Star Wars: The Complete Saga (1977-2005)

[drobswim13]

Originally Posted by s2mikey

Well, money does talk per say but it doesnt always equate to film quality. Transformers 2 made a billion bucks but I think we can agree on how suspect that film is! I even liked the first one.

To me, films that endure for generation after generation and reach new audiences along with catering to the original fans are what really "talk".

I think you mean "per se"

[STARKILLER--1138]

Originally Posted by OG Pooh

You brought up BO numbers, not me. Like it or not, that allows Avatar (and any other movie that has made even $1) into the conversation. Besides, how much money something has made seems to be the basis of your position.

Just curious, what do you think is the best Star Wars film?

You're right, I did. And, I only brought it up for ESB. Avatar has nothing to do with this so not sure why it is still being brought up. We are discussing ESB here. ESB had a following for what...17 years before the SE came out? Again, if it is "the best" of the series, and it has had all those years to establish a fan base, it would have done better than ANH in the BO instead of doing half. I think it is clear which is the "best" of the saga. Well, at least the OT anyway.

My favorite SW film, atm, would be ROTS. Although, I find my self drawn more to the Clone Wars and TFU stories. IMO, those are some of the best in SW period.

[STARKILLER--1138]

Originally Posted by drobswim13

Money may talk, but it shows no indication on if it was a great film. ESB is not my favorite, ROTJ is, but I think ESB is, by far, the best written.

And I take it you went and saw ESB originally and in '97?

[Bluyoda]

Originally Posted by Dynamo of Eternia

You must have pretty low standards on what constitutes a good performance.

Whatever. I don't care what other people think. Hayden was the perfect Anakin Skywalker for me.

Originally Posted by drobswim13

I didn't realize a completely emotion-less performance is considered "not bad". I really think that you guys are not giving any credit to Hamill. His performance was not worthy of an Oscar nom, but at least I could believe that he was sad when he was, happy when he was, and longing for something more when he was. All Hayden did was read his lines.

I will give you, however, that the emotional scenes between Harrison and Carrie aren't all that good. That is mostly because of Carrie, not Ford. But I will not say that I was emotionally impacted on anything I saw from Hayden and Natalie. Natalie Portman is a great actress, but the scenes between the two of them are so stiff. It is actually painful to watch because the dialogue isn't too bad, but the delivery is just off.

Admit it! You haven't even seen the PT.

Originally Posted by OG Pooh

You brought up BO numbers, not me. Like it or not, that allows Avatar (and any other movie that has made even $1) into the conversation. Besides, how much money something has made seems to be the basis of your position.

What I'm saying is that BO numbers do not make a film a great film. There have been a lot of films that were absolute trash that did well. A lot of how well a picture does is in direct correlation to what it's up against. Put a fair movie out at a time when everything else is pure garbage, and guess what? A fair film ends up with three weeks at number one, while a truly great film may do nothing because it's up against an Avatar. Again, when the films were rereleased, the public DID turn out for Empire. So much so that it was the only one of the three that was held over an additional week. To be fair, during the original releases, A New Hope was a complete, world-wide phenomenon. None of the sequels (or many films at all) have come close to A New Hope, Actually only one (E.T.) has come anywhere near close, and it's over $200,000,000 behind. In fact, adjusted for inflation, NO film has beaten ANH since it was released. To take it even a step further, the only films that are ahead of Empire (since ANH's release in 1977) are E.T., Titanic and (just barely) Avatar. That's right, ESB is the 5th highest grossing film since 1977 (adjusted for inflation), bar none. It's ahead of Return of the Jedi, Phantom Menace, Jurassic Park, Raiders of the Lost Ark, Forrest Gump, Close Encounters, The Dark Knight... Hell, it's 18 spots above Return of the King. So don't tell me there was no support for Empire. ANH has simply been an untouchable juggernaut.

Again, BO numbers mean nothing. Take Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest, which is universally considered the worst of the three films. It made the most money at the BO, ranking over 20 spots ahead of Black Pearl and over 40 positions above At World's End. I guess that means Dead Man's Chest is the best Pirates of the Caribbean movie, while the other two are bullshit running a marathon, huh?

Just curious, what do you think is the best Star Wars film?

Agree with you there. BO numbers say very little about the quality of a film.

[octagon]

Originally Posted by STARKILLER--1138

My favorite SW film, atm, would be ROTS.

Which one is the best?

[motorheadache95]

Originally Posted by STARKILLER--1138

No offense, but are you telling me that Lucas hired a man (Kersh) to do a job, and the man wouldn't do what "the boss" wanted him to do, but "the boss" kept him on anyway? No doubt when you hire someone to do a job, they do the job the way you want it done. Pure conjecture unless you can provide a source.

