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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Berandor" data-source="post: 2112420" data-attributes="member: 225">At the risk of jumping on the bandwagon, this argument really  goes around in circles. I'll try and deliver my point of view which, if not terribly different, will at least be phrased differently <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f600.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":D" title="Big grin    :D"  data-smilie="8"data-shortname=":D" />I've seen Episode I and II. Episode I had some (to me) obvious flaws with regards to storytelling and character development. These flaws were pointed out by several people, and had to be Lucas' because of his high degree of control over the movie. Episode II had, to me, the very same flaws Episode I had, which shows me that Lucas is either not aware of his flaws or simply wasn't interested in making a better movie. If he was, he'd tried to enlist people that could help him with his flaws, help him get better, take a "drawing-hands coach", so to speak. So he's either not aware of his flaws or doesn't care about making flawed movies. I'd rather he was simply oblivious.And the rest of the movie-going public didn't continue to go out and see it. Episode I was a HUGE hit also because of fans who went to see it several times (heck even I, who thought it pretty much sucked, saw it two or three times in the theatre, just to have seen it with my friends). Also, it *is* still a colorful and loud popcorn film much in the vein of Charlie's Angels in terms of quality. And Charlie's Angels is a bad film. Still, a lot of "spectacle movies" have an audience, and, coupled with fans and those driven by perceived cultural importance of the film went to see it. From the box office, you can see that Episode II, though most people call it superior to the first, had a huge drop in audience gross. Not as many non-fans went to see it, and even fans stopped going in as often as they saw Episode I in their Star-Wars-hungry state back then. Again, it was a summer spectacle movie, as well, but judging from audience response and taking into account fan base, the change from Episode I, to me, signals failure instead of success. The movie didn't even come close to its potential gross.You should also keep in mind that for twenty years, people were slavering for a new film. That's not the four years for a new Matrix movie. By the time Episode I came out, people would have gone and watched a flying turd several times in the theatre (and for my part, they did).I'm sorry, but I disagree. A lot of independent films have to make do with very bad set design, or costume design, or similar. Still, these films can and do work. It's not that it isn't important, but it's no where near as important as having able/charismatic (one or the other, both'd be best) actors, good directing, scriptwriting, editing (!). Heck, even as a fan of cinematography, I readily agree that a lot of enjoyable movies have mediocre or worse cinematography, especially in fight scenes.On the other hand, if your director is a klutz, your story sucks, or your actors don't know a way out, you've got only very, very sim chances to save the film. Case in point, to me, are the Star Wars Episodes I and II.Like Ewan McGregor who dissed Ep I and II, alike?There are two factors at work here. One is the fact that in press interviews, nobody in Hollywood (or 99.99999 percent) does *not* say anything negative about their work for a specific film until maybe twenty years later. Two, the animators, set designers, costume designers, etc. all *did* a magnificient job on the film. Where it lacks is in cohesion, storytelling and acting - the director's job (at least in part).Well, if he is, that he is listening to the wrong people, despite what they told him for Episode I. Realistically, though, we know how Lucas exerts control even over the two decades old original trilogy. We know how Lucas Arts confronts websites who post "spoilers". We know what people who worked on the OT have said about working with Lucas, and it seems his flaws have resurfaced in Episode I and II, while his strengths have been more subdued. We know he's taken a break of twenty years, and most people's skills don't improve by not using them.Is it really that improbably that Lucas is making his own decisions and doesn't listen to anybody (a tendency he had even during the filming of the OT), compared to his advisors making the misconceptions? I don't think so.It's like a murder case. We have no proof, but all evidence points in the direction of Lucas' failings.Let's not even go there. People work for Star Wars because they get paid, and probably handsomely. Maybe the like Star Wars, are even fans. Maybe the recognize the franchise's potential. But primarily, they get paid. People are still working for McG. People work for Joel Shumacher. Heck, people work for Uwe fricking Boll. And those working on Star Wars get paid better than working for Boll, I'm sure. Plus, it's a point of pride to be part of a cultural phenomenon. And SW *is* a cultural phenomenon. It is movie history. You keep saying that because Episodes I and II made a lot of money, Lucas must have done something right. Well, aside from set design and similar "categories", what was it?A lot of people have claimed that the character development, the storytelling, the acting was off. Do you agree, or disagree? Was the acting wooden, was the story jumbled and a letdown, did the movie lack in atmosphere?I personally think that movies *can* be judged somewhat objectively. You can judge cinematography, fight (or dance) choreography, acting etc. in objective terms. It's the "craft" part of filmmaking. To me, there's a different influence you cannot judge, which I call "it". Some movies have "it", and some don't. Also, people respond differently to "it", which makes for the divergence in movie taste (as well as a different standards of quality).Yes, I have seen movies that were crafted expertly, movies that I reviewed as "very good". I could appreciate their craftsmanship, but they still left me cold. "Wow, that was a great movie. I'll never watch it again." Similarly, there have been movies that were made very, very cheaply, and I still enjoyed them, loved them. "guilty pleasures" is a term often associated with such movies. ("The Gamers" would be one of these)You can't really argue with barsoomcore, since he doesn't like the movie and it's therefore bad, and if you, following his definition, like the film, it's good. It's easy, simple, and not subject to change (at least not easily). But you can show me where Lucas did well, did right, in storytelling aspects, where he followed a great master-plan that will lead us logically from whiney and lucky Anakin to fearsome Darth. You can convince me that Episode I and II were indeed, good films.Try it.</blockquote>

Verification