Will anyone stand up to George Lucas?

[buzzard]

To me, Ewan MacGregor, Natalie Portman, Hayden Christensen, and even Sam L. Jackson don't have either the acting ability or the comfort level in their characters that Harrison Ford and Carrie Fisher did; of the cast, maybe MacGregor does the best job; Jackson has done some awesome roles in the past, but he just doesn't look comfortable in his role.

OK maybe I will debate the points.

Actually McGregor, Jackson and Portman are great actors. It is a combination of insipid dialog and (what I assume must be) bad direction which is leaving them wooden. McGregor manages to come across as OK, but I suspect he manages to bull through on raw talent.

But let's be honest here. It's all well and good to excuse the movies as "for kids", but so are the Harry Potter films, and they are worlds better than the new SW stuff. Just because it's for kids doesn't mean the acting and dialog have to be horrible.

Though a lot of people are busting on the plots, and honestly the plots of the current ones are about the only thing (besides the eye candy) that I can stand. There are some interesting twists and turns present. I just can't put up with the pain of how it is presented.

buzzard

 

[The Hanged Man]

I will say this: N*Sync was not great music, but it wasn't terrible, either. From an objective standpoint, it has enough quality to be popular. Note I never said the two prequels were "best," only that they aren't this terrible cess-pit that so many detractors make them out to be: They are, in fact, entertaining - to me, to millions of people worldwide, and MOST entertaining to their target audience - kids. Does it have a ton of storyline? No, but then neither did the earlier trilogy. All we have are what secondary authors have built up over the years to give meaning to those throwaway lines from the original trilogy, and the fans were blessed with some pretty good authors to carry the torch from the late 1980's till now.

To me, Ewan MacGregor, Natalie Portman, Hayden Christensen, and even Sam L. Jackson don't have either the acting ability or the comfort level in their characters that Harrison Ford and Carrie Fisher did; of the cast, maybe MacGregor does the best job; Jackson has done some awesome roles in the past, but he just doesn't look comfortable in his role.

But there's a difference between N*Sync (something that was meant to be, always was, and never will be more than, mediocre), and SW (something that was and could be great). I agree with your general point that the prequels are by no stretch of the imagination D&D, The Movie. On the other hand, if Godfather II had Bozo the Clown taking over for Robert Duvall, and the little people from the Wizard of Oz instead of gangsters in Las Vegas, the movie might be OK on an absolute level, but you'd still be left the feeling that it's actually crap compared to both Godfather I and what it could be. That's my problem with the Prequels.

As for MacGregor, et al - Hayden Christensen is of course laughable, but the rest are talented, acclaimed actors easily the equal of the SW cast. If they are uncomfortable with their roles, it's only bc of the cheesy lines, ridiculous situations, and ludicrous plots they need to keep up with.

The blame is solely with Lucas. He may be fulfilling his artistic impulse, but it's a crappy one.

 

[barsoomcore]

George Lucas can do whatever he wants, of course.

He's not a very good director of movies. He is a worse writer of movies. He is not in any way a storyteller.

He does have two great talents: a keen business sense that I don't think anyone else in the industry can match ("Merchandising? What's that?"), and a understanding of how technology impacts film creation, and the ability to stay on that bleeding edge of technical innovation (motion-control cameras, travelling mattes, multi-channel sound, all sorts of good stuff) -- AND show off that innovation in clear and ocassionally exciting ways.

He got lucky with Star Wars. It's one of those films where everything came together at the right moment in history. And then he stepped back and gave Empire to a talented team and let them look after it. And since then?

It's his money -- he can spend it how he likes. And people go to see the movies, sure, but I'm not convinced that means they're good. People go to see movies for all sorts of reasons other than the fact that the movie in question is good. We go to Star Wars movies because traditionally they have showed us things no other movies would show us. I don't find that to be true anymore, but the realisation has been a long time coming. I saw the first two films of the new trilogy with a great deal of hope, and was disappointed both times. The third one, well, if the trailers are good and the critical response is good then I'll definitely see it -- otherwise frankly I may pass.

It's like what's happened to Bond films. Used to be, Bond films were the only films like Bond films. With crazy stunts and beautiful girls and exotic locations and expensive gear all over the place -- but now tons of people make films like that, and the Bond films are suffering in comparision -- a Bond film is just another action film nowadays. And a Star Wars film has become just another special effects film.

 

[Flexor the Mighty!]

I had fun watching both prequals and I have a good idea I'll have a great time watching Episode 3. I'm glad George brought the Star Wars universe to the screen and I'm glad he's doing the first three flicks. Thank you George Lucas for this grand adventure.

