Star Wars: The Complete Saga (1977-2005)

[chrisron]

Originally Posted by starwarsagent

AOTC was a great scifi film. I loved the coruscant chase, the arena batle, the geonosis battle, the dooku vs Yoda scene..it was an incredible movie. Or do you think clash of the titans was a better movie?

I don't get it. What does Clash of the Titans have to do with this discussion?

Originally Posted by starwarsagent

People didn't like the Shakespearian style of acting in AOTC because people are uneducated today..they do not like manners and respect. Anakin and Padme relationship is taken out from shakespear and the 50s style of acting...it's not natural or realistic...it's supposed to be stylish...I didn't have a problem with it.

People who do not like that type of acting are morons and I would advice them to take a classical acting class.

I love classic movies and acting and you might be right that it was what Lucas was trying to do, but that doesn't nessesarily mean that he did it very well. His dialogue isn't exactly Shakespear.

And to call people morons right after talking about manners and respect...

[Rinzler]

For completion's sake and because the CG Clone Wars is on BD I would like Tartakovsky's Clone Wars on Blu.

[P@t_Mtl]

While I did enjoy the original Clone Wars series, I don't think I will upgrade them to Blu-ray, I will just keep my DVD. The new series is far superior and I only watched the original twice in the last 9 years, it won't be worth it for me to upgrade them.

[s2mikey]

Originally Posted by partridge

The thing with the prequels is that you have a large number of A list actors who all jumped at the chance to be in a Star Wars movie; but how come nearly all of them came out badly?

The best acting in the prequels is Liam Neeson in ep1 and Ian McDiarmid in all three. Otherwise every single top notch actor somehow managed to NOT deliver their role in a convincing way, that has to be down to the script and the directing. Sam Jackson was fine, but not at his best. The bizarre thing is I remember Lucas saying that with digital filming he could extract the actors from a scene and pick their best performance; so if Ewan was good in a scene where Liam wasn't; it didn't matter because he could remove that Liam performance and cut in a better one to create a seamless "take" of their best scenes. Nice idea, so how did that not translate to the final product?

I don't hate these films, but they are not as good as they should/could have been.

I think the big mistake with the prequels was to film so much of it as CGI; even today I bet those films would be shot using more physical sets. It was an experiment that didn't quite come off; in the HD showings I've seen on tv the prequels have dated worse than the originals because the effects look fake, particularly the backgrounds. I hope this is something that's been addressed for the blu-ray release.

I'm buying the complete set and have to agree that the package art is awful. What were they thinking? Thankfully only the spine will show. Unless they release a collectors edition.

Yeah - there are some good names in there but other than McDiarmid, its hard to call any performance really "good". In fairness, as Ive said before, I dont think they had a ton to work with. However, Jackson especially came across as wooden and at times Neeson did too which isnt like them. Im used to Jackson overacting if anything.

Portman and Christiansen did OK but the love-scene dialog was pretty cheesey. They just didnt talk or sound like young people falling in love would sound. It "seemed" like they were acting. IMO, the best films are when characters and their action s are believable and feel "real" as in "thats how it would have gone down if this were a true story" or something like that.

[Bluyoda]

Originally Posted by starwarsagent

AOTC was a great scifi film. I loved the coruscant chase, the arena batle, the geonosis battle, the dooku vs Yoda scene..it was an incredible movie. Or do you think clash of the titans was a better movie?

People didn't like the Shakespearian style of acting in AOTC because people are uneducated today..they do not like manners and respect. Anakin and Padme relationship is taken out from shakespear and the 50s style of acting...it's not natural or realistic...it's supposed to be stylish...I didn't have a problem with it.

Spot on, my friend. I LOVE AOTC!
I understand the criticism on the music though. At time it did feel edited together too much. Hopefully they did something about it, but I doubt it.

Originally Posted by blugojira

Ben Burtts commentaries are the dullest thing ever.

From AOTC bashing on to Ben Burtt shredding! Can't we do discuss sth. constructive for a change?

