For people who disliked the Prequels, consider this:

You said "OT had used future and PT had shiny 50s future" - I point towards an example of shiny 50s future in OT.

(And then you told me since "this III set was to transition into IV where it was also a set", my picture wasn't a valid counterexample )

How hard is it for you to recognize when someone corrects an obvious mistake that you made? How hard is it for you to start reading a sentence, and then read it to the end, and comprehend what said sentence is saying? Bloody hell mate.

--- Double Post Merged, Jan 15, 2017, Original Post Date: Jan 15, 2017 ---

Yes, about half of environments in 4 were dirty and rusty.

I'm not confused now, and I wasn't confused before - you used the word "clean" to refer to "practical without aesthetical embellishments", even though everyone else uses it when talking about the used future concept which, in fact, was part of this thread.

I understood it the way one would've normally been expected to understand it - your failure to communicate properly is on you.

That was just a joke made by Harrison - and it's kind of contradicted by Lucas going out of his way to kill Padme off in the 3rd movie, when she was supposed to survive it according to continuity.

Also went ouf of his way to kill Yoda off even though he probably shouldn't have died at least this early - but I guess since ghost it doesn't count, right.

It was.

This was not.

RT calling below 60% rotten doesn't make it below 50%, pal - and when in doubt about this bullshite kind of system, there are other aggregator sites you know.

The fact that a few more moody colors on a sky is "crap" is non-debatable? What?

Except not okay, because you sound salty.

Referring to things that aren't crap, as crap, makes you a poor film critic.

^^Unfunny.

Except it does matter - you complained about the wide shot being "pointless update of a scene" when in fact it's entirely accounted for and even required by virtue of it being a sweeping closing shot, rather than an intimate character moment.

No, but your inability to differentiate between different and crap, is the problem here.

wat

So if the entire city was designed for a nonsense feature then the nonsense feature makes sense?

 

Maybe it’s my inferior intellect that’s preventing me from taking this mental journey with you on, what’s certainly, a well-reasoned argument that my feeble mind simply can’t comprehend.

The crux of my position is that the OT and PT have a distinct visual style, and that this distinction was made intentionally by George Lucas to give each an individual signature. I’m proposing that one is possibly more inspired directly by the creator’s early influences than the other.

I asserted that the OT had a motif more in line with the ‘used universe’ concept, which projects a ‘lived in’ aesthetic. Not every scene is indicative of this effect as not every scene necessitates it. The PT is also not entirely divorced of it either. However, in my observation, it implements it noticeably less.

You seem to have a very binary perception of things - typically viewing aspects as ‘one or the other’. I don’t personally feel the hallway scene in Ep3, meant to emulate the look of the Ep4 opener, is highly indicative of either style. It doesn’t look particularly ‘lived in’ or ‘neo-retro’ to me. Probably this is on account of my immense ineptitude though and hopefully you'll forgive my embarrassing limitations.

 

I don't have a binary perception of things - you phrased those things in a binary way; now you've cleared that up. (Of course, the "noticeably less", i.e. reduced percentage of used or dirty environments, is something I've been saying for several posts now.)

I don't know what exactly neo-retro is supposed to refer to, but in broad strokes it's obviously a typical "clean shiny futuristic" room design - so I'd say it's actually indicative of one of the "2".

 

This is getting less and less about the movies. I'll take the bait until it amuses me. But you're just such a boring and dull fanatic. At least some of your kind were funny enough to keep me involved in the "conversations". Your aspirations are just pathetic and painful to look at. Be careful not to choke on them...

Nice, so now that I clarified the definition, could you please return to the topic? Im not interessted in your biography...
And yeah, normally... As of "normally" to a fanatic with massive cognitive dissonance who dedicated his life to annoy others with false conjectures in a vain attempt to defend objectively crappy movies for no sane reason. And you do this incredible waste of effort and time for free! I'd really like to read a psychologist's diagnosis about you and this behavior in general. Maybe I'll read up the topic once I'll have a bit more free time. The science of fanatism...

Btw, try using teleological interpretation next time you struggle understanding what others are trying to say. Dont stuck to your own little world...

