overall would it be fair to say that AOTC is now the most hated Star Wars flick to date?

That's a tough one. There might be a growing consensus that AOTC is weaker overall than TPM but TPM still gets people's blood boiling where AOTC just gets their eyes rolling.

[Lyle_JP]

Originally Posted by octagon

That's a tough one. There might be a growing consensus that AOTC is weaker overall than TPM but TPM still gets people's blood boiling where AOTC just gets their eyes rolling.

I find that TPM is only awful for a few specific (but glaring) reasons, whereas AOTC is just generally awful.

[PeterTHX]

Originally Posted by Blu-21

So overall would it be fair to say that AOTC is now the most hated Star Wars flick to date?

It gave us this...

[Bluyoda]

Originally Posted by Elvis

It's not a Star Wars flick but in name only! It's a cheap knockoff of Blade Runner and dare I even say The Fifth Element. Having said that I do like lots of elements of The Phantom Menace. Sorry just the King's opinion.

Your opinion is pure truth. AOTC is NOT SW at all.
It has nothing to do with SW whatsoever.
Even Sharknado is a billion times better than that pile of steaming cow dung.
I am so glad you are here to confirm what I have suspected for a long time.
Thank you very much indeed.

Speaking of which:
I was in Italy last week, and just "happened" to pop by this dreaded place:

[Show spoiler]_MG_3766 copy supersmall.jpg

Needless to say, I nearly threw up.

[StingingVelvet]

Originally Posted by BillieCassin

It actually makes perfect sense, though. Our brains have very complex systems for processing images, and have a lot of built-in BS detectors. A rubber mask or a miniature is a real, physical object. Our brains can detect the difference between that and a computer generated image on a very base level. Intellectually we know there are three guys smushed up inside of Jabba running him, but we also know that everything in the film is constructed to some degree. But he does not set off those "BS" detectors on such a subconscious level.

For whatever reason, we are able to suspend that when we watch the films - Jabba is "real". However, once you start mingling unreal objects/beings with real ones, subconsciously for many it just feels like something is "off" because on one of the base levels of perception, we automatically know the object doesn't exist before we even get to the more intellectual part of how it's made and suspending that or not.

That's all VERY true for me. Hit the nail on the head.

However I'm not so sure it's true in general. People seem to love CGI now-a-days and think nothing of films being filled to the brim with it. For all the complaints Star Wars, The Hobbit, Planet of the Apes and other series get for their abundance of CGI the movies still do amazingly well at the box office. I don't think the abundance of CGI is going anywhere, sadly.

It's a shame more filmmakers don't know how to balance practical and CGI effects together into a cohesive whole like, for example, Christopher Nolan does. Way too often CGI is used either when a practical effect would be easy and less obviously fake (like smoke or blood) or when the CGI just doesn't hold up to scrutiny (like a close-up of an alien's face).

[PeterTHX]

Originally Posted by StingingVelvet

It's a shame more filmmakers don't know how to balance practical and CGI effects together into a cohesive whole like, for example, Christopher Nolan does. Way too often CGI is used either when a practical effect would be easy and less obviously fake (like smoke or blood) or when the CGI just doesn't hold up to scrutiny (like a close-up of an alien's face).

Depends on the CG, depends on the "alien". Davy Jones had numerous closeups and still looks real. Makeup & rubber wouldn't do the character justice.




Grevious looked great throughout Sith.

[Cook]

I prefer AOTC to TPM. That damn awkward love subplot is the only part of AOTC I loath. The rest of the film I'm pretty fond of.

[octagon]

Originally Posted by PeterTHX

It gave us this...

And this...



I just took an ambien so I'm willing to say it's a wash.

But it really isn't.

[Blu-21]

Portman from the PT and Fisher from the OT make one hell of a mother-daughter combo that's for sure.

[Spooked]

Originally Posted by StingingVelvet

That's all VERY true for me. Hit the nail on the head.

However I'm not so sure it's true in general. People seem to love CGI now-a-days and think nothing of films being filled to the brim with it. For all the complaints Star Wars, The Hobbit, Planet of the Apes and other series get for their abundance of CGI the movies still do amazingly well at the box office. I don't think the abundance of CGI is going anywhere, sadly.

And I wonder how much of this is pandering / catering to the overseas market? I feel like I need to take anti-nausea pills before seeing a movie in theaters anymore.

[bongozoid]

Originally Posted by PeterTHX

Depends on the CG, depends on the "alien". Davy Jones had numerous closeups and still looks real. Makeup & rubber wouldn't do the character justice.




Grevious looked great throughout Sith.

I don't care how good he looked - his character name is so lazy I can't take him seriously.

[octagon]

Originally Posted by bongozoid

I don't care how good he looked - his character name is so lazy I can't take him seriously.

Is Grevious really any lazier than Skywalker or Solo?

On-the-nose character names are nothing new in fiction particularly not in these kinds of adventure stories.

[HeavyHitter]

Originally Posted by PeterTHX

Grevious looked great throughout Sith.

Agreed, they did a great job with that.