How did the Stormtroopers manage to pee again?

September can't come soon enough!
This thread exploded like crazy about 3 covers a few days back. Imagine what it will be like when we actually get to see and hear the movies, along with the bonus content!

[NYorker]

I think I'm going to wait on this...wait until it comes out and see if the bonus content is really that worthwhile. If not - I'll just go with the OT.

[starwarsagent]

Originally Posted by Jay444

This is like having a Tarantino sequence in a Michael Bay film. The two just don't work together. Shakespear and Star Wars....um...no.

I see your point, but the style in which those scenes were done only hightened that they do not fit at all with the other 5 films in the series making them odd and uncomfortable. What these scenes ulitmately achieved were showcasing just how bad Lucas is at dialogue and directing anything that is not a blue/green screen. I see where you want to go with this, but the truth of the matter is it failed and a good editor (as has been discussed arleady) would have edited the hell out of that trainwreck. Even better, a good producer (with balls, and that means someone other than McCallum) would have asked George to maybe consider a reshoot/rewrite. The scenes did not work.

I've taken like 3 acting courses...we did shakespear and there was nothing on the stage...just a black background and one chair...the actors who sucked at acting to nothing were probably not very good actors on stage. noticed that? good actors can act to nothing..Lucas thought that challenging the actors, acting to nothing would make them better..but obviously, hayden is not a stage actor or probably has ever done shakespear.

Ian is a stage actor and he did great acting to nothing as he did everyday in his plays.

Lucas failed to see that these actors weren't ready to step back to method old style classical acting. But I think it kinda worked in the end.

[BouCoupDinkyDau]

Originally Posted by Jay444

This is like having a Tarantino sequence in a Michael Bay film. The two just don't work together. Shakespear and Star Wars....um...no.

Exactly. That whole "purposed acting style" BS is just a lame defense. Poor script + poor direction = poor results. Period.

[starwarsagent]

Originally Posted by partridge

have been.

I think the big mistake with the prequels was to film so much of it as CGI; even today I bet those films would be shot using more physical sets. It was an experiment that didn't quite come off; in the HD showings I've seen on tv the prequels have dated worse than the originals because the effects look fake, particularly the backgrounds. I hope this is something that's been addressed for the blu-ray release.

.

what are you talking about? 80% of the films were shot in real sets...watch the making of. TPM had tons and tons of real sets...AOTC the entire movie was shot on set. I watched the film on hyperspace cam as they shot it. these sets were huge and built in australia fox studios...

the entire Mos Eisley was built to scale in tunisia and they even shot on location in AOTC...

there were more sets built for the PT than other films...even LOTRs had no sets at all.

[starwarsagent]

Originally Posted by BouCoupDinkyDau

Exactly. That whole "purposed acting style" BS is just a lame defense. Poor script + poor direction = poor results. Period.

Did you ever read the scripts? there were great...the problem came when trying to take the script from print to screen. Poor direction? Nope. Lucas directed them very well...it was the actors that didn't listen and put in their own ideas..they pushed it. I actually love Jake Lloyd's acting..very simple and childlike...like a real kid would act.


Poor results? prove it..the movies were a success and seen by millions of people...

[42041]

Originally Posted by starwarsagent

like a real kid would act.

Does that make for good cinema? I don't like how real kids act.

[starwarsagent]

Originally Posted by 42041

Does that make for good cinema? I don't like how real kids act.

Thats why you fail.


An alien walking frog would act like Jar Jar and a 10 year old would act annoying...I know my GF has a kid that age..annoying as hell. Makes good stuff.

[Moviefan2k4]

OK, here's my two cents on "Episode II"...

First, I'll openly admit that I like the film. In fact, I'd personally place it right next to "Revenge of the Sith", in terms of overall quality. The story has so many elements to it (mystery, action, suspense, romance, etc.), and I often find myself almost totally immersed in it. When I'm watching this movie (or any of the "Star Wars" saga, for that matter), I'm not psycho-analyzing every detail; I'm paying attention to the characters, and letting the story unfold on its own. In all seriousness, I think a lot of people put way too much analysis into this. On the whole, "Star Wars" is meant to be a reflection of an older, more stylized form of storytelling. It doesn't adhere to the "norms" of present-day culture, and its not supposed to.

