Chilly wrote:you all act like its truly over
my ass
see you in a few years time when there making the next thing to do with star wars.
SI wrote:While Lucas is still an independant film-maker, he's not the same person as the fiery visionary from the 70's looking to blaze a trail right up Hollywoods ass. He's the aging single dad looking after his kids, running a billion dollar EMPIRE, a pioneer of digital film-making, all the while trying to finish his epic story he so long ago began. 30 years is a long time between drinks to be sure, but for the most part he got it right and I'm just fucking content knowing he did finish what he set out to accomplish and he did it his own way, and IMO certainly ROTS is his crowning achievement.
cantina_patron wrote:I don't think that a younger, happier, in love George who started with swashbuckling adventures of Luke Starkiller could have made such a dark, tragic and disturbing movie as ROTS. His ex-wife must have really left him heart broken...
Ayatollah Krispies wrote:Well, to be honest, I think that the single greatest reason that the "romance" in the PT is so lacking is because George hasn't gotten laid in about 20 years. But that's another topic.
Ayatollah Krispies wrote:Natalie didn't write the script.
With your destruction of the original versions of the films that got you here, that changed the world and entertainment forever, thank you for showing me the perils of revisionism. Thank you for teaching me the true nature of artistic contribution; that my art is not for my own indulgence, but for those whose lives would be affected by it. If nothing else, you reminded me, "if it ain't broke, don't fix it." You taught me to let go.
cantina_patron wrote:No, it's because Portman sucked. And, corny dialogue aside, it suffered from comparison to Han and Leia. People wanted them to exchange witty remarks like in ESB and forgetting that it's two different stories and two different couples.
Ayatollah Krispies wrote:What people "want" from any film is to be convinced. The dialogue between Anakin and Padme regularly pulled people out of the moment. Instead of keeping the audience immersed in the relationship between two characters, it reminded them that they were watching an unconvincing performance from two actors. It has nothing to do with Anakin and Padme being different from Han and Leia. People have been convinced by screen romances before without having to compare them to the Star Wars OT.
Ascovel wrote:I hate this kind of talking about movies, like they're some machines with obvious functions that one has to get working properly, in a certain way, to get cheers from the audience. People are often dissapointed just becouse something is different then what they're used to. Why should the reactions of the general public be seen necesserly as manifestations of human nature? I think that if a way of reasoning about any aspect of a movie is good it doesn't need backing up by how audience does or should react. I'm not saying there are actualy truly objective arguments that you could use to convince every smart enough person to your point of view about a film, these are always questionable I'm afraid, but discussing them in detail is always better then assuming what's natural for all (sane persons) to think and feel and what isn't (or if a romance followed the one true pattern of good romances or not).
Ayatollah Krispies wrote:Look, there's a pretty obvious difference between someone delivering a line with real conviction and real emotion, and someone delivering that line like they're reading it from a cue card just offscreen. Learning and discerning this difference doesn't require a level of aesthetic sophistication unreachable by most humans; it comes through fairly common exposure to a common medium. Romantic adventure fiction isn't Proust. What works, works; what doesn't, doesn't, and in popular media this conclusion is usually arrived at by consensus opinion. The fact that the clumsily handled romance in the PT is an overwhelming target of most of the negative criticism of the movies suggests not that it's a special form of storytelling that people aren't accustomed to, but rather simply that it doesn't work very well.
Ayatollah Krispies wrote:cantina_patron wrote:No, it's because Portman sucked. And, corny dialogue aside, it suffered from comparison to Han and Leia. People wanted them to exchange witty remarks like in ESB and forgetting that it's two different stories and two different couples.
What people "want" from any film is to be convinced. The dialogue between Anakin and Padme regularly pulled people out of the moment. Instead of keeping the audience immersed in the relationship between two characters, it reminded them that they were watching an unconvincing performance from two actors. It has nothing to do with Anakin and Padme being different from Han and Leia. People have been convinced by screen romances before without having to compare them to the Star Wars OT.
Lucas is great with concepts, and the idea that Anakin and Padme were star-crossed, ill-fated lovers fits well within the larger framework of the PT. It's just that every time they shared an "intimate" moment, the audience was encouraged more toward laughter and mockery than any other reaction. There are teen romances playing out on TV that are more convincing.
Ascovel wrote:I wasn't trying to make a point that Star Wars is so artsy, so sophisticated that it requires special treating (although I think you underestimate Lucas ambitions in that matter).
cantina_patron wrote:And yes expectations do matter. Otherwise we wouldn't hear complaints like "why there's no character like Han Solo in the PT" or "why they don't have that witty banter like Han and Leia".
Ayatollah Krispies wrote:cantina_patron wrote:And yes expectations do matter. Otherwise we wouldn't hear complaints like "why there's no character like Han Solo in the PT" or "why they don't have that witty banter like Han and Leia".
If there were engaging protagonists, you wouldn't hear those complaints. The movies didn't need a Han Solo clone, but they did need someone for the audience to identify with. And while I enjoyed the PT for the most part, there never really were any such characters.
And please, enough Portman bashing.
The writer wrote awkward dialogue and the director didn't elicit a strong performance -- and when those two roles are fulfilled by the same person, that suggests a far different problem than the weakness of any particular actor.
second the original films didnt take ANYTHING from other films
just another internet personality that felt the egocentric need to number his posts as a countdown before he left. how charming.
darthpsychotic wrote: (fyi redialnumber has her own dedicated thread here - split from this one - since she is "special".)
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests