/starwars/ - Star Wars

agreed

thank god someone finally said it

>>8315

>But the prequels are something else, predominately where it comes to world building: the worlds feel alive

Except this doesn't extend to the actual scenes, which are flat shots where people are sitting or walking evenly. It feels very much like they are in front of green screens.

Everything is fake.

Real sets mean the actors can work with it. In the prequels the actors clearly are working with shot that isn't real. Think about Han and Leia in the Falcon when she calls him a scoundrel. It's tight, they interact with the scenery, and it influences their actions. The scene works better.

The dialogue in the prequels is terrible. Nobody challenged Lucas like they used to. Carrie Fisher used to rewrite her own dialogue. By this point nobody wanted to challenge Lucas.

The characters are awful. Anakin comes off as a spoiled whiny asshole who was obviously trouble and nobody sympahizes with. Obi Wan comes off as always disliking him and being a bit of a prick. There's no friendship between them, except what is stated in a jilted faction.

Here's an example: Yoda is holding up the big post from crushing Obi Wan and Anakin. Both of them are laying flatly near each other, obviously two actors in a green screen being told to lay there. Now if Obi Wan were a real fleshed out character, he would be trying - maybe unsuccessfully - to move Anakin out of the way. He'd be attending to his arm. He'd act like a mentor whose student was badly hurt and in danger.

Yoda looks like a little moron CGI mistake. Mace Windu has a zero dimensional personality. Qui Gon Jinn is completely unnecessary. Padme is flat monotone.

And C3PO gets his head mounted on a battle droid body.

The only decent character is the Emperor.

>>8328

did you forget every fucking scene on Coruscant?

>>8328

>being this delusional

>being this much of a cuck for the new film because they announced as little cgi/green screens as possible, despite the evidence pointing to that there's still a shit ton of it being used

actors get paid to act, sets don't mean shit. if they can't feel like they're where they ought to be, that's their problem for not having a fucking imagination.

>>8344

>All the flashy background shit in the world can't save what's supposed to be an action adventure movie in which everyone instead just sits around and talks back and forth for two hours.

Dialogue?

In MY opera?

>>8315

Plus, the plot would have been superior had Lucas used Jar Jar as the key, but he did not open the box, believing in Pandora (the fans).

>>8344

please list these contradictions you speak of

because as far as i can tell, star wars has one of the best continuity strings of all times

>>8315

So, Star Wars trilogies are starting to follow the Zelda cycle now?

In terms of world/universe, etc. I'd say few would disagree. The OT came out when Star Wars was in its infancy. Nothing had been developed yet. But this is all expansion on the seed that was sown by the prequels. In terms of cinematography, acting, sets, story, OT is better though. For entertainment value (what a film should have) the OT just isn't beat.

Prequels: better world

OT: Better films

>>8351

It's more likely than you think.

>>8334

Coruscant is one of the worst places. Mace, Yoda, and Obi Wan walk slowly in a green room. Obi Wan and Padme talk on a couch in a green room. Anakin and Palpatine confront each other in a hallway.

It's all taking place in empty spaces and the actors are just floating there. Just because the backgrounds have millions of flying cars doesn't mean it has real things going on.

>>8364

>acting

>better in the OT

No. I cannot agree. Actors in the OT are unexperienced, bad pros with the exception of Ford who is unexperienced but charming and genuinely good at acting.

Also, good actors were Tarkinman and Alec Guiness. The rest a shit.

Actors in the Prelogy were simply better. Not all of them were better directed, and that shows with Anakin who is simply bad. But all the other are good.

I can also unironically affirm that Sheevman was the best actor of the Prelogy, and the one who was the most "in it",

at all time he looks like he is actually having fun acting as the main villain

>>8421

ford already had a few other flicks under his belt by the time he did star wars, the "amateurs" were fisher and hamill.

>>8421

>No. I cannot agree. Actors in the OT are unexperienced, bad pros with the exception of Ford who is unexperienced but charming and genuinely good at acting.

>Also, good actors were Tarkinman and Alec Guiness. The rest a shit.

>Actors in the Prelogy were simply better. Not all of them were better directed, and that shows with Anakin who is simply bad. But all the other are good.

I disagree. You are wrong.

Star Wars OT has a certain type of script, a unique style of dialogue. The actors did a good job (not overly awesome) in portraying the characters. As the story progress they became better and better and was perfect.

In PT, the actors are not shit. But the directing is shit. The scripts are shittier. With little characteristic, the actors did a job,nothing more. Hayden Christen portrayed his characteristics of Anakin brilliantly, but the character is not really well-written so, and the others are monotone.

The point is good actors and great actors is judged by what they bring to their roles. The actors in the OT help fleshed themout. In the PT, they dont

>>8465

>I disagree, Hayden and Ewan had a really good chemistry, as well Hayden and Natalie.

Are you fucking kidding me? I did not get that impression at all. Their faces felt acted rather than natural.

>Only Luke, but his development was mostly off-screen (between the movies). Leia was the same character in ANH and ROTJ. Solo gets goofier and goofier as the movies go on. Vader was like "I'm so evil" and then suddenly "I regret everything!!!!!" in a heartbeat.

I am talking about the actors not the characters.

On the characters, However, you are very wrong about Vader and Luke development. Luke and Vader development came in the Empire Strike Back and offscreen is when they reflected about themself. It is not a heartbeat, it is a clear development of Darth Vader in the last scene of TESB first scene of Rotj to the later parts.

>Carrie Fisher was boring, Mark Hamill was just average

They did a good job. Fisher is as erotic and up-her-ass and Hamil is average at first. But they fit the characters. Because what you see in the screen is their characters not themselves.

>Ewan was still a better actor than them

I am not saying that the PT actors are bad actors but the acting are Bad. Everyone read the scripts was either monotone or tries too hard.

All you're convincing me of is that the prequels had a better setting and had the POTENTIAL to be better.

The reality is that the movies themselves were shit compared to the OT.

>>8344

PT is the story of anakin turning to the dark side and the fall of the republic. So talking and development are much more important than the OT that's an adventure story of a unlikely rag-tag group of friends.

Also, what contradictions are you talking about you stupid fuck?

like if these shitty OT exclusive fans could give a fair reason critique of PT, I'd be all ears. Instead, it's just "it's not like the originals"

>>8315

Cloud city was a pretty cool idea.

For me, Ewan was amazing as Obi-Wan.

The only character in the Prologues that i care about.

Would be amazing if we had a movie about Obi-Wan in tatooine, with Ewan.

>>8603

I think thats a thing most star wars fan acknowledge on some level though.

the PT had so much wasted potential.

I'll give you that, the prequels are far bigger in scope. That was the main goal with the prequel movies, to out-do everything that other filmmakers were doing at the time.

The new movie's entire purpose is to pander to fans of the OT and make it as much "like the old movies" as possible.

>>8328

i like the PT too, but I agree with many of this man's points.

>But the prequels are something else, predominately where it comes to world building: the worlds feel alive. It really seems like Coruscant is a living, breathing world where there is an existing society in which there are truly millions of people living their lives.

Bingo.

Star Wars original trilogy was a great movie. But it didn't have much basis behind it.

Tolkien, for example, has been working on his fantasy world since the 1910s, and LotR only came out in 1954 (and was mostly finished by 1949). Even though Middle Earth is a single world.

Now Star Wars, is an entire galaxy. It takes a lot of work to do worldbuilding for that. And the original trilogy didn't do much more than just bare basics, required to support the story.

Instead, the prequels are set in a living world, complete with different societies, political struggles, everything a world needs to feel real.

The story arc, however, is lacking.