[BouCoupDinkyDau]

Originally Posted by starwarsagent

the problem came when trying to take the script from print to screen. Poor direction? Nope. Lucas directed them very well...it was the actors that didn't listen and put in their own ideas..they pushed it.

Whatever you say, man. Dozens of people all came off wooden and delivered some of the worst lines I have ever had the displeasure of sitting through because they were all rebelling against their director.

Dude, my daughter has been in film and acting for the past two years (and is loving Shakespeare), and even she thinks the prequels are a travesty.

[dcowboy7]

Im not watching sw for the acting....can watch some snorefest like the english patient for that (even elaine from seinfeld couldnt stand it).

I watch sw to see things blownup.

[BouCoupDinkyDau]

Originally Posted by dcowboy7

Im not watching sw for the acting....can watch some snorefest like the english patient for that (even elaine from seinfeld couldnt stand it).

I watch sw to see things blowup.

Now that at least is an honest opinion I can respect!

[P@t_Mtl]

Originally Posted by dcowboy7

Im not watching sw for the acting....can watch some snorefest like the english patient for that (even elaine from seinfeld couldnt stand it).

I watch sw to see things blownup.

Originally Posted by BouCoupDinkyDau

Now that at least is an honest opinion I can respect!

It's one of the reason I find all this in depth look at these 6 movies to be funny. All 6 movies are not classic in the real sense, nothing deep, not major acting, no profound revelation, they are just darn fun to watch.

[Maggot]

Even though I will get the complete saga, the problems I have with the three prequels are:

1. Lucas's directing is wooden and sterile.

2. Natalie Portman's and Hayden Christensen's acting is wooden and sterile.

3. Way too much reliance on CGI.

4. All three prequels come off wooden and sterile compared to the original three.

5. Hayden Christensen......One of the worst actors I have ever had the misfortune of watching and absolutely the worst choice to play Vader.

[starwarsagent]

I respect the actor...and when I met Jake Lloyd I told him this...they make it look easy...its not...Jake was a natural in episode 1. the acting is very important in the prequels...the drama, the passion, the way ewan portrays alec guiness is amazing..the acting in the prequels in underlooked...only because of Portman...I love her to death, but she acts like a 8 year old girl. She needs more emotion in her acting..and this is in all her acting roles, not just star wars.. I think she took the role of queen too seriously and she looked very nervous and scared playing the role. I think by rots she felt more comfortable playing a queen.

[Elandyll]

Originally Posted by P@t_Mtl

It's one of the reason I find all this in depth look at these 6 movies to be funny. All 6 movies are not classic in the real sense, nothing deep, not major acting, no profound revelation, they are just darn fun to watch.

Except that for all the crap he's gotten across the years, I always found Mark Hamill to have brought a very welcomed gravitas and character dev across all 3 original films. Carrie Fischer was constantly playing pissed off (this part was taken over by Christensen in the prequel), and Ford was constantly snarky-joking at stuff (imo Ewan McGregor was a mix of Solo and Skywalker, part gravitas part snarkiness).
In many scenes Hamill showed melancholy, longing and worry (having his eyes toward the future rather than "where he is", as was said), and overall I think that made the orig. trilogy better (along with terrific space battles and stuff blowing up, of course).
Well, that, and the general lack (save the Ewoks and a burp by the Sarlacc) of completely stupid and /or dull characters (Jar Jar, but also the federation of merchants, child Anakin, teenage Anakin ... etc.), and stupid/ dull/ awkward situations (leaving your mother as a slave, being a 9 year old in a pod race, being a 9 year old in a star fighter taking on the empire .. oops, I mean the federation, "forbidden" love between a jedi and a princess that belongs in a Twilight movie etc. etc.)