Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="damiller" data-source="post: 8656151" data-attributes="member: 10995">I think that the acting has been bad in all BUT the sequels.Harrison Ford has been quoted saying, " 'George! You can type this sh*t, but you sure can't say it!"And George has said that the Original Trilogy was an homage to the pulps (particularly Flash Gordon) of the 1930s/40s. The dialogue and characterization in those is stilted, is thin, is wooden. Its just what they did. And it amazing how well he implemented that kind of dialogue and characterization in the OT.BUT out of step with what movies had become - which is why I think it was popular.The prequels.From what I can tell in reading about it and listening to interviews with George he was trying to make a greek tragedy. In the mode of a greek tragedy. From the little I know the acting in those was almost literally wooden because the actors had masks with faces on them. The main component of characterization: the music. Multiple times George stated he wanted the prequels to be Tone Poems. And if you listen to the music from the Prequels it rivals, as far as I am concerned, any of the other trilogies.BUT out of step with what movies had become - I think you can dislike it because it isn't a good movie, but it is one HELL of a greek tragedy - in the greek tragedy form of delivery.I also enjoy the Sequels. But they are modern movies. The acting is better than any of the other trilogies, and if not the acting at least the characterization. The music is good as well. The pacing is in step with modern movie.I dont think this means anyone has to like any of the trilogies. But I do for those reasons, and I marvel that a director was able to capture SO well both the pulps of the 1930s and greek tragedies. The technical genius to do so astounds me. And I watch them for that achievement, not because they are good movies.</blockquote>

Verification