Everything in ANH had a perfect "Star Wars look". Neo-retro, grounded, practical, gritty, modest, dirty. This aesthetic visual style is what made the movie different from the other sci-fi flicks from the era ffs! This is what Lucas revolutionised back then when he was still George Lucas and not Geroge Soros...
On the other hand, every PT ship for instance has a marginally different and much more 50s futuristic design. Say whatever you want, but the Naboo Starfighter isnt how Star Wars looks. And its not just the design, they all look like they just rolled off the assembly line! Not a single scratch or even a faded paint, except when they get hit... Sure, one can argue that it was peace time, but I think space travel in general does result in amortization on a certain level. Well, at least I really doubt any ship would get off as nice as the Naboo Royal Ship after its marvelous adventures...

Its amazing how you lunatics try to bend the facts to support your ridiculous agenda. Although this is nothing new. To defend the undefendable you need to resort to this dirty tool. Its a well known fact that Lawrence Kasdan wanted to kill off the character (which he finally concluded three decades later). Since plans for a sequel were dropped, it made perfect sense for artists to be more experimental with the closure. Darth Lucas said a big no, and chose the good ol' happy ending to please his wallet... I mean to please the fans, ofc. Let me guess, the wookies were switched to teddy bears for the sake of creating avant- garde experimental character designs, right? Im not saying it was a bad decision, its just the ideology behind it, which bothers me.

You must be the Rosie O'Donell for humour then...

Why does it have to be below 50% to be considered a critical flop? Is there a cogent provision regarding that? Sorry, but I struggle to find this paragraph in the International Codex of Film Analysis. Am I looking in a repealed version?
The Rotten Tomatoes system is good enough. Oh, it dosent fit your agenda that way? Well 55% isnt exactly a marvel to behold either. Its not so far from that ominous 50%...

Nice, another one of your false conjectures. This "debate" is not about a single scene if you haven't noticed it...

Its more like a small gag to lighten the mood of this completely pointless "conversation". Forgive this whim to me, but since I've done this like a 100 times already with much smarter and less fanatic people than you, I have to make myself somewhat busy during typing. But thanks for the response, your opinion is noted.

Different in this regard means crap. These movies should look and feel the same, or at least similar. Everything vastly different distorts the amazing and unique look of Star Wars. Again, TFA and Rogue One managed to do it right. Why couldn't this crappy trilogy?!

That shot being wider than it should be, is not my main concern. Much rather the ideology behind changing something which never needed an "update". The minimalistic shot in ANH was perfect. Cramming the screen with CGI clouds and letting the color grade loose does not "update" an already perfect and iconic shot.

Different in this context does mean crap, buddy. See the above- mentioned.

Yes it does. Its fantasy, not an architectural seminar... Btw why is it a nonsense feature? Its a floating city, premises like that could make sense. Or at least it isnt as distracting as the over the top location right next to a hangar where the horned guy and the two uninteressted monks fought.
Btw arguments like this are pathetic. Just another misbegotten attempt at finger pointing in a vain effort to mitigate the infamy and filth...

 

IT SUCKS BECAUSE IT'S NOT LIKE IN THE BOOKS

It only does if you're a single-minded (i.e. "fanatical") purist who can't assess quality outside of fidelity to the source material.

So thanks for disqualifying yourself right away, eh

"Objectively crappy" = different from originals, as you've just revealed, though.

lol

Because... above 1/2 is still "positive leaning"?

50% would be half half, not "ominous". Below would start going in the "negative leaning" direction.

I'm not the one who's calling it a "marvel" - but you're the one who's calling it "objective crap", and now you're doing gymnastics to reconcile that with the mixed-average, positive leaning reception they actually got...

Think we've found the real fanatic here, haven't we.

It shouldn't be a "concern" for you at all - as it's not a concern objectively.

They'd be so much better if they were practical clouds.

The clouds are in the front, with clear sky closer to the horizon - but why regard or acknowledge visual storytelling that enhances the atmosphere according to the narrative, when you can just Vhlor about "sky crammed with clouds LOLOLOLO", right

I'm not sure to what extent it was supposed to be an "update" - the lush, fancy colors of Coruscant and the like seemed to be inspired by the look of Bespin, and possibly ESB in general which has a more colorful, exotic look to it than 4 or 6.

Ending this movie on that note would've seemed fitting after 2 hours of juicy Coruscant vistas and fire planet - but hey, you can complain about it I guess.

