Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Darrin Drader" data-source="post: 1307532" data-attributes="member: 7394">Good point. I make it a habit not to take the words of a critic with even the smallest grain of salt -- at least not until I'm familiar with his or her MO. This applies to film, book, and RPG critics. Often, just based on what I already know about a critic's likes and dislikes, I can pretty accurately guess what their comments will be before reading the review. Quite a bit of the time my guesses are right.Anyway, back on topic, I'm not defending the relevance of certain scenes or the wooden and dead-pan acting, but I do think the prequels are good for bringing the universe to life to a degree that the classics were unable to. I think that a large part of the problem with the prequels is that George was focusing way too much on the special effects and not enough on the acting. He was less interested in telling an interesting story than he was wanting to blow us away with the most over the top special effects extravaganza ever committed to film. I think he succeeded in one regard while failing in the other.I agree that maybe things could have been better if he would have delegated some of his responsibilities to people that could better focus on them, and I think that his approach to post-production directing is a failed experiment.</blockquote>