 

[Bass Puppet]

Two things:

First...

He does have two great talents: a keen business sense that I don't think anyone else in the industry can match ("Merchandising? What's that?"), and a understanding of how technology impacts film creation, and the ability to stay on that bleeding edge of technical innovation (motion-control cameras, travelling mattes, multi-channel sound, all sorts of good stuff) -- AND show off that innovation in clear and ocassionally exciting ways.

You mentioned 3 talents, not two.

Secondly....

George Lucas can do whatever he wants, of course.

He's not a very good director of movies. He is a worse writer of movies. He is not in any way a storyteller.

He does have two great talents: a keen business sense that I don't think anyone else in the industry can match ("Merchandising? What's that?"), and a understanding of how technology impacts film creation, and the ability to stay on that bleeding edge of technical innovation (motion-control cameras, travelling mattes, multi-channel sound, all sorts of good stuff) -- AND show off that innovation in clear and ocassionally exciting ways.

He got lucky with Star Wars. It's one of those films where everything came together at the right moment in history. And then he stepped back and gave Empire to a talented team and let them look after it. And since then?

It's his money -- he can spend it how he likes. And people go to see the movies, sure, but I'm not convinced that means they're good. People go to see movies for all sorts of reasons other than the fact that the movie in question is good. We go to Star Wars movies because traditionally they have showed us things no other movies would show us. I don't find that to be true anymore, but the realisation has been a long time coming. I saw the first two films of the new trilogy with a great deal of hope, and was disappointed both times. The third one, well, if the trailers are good and the critical response is good then I'll definitely see it -- otherwise frankly I may pass.

It's like what's happened to Bond films. Used to be, Bond films were the only films like Bond films. With crazy stunts and beautiful girls and exotic locations and expensive gear all over the place -- but now tons of people make films like that, and the Bond films are suffering in comparision -- a Bond film is just another action film nowadays. And a Star Wars film has become just another special effects film.

I've couldn't have said it better.

 

[Ranger REG]

To me, Ewan MacGregor, Natalie Portman, Hayden Christensen, and even Sam L. Jackson don't have either the acting ability or the comfort level in their characters that Harrison Ford and Carrie Fisher did; of the cast, maybe MacGregor does the best job; Jackson has done some awesome roles in the past, but he just doesn't look comfortable in his role.

Hmm. I can't helped but be skeptical of the above statement. I don't know if starting actors Harrison Ford (who previously did GL-directed film "American Graffiti") and young Carrie Fisher (first film-starring role) were comfortable making the original Trilogy. They both looked a little stiff and nervous in the first film, and just about get into their groove with the exception of their romantic scenes in the second, but by the third film, they're in there relaxing and having fun.

As for Samuel L. Jackson's discomfort, I think he's too "fan" excited to be in the Star Wars films that he hopes for a chance to do more actions like he did in Attack of the Clone. He doesn't play a reserved character that well. Given the chance, he probably would prefer the Qui-Gon Jinn role.

 

[Welverin]

But now SW is just so...mediocre. The story has fallen so, so far below the special effects, and even those were overshadowed by The Matrix in 1999

Well, maybe.

and The Two Towers in 2002.

Absolutely not. At best tTT is on equal footing fx wise with Ep2, but it's not better.

Is it always "big earnings = it must be good"? Is 'NSync the best music then, because it's most sold?

You're missing the real point, if they were as bad as so many people love to say they are they never would have made so much money. If they were they would have had big opening weekends and had huge drop offs, they didn't. So the fact they made so much money doesn’t mean they’re good, but it does imply they’re no where near as bad as is frequently stated.

 

[Vocenoctum]

Absolutely not. At best tTT is on equal footing fx wise with Ep2, but it's not better.

There are a few things I didn't like about TT, but Ep2 had some horrible stuff. Robots didn't even match the backgrounds and other awfulness. A few people have commented that Helms Deep is orders of magnitude better than the Clone invasion.

Still just opinions ofc.

 

[Krieg]

I can't argue that it isn't his movie to do what he wills with. I certainly can avoid pitching any more money into that black hole of trash.

Amen

 

[Storm Raven]

On the other hand, because of the above, he didn't rack up any directing experience since he did The Empire Strikes Back up until The Phantom Menace.

Lucas didn't direct Empire Strikes Back. That was Irvin Kershner. He didn't write it either, those credits go to Leigh Brackett and Lawrence Kasdan.