Well, he hired Kershner to make the movie, which he did. But he didn't have as much control on the project. Lucas has been quoted that Empire is the "worst" film of the series. He also didn't like that Kershner used Harrison's "I know" line at the end, because it wasn't in the script. I don't feel like sourcing this stuff but you can look it all up. It's there. I'm not saying he had a bad relationship with the guy or the two were confrontational, but Kershner definitely did his own thing and made the movie he wanted to make. Empire is far and away the film with the least personal influence and control from Lucas himself.

[OG Pooh]

Originally Posted by STARKILLER--1138

You're right, I did. And, I only brought it up for ESB. Avatar has nothing to do with this so not sure why it is still being brought up. We are discussing ESB here. ESB had a following for what...17 years before the SE came out? Again, if it is "the best" of the series, and it has had all those years to establish a fan base, it would have done better than ANH in the BO instead of doing half. I think it is clear which is the "best" of the saga. Well, at least the OT anyway.

My favorite SW film, atm, would be ROTS. Although, I find my self drawn more to the Clone Wars and TFU stories. IMO, those are some of the best in SW period.

BO numbers and Avatar are being brought up because they are part of a larger issue that you brought up, yet fail to see. You also fail to see things in perspective of the bigger picture. You say that whatever does the best at the box office is the better film. Yet you seem to think this only applies to ANH vs ESB. Above, you say it's clear that ANH is the best because it did the best at the BO... Then you go on to say that it's the best "at least" of the OT, anyway. Well, considering it's made more money than any movie since it released over 30 years ago, that makes it the best movie of the last 30+ years, not simply of the OT (by your reasoning).

What you can't seem to grasp is that how much something makes does not equate with how good or bad it may or may not be, especially in relation to something else. That's why I mentioned Avatar, which by your reasoning is the greatest motion picture ever made (not counting inflation). If you want to count inflation, it would be Gone with the Wind (all-time). If you want to cite BO numbers as being the absolute bottom-line as to how good a film is, then you need to allow BO numbers & what it brings into the discussion or you need to STFU about BO numbers.

And I didn't ask what your favorite Star Wars film is, I asked you which one you think is the best.

[octagon]

Originally Posted by Bluyoda

Whatever. I don't care what other people think. Hayden was the perfect Anakin Skywalker for me.

There was a post a few pages back that suggested his trainwreck of a performance in RotS was due more to writing and direction than poor acting and the more I think about it the more I'm starting to agree.

He's a terrible actor but his AotC Anakin was pretty dead on (in much the same way a similarly talent-challenged Mark Hamill was well-positioned to pull off a similarly whiney, immature character).

Jimmy Smits, Samuel L Jackson and Natalie Portman also make a pretty strong case for writing/directing as a culprit in RotS. None of them are exactly hacks but they all had simply painful deliveries at times.

[drobswim13]

Originally Posted by octagon

There was a post a few pages back that suggested his trainwreck of a performance in RotS was due more to writing and direction than poor acting and the more I think about it the more I'm starting to agree.

He's a terrible actor but his AotC Anakin was pretty dead on (in much the same way a similarly talent-challenged Mark Hamill was well-positioned to pull off a similarly whiney, immature character).

Jimmy Smits, Samuel L Jackson and Natalie Portman also make a pretty strong case for writing/directing as a culprit in RotS. None of them are exactly hacks but they all had simply painful deliveries at times.

If what motorheadache was saying about Lucas giving the actors very little control with their characters, then I would have to agree with you here (somewhat) and retract one of my previous posts. You can make a movie scene work very well, even with terrible dialogue. You cannot, however, make a great scene with terrible dialogue if the director pretty much spouts how it should be said.

Overall, I think the performances by Hayden and Natalie were horrid (but that may not completely be their fault if Lucas told them how to say their lines)

This brings up an entire debate on creative control of characters, but I will leave that for another time

[PrivatePixel]

Originally Posted by octagon

There was a post a few pages back that suggested his trainwreck of a performance in RotS was due more to writing and direction than poor acting and the more I think about it the more I'm starting to agree.

Jimmy Smits, Samuel L Jackson and Natalie Portman also make a pretty strong case for writing/directing as a culprit in RotS. None of them are exactly hacks but they all had simply painful deliveries at times.

I'm inclined to agree. The efforts of a strong cast can be (and was) wasted on the prequel trilogy, as a result of poorly-written screenplays and ineffective directing, duties that Lucas assumed. Regardless of the actor's calibre (and these three are very good), they can't perform miracles with hokey dialogue and withered directing, which are what we received in all three prequel installments.

I haven't seen enough of Hayden's work as an actor (beyond the SW prequels) to determine if he was suitably cast for the role of Anakin. To say that I wasn't taken by his performances in any of the SW films would be a gross understatement.

[Silo5]

***Call me when this thread actually has useful information about the BD release. Whenever I see this thread updated, I keep checking to see if something worthwhile is actually posted here. I guess the "PT/Special Edition sucks" debate is still going on.***

[drobswim13]

Originally Posted by Silo5

***Call me when this thread actually has useful information about the BD release. Whenever I see this thread updated, I keep checking to see if something worthwhile is actually posted here. I guess the "PT/Special Edition sucks" debate is still going on.***

Fall of 11, that's all you need to know. Check back next quarter

[OG Pooh]

Originally Posted by Silo5

***Call me when this thread actually has useful information about the BD release. Whenever I see this thread updated, I keep checking to see if something worthwhile is actually posted here. I guess the "PT/Special Edition sucks" debate is still going on.***

You should know that anything Star Wars will take on a life of it's own.

[Downhere]

I wonder if Lucas will decide to release these in 3D, especially with the 3D craze and all which I'm sure will increase as we get closer to the release of these on Blu-ray.

[STARKILLER--1138]

Originally Posted by OG Pooh

BO numbers and Avatar are being brought up because they are part of a larger issue that you brought up, yet fail to see. You also fail to see things in perspective of the bigger picture. You say that whatever does the best at the box office is the better film. Yet you seem to think this only applies to ANH vs ESB. Above, you say it's clear that ANH is the best because it did the best at the BO... Then you go on to say that it's the best "at least" of the OT, anyway. Well, considering it's made more money than any movie since it released over 30 years ago, that makes it the best movie of the last 30+ years, not simply of the OT (by your reasoning).

What you can't seem to grasp is that how much something makes does not equate with how good or bad it may or may not be, especially in relation to something else. That's why I mentioned Avatar, which by your reasoning is the greatest motion picture ever made (not counting inflation). If you want to count inflation, it would be Gone with the Wind (all-time). If you want to cite BO numbers as being the absolute bottom-line as to how good a film is, then you need to allow BO numbers & what it brings into the discussion or you need to STFU about BO numbers.

LOL! No need to get hostile kid just because when the fans had a choice to vote with their wallets, they voted for ANH. If you think ESB is the best thing since slice bread, more power to you. The numbers don't lie though.

[OG Pooh]

Originally Posted by STARKILLER--1138

LOL! No need to get hostile kid just because when the fans had a choice to vote with their wallets, they voted for ANH. If you think ESB is the best thing since slice bread, more power to you. The numbers don't lie though.

I'm not getting hostile. If you want to believe that BO numbers are the deciding factor as to the quality of a film, you just keep thinking that. I guess you wait until a film has made every single penny it's ever going to before you decide if it was good or not, huh? There's no discussing this with you because you simply don't (or can't) see that the point you're trying to drive home is a losing argument, even if you manage to win it.

I never said ESB was the best thing since sliced anything. I simply said it's the best of the six Star Wars films. Come to think of it, you avoided that question, didn't you? It doesn't matter, since I already know your answer... A New Hope, because it made the most money. Any other answer and you're full of shyte.

And by the way, don't call me kid, I'm 45 years old. Thanks.

[drobswim13]

Originally Posted by STARKILLER--1138

LOL! No need to get hostile kid just because when the fans had a choice to vote with their wallets, they voted for ANH. If you think ESB is the best thing since slice bread, more power to you. The numbers don't lie though.

I think you are missing the point that Star Wars (ANH), in itself, was a cultural phenomenon. When it originally came out, nothing had really been like it. Of course there were other sci-fi movies, but this was a literal space opera, and it appealed to the masses. So of course ANH would have the highest BO gross out of any of the 6, because each sequel was a continuation of something that was already established as great. ESB was not a "cultural phenom" because it was a sequel. Something that changes the face of cinema is going to have an amazing BO gross if it appeals to the masses. Its successors, even if they are better, will not have the same effect.

[OG Pooh]

Originally Posted by drobswim13

I think you are missing the point that Star Wars (ANH), in itself, was a cultural phenomenon. When it originally came out, nothing had really been like it. Of course there were other sci-fi movies, but this was a literal space opera, and it appealed to the masses. So of course ANH would have the highest BO gross out of any of the 6, because each sequel was a continuation of something that was already established as great. ESB was not a "cultural phenom" because it was a sequel. Something that changes the face of cinema is going to have an amazing BO gross if it appeals to the masses. Its successors, even if they are better, will not have the same effect.

I've already touched on this with him. He completely ignored it, so I went no further. Starkiller suffers from severe tunnel-vision.

Maybe he's G.L. in disguise, and he's just mad that the film he had the least to do with ended up the most well executed of the saga?

[drobswim13]

Originally Posted by OG Pooh

Maybe he's G.L. in disguise, and he's just mad that the film he had the least to do with ended up the most well executed of the saga?

This could be true. Never thought of that possibility

[STARKILLER--1138]

Poor OGPooh. Don't get out of the basement much do ya.

Originally Posted by drobswim13

I think you are missing the point that Star Wars (ANH), in itself, was a cultural phenomenon.

Right, and ESB wasn't. Another gold star for ANH.