Just don't mind any "artistic factors" or anything of that nature - complain about the "stupid updating" and you'll do fine.

No, but your assessment of that single scene sucks - and your assessment of the other scenes sucks, too.

So I'm not really singling out this scene, I'm using it as a valid example actually.

I was talking about the evil looking, empirey hell level INSIDE that floating city, you genius.

You mean over the top in comparison to the giant gaping bottomless pit?

Both were "next to" a clean, lush nice looking city with rooms and hallways, and it didn't make sense in either - this point seems to be escaping you rather reliably, doesn't it.

What's an "uninteressted"?

No, lack of reading comprehension and constantly missing points is pathetic.

And you sound like a bible thumper, too.

Hhhhhhwhim.

Yea, just that your humor sucked.

No idea who that is - my joke was great.

Oh yea?

Undefendable = diffrent from book, rated above average.

Just like your mom?

Yea, but then he killed off Padme even though canon said she survived - that kinda flies in the face of "let Han live for toys and commercial success".

Another point that completely flew over your head.

Are you saying the Ewoks weren't a bad decision??

So what facts have I twisted again? Lawrence and Harrison and Gary wanted to kill Han for drama (and not because Harrison hated the character) - keeping him alive wasn't necessarily a bad decision, or unnatural from a storytelling perspective; and even if it was, your points that it was made "for the sake of toys" doesn't hold up.

Whereas my statement that it was a statement made by a humorous grumpy Ford and hence not necessarily reliable, does hold up.

wat

You mean understanding words in a common way, rather than the alternate meaning that you invented without telling anybody, means I do stuck in little world?

And you are a pretensious arrogant.

But 50% of those weren't "dirty and gritty", were they? You should really organize your thoughts better.

Seemed to be in the same ballpark as the bespin ships, but ok.

Wasn't the actual assembly line really gritty and oily, though?

The trick is to look at the WHOLE of the design, not just singling out the cleanest, shiniest ship in all 3 films and then compare it to the sandcrawler as you seem to be doing.

 

Plus, if the Clone Wars tech really was so much better, the Rebels and Empire would be scrambling all over each other trying to hoard that. As far as we see, that's not really too big of a deal to them.

 

A single destroyer droid would be way more valuable to me than a whole legion of Storm Troopers, but the Empire doesn’t seem to care at all. Probably too expensive. They have two moon sized space stations to finance after all. Best to scrap the battle droids and clones and just go with regular guys in armor that doesn’t seem to protect against much of anything. Gotta get this done on the cheap.

EDIT: There’s actual a fairly cool scene in ‘Lords Of The Sith’ that involves Ryloth rebels using reprogrammed vulture droids to attack a star destroyer. So, there’s that.

 

THIS!

 

could not have said it better my fellow jedi. LONG LIVE THE PREQUELS

 

I would normally respond to this with a long winded technical response the would somehow incorporate a sledgehammer...

But I'm not going to do that today. Instead, I'm just going to play a song about how I feel.

I haven't talked with anyone about this, but.. back in May of 2016 SWNN had an article celebrating the 17th anniversary of TPM.. and it hit me.. it hit me like a ton of bricks.. I had battling for 5 months straight this tsunami of mentality that "The Prequels are Original" because the overarching argument in Star Wars had flipped like a switch to one that was venerating the man who raped our childhoods. Then I saw that article.
What hit me was that an entire generation of Star Wars fans has now grown up under two trilogies. TFA problem is not that it copies from ANH.. it's that it has come too late to restore Star Wars to what it should be.
Times Up.

And.. you can see that in some of the comments about R1 throughout the interwebz. R1 did a lot of things the prequels did: worldbuilding focus, aliens playing key roles, big cgi space battles, lots of 'orignial' stuff. Yeah, sure, the fat@$$&$ in Milwaukee might not like it, but the IMDB user ratings are night and day compared to TFA.
It's like a light switch went off.

 

You're not making any sense at all!

 

What doesn't make sense about it? It's pretty simple stuff to understand.
Maybe some video will help

 

Yea but what's with the "too late"?

