Currently Online 
DivinePaladin said:
You're not serious if you're trying to say that Ewan MacGregor's performances weren't solid at the very least. He was the perfect fit for Obi Wan, and IMO he brought out many of the scenes he was in. Christiansen did suck the life out of a lot of scenes but he did do the Sith transition pretty well. Well, when he was silent and angry. Anakin could've been cast better, nobody's gonna argue that, but the supporting cast as a whole was fairly solid, even if some episode villains were a bit underused/underrepresented. But then, we had little of the heroes in the OT, so that sort of thematically ties in, so I can accept that.
Charm doesn't make up for movies being bad, for the record. The OT was badly written and saved only by better casting and a simpler era. Let's remember that most of the quotable lines from the OT came from an actor known for going off-script. Need I go into the whole surprise second death star cop-out, or the "oh, we killed the Emperor and won one battle, we beat the Empire!" crap that's currently canon because the EU was removed, or the Ewoks (in some peoples' eyes - I personally defend the Ewoks), or the hilarious Bespin table scene, or Vader's last minute change of heart after about two decades of being evil because plot, et alia? Feel free to defend them, but that doesn't make them good plot points.
I will admit I stretched a tad when I said "the ONLY difference," because that's a bit too generalized. But both trilogies are pretty damn bad and I love them both for that. If your rose-glasses make you disagree, join the club.
Edit: But it could be worse. The Empire could've split in half after VI and the emperor's clone runs one half and then random Sith betrayals and Luke goes Sith for like a month trying to save somebody from having gone Sith...I could go on but that's just a TOTAL mess. |
Vader turning to back to the good side rather than murder his own son is not a weak plot point. It's called DRA-MA, that old little thing that's been a staple of good storytelling from the beginning to stage and then to screen. Something Episode I and II severely lack in and Episode III only gets a chance to ramp up for the final 30-40 minutes.
Ewan McGregor is a good actor. So is Natalie Portman. So is Sam Jackson. The problem isn't the actors (poor Jake Lloyd and Ahmed Best still get crapped on). They have *nothing* to work with in any of three scripts. McGregor gets a lot chance to at least break an acting sweat towards the end of Episode III, but Portman ... that "Anakin you're breaking my heart" had me laughing out loud in the theater.
The prequels chief sin is that they lose many of the elements that made the OT great. The CHARACTERS, those characters could carry scenes without needing the crutch of a lightsaber fight to make anything memorable. The OT had terrific lessons and zen-like wisdom in a pop-wrapping, but that made them resonate -- "size matters not, judge me by my size do you?". "Feel don't think". What do the prequels have? Jar-Jar in bantha poo-doo? Only a Sith deals in absolutes?
These are relatable to the average movie goer, not just sci-fi nerds who are interested in the universe. They are human lessons. That's gone in the prequels. The fun banter between the characters? Pretty much gone from the prequels. The romance? OH GAWD. If I have to listen to Anakin and Padme talk for another 30 seconds, I would've strangled someone. "I love you. I know". Sorely missing from the prequels.
The prequels are great ... if the only thing about Star Wars that you like are lightsaber battles. Even the villians. Count Dooku? Boooooooring. Jango Fett? Cheesy and how is he supposed to realistically fight a Jedi anyway? General Greivious? A cartoon character. Darth Maul? Had potential, unfortunately George felt that Jar-Jar should have 10x more screen time and then killed Darth Maul off for no great reason.