 

Rather bluntly.. We were too late to prevent the PT from becoming accepted as "what Star Wars should look like." TFA adhered exclusively to OT feel and approach.. and you witness this ginormous backlash on the internet..
Mainly because TFA didn't have this:

Or this:

Or this:

 

IIIIII'm pretty sure if that's part of the backlash it's an immeasurable part of it

 

Disney didn't ditch his stories. Pablo hidalgo said as much. It evolved from his outlines. The character of Rey and Finn are George's creation in essence. And snoke and the jedi killer evolved from Lucas' stuff.

Han Solo spinoff was outlined by GL along with other stuff being planned

Personally, I wish brad bird had directed force awakens with the Michael arndt script. Brad bird is an OT fan but also gets that you can't just make a nostalgia piece and I also think he would've been more respectful to George's wishes

I don't love TfA but I have problems with the prequels as well. Both prequels and TFA have plotting problems. PT has characterization issues and sterile direction but with great world building and visual imagination and a great story. Had he done what he did on Empire and jedi wth other writers and directors it might have been better but who knows

It took me clone wars to fully appreciate what George was doing and clone wars is an incredible show

Force awakens has great pace and energy with great performances stuck in a mediocre script. It's a solid start but is plagued by nostalgia addicted Abrams. It's only savior will be if viii is good.

Now rogue one is out, I loved it but that film is getting backlash as well. The fact of the matter is that Star Wars is so big you will never please everyone the way you did wth the OT.

Like the James Bond films, people will have their own vision of what Star Wars is and isn't to them. People's ranking of these movies will always vary and it's happening now

The truth is Lucas is a genius and no hack. You don't make THx,Sw, and American graffiti and then say this guy is a hack. Did he lose his way? Sure, but when I listen to a George Harrison album, I don't think of Gone troppo, I think of all things must pass.

Reading the rinzler books just reaffirms Lucas being a genius, Kurtz was helpful but you can't take away what George did, it all comes from him. Film is also a collaborative medium. The great many who contributed to Star Wars are serving George and his vision, you can't take that away from him no matter how many MR Plinketts come and cry


Kasdan,Kershner, Marquand,Kurtz, Marcia Lucas, ILM should all be commended but they have nothing without George.

 

There's no profound reason as to why I dislike them, nor would I ever suggest to someone who likes them that they're wrong.

For me it's simple, indeed I could have overlooked so many of the technical reasons that make me dislike them, like the acting being so lifeless; the action scenes being too over-the-top; the poorly written comedy; that so much of the scenery looks fake (the Tusken village looks like Dark Forces 2 FMV); that everyone's lit with this horrid flat white light from one side that looks unnatural and doesn't match the scenery; that some of the script and dialogue is just dreadful; that the story is obsessed with making everyone and everything connected etc. if it hadn't been for one major reason.

...(and I don't care about the difference in technology or spacecraft)...

The one issue I could never overlook and this will always be the ultimate deal-breaker for me - is that Anakin is quite simply unlikable. Was it that hard to create a character who fell from grace who we actually felt representative of Alec Guiness' lovely warm-voiced sentiment that "... and he was a good friend"?

And for anyone suggesting that he was accurately represented in the movies as per some grand vision, I'd argue that, because he was completely different in The Clone Wars show which is also canon and also from the mind of Lucas. If that Anakin had been in the movies, one whose temper was actually equaled by his warmth and likability, I could have enjoyed them. Instead I simply had no investment in watching a horrible person becoming a more horrible person.

It's not a tragedy if he was wretched in the first place.

I feel Anakin's representation in the prequels is like trying to create sympathy for real-life human cesspool Mick Philpott by making a movie about what a nice guy he was back in his 20s when he was doing chivalrous things like smashing his girlfriend's kneecaps in with a hammer because she was babysitting. But stay tuned to see how this lovable cavalier later went on to torch his children in a house fire for an insurance scam. What a downfall from grace!

"... and he was a good friend"

 

I feel the same way as I actually really enjoyed the macro story of the PT (The Republic, The Jedi Council, The Senate, etc) as it really opened the OT world up.

But where the PT falls flat for me is the personal story of Anakin told by Lucas. The character just doesn't resonate with me at all and he is the least interesting thing in the 3 movies. Even though he is tragic character that does evil things, he still has to likeable on some level. Tony Soprano was a murderous mobster, but for 6 Seasons you sort of liked him in a strange way.