Star Wars

[Loz]

ariensun said:

What parts didn't make sense or add up to you, Loz?

Its not that i'm slow and things weren't clear in that sense. I was talking about the massive continuity errors that are universally acknowledged and the piss taken out of.

www.kacks.proboards18.com/index.cgi?board=links&action=display&thread=1163748945

[rj]

I'd just like to say that I don't like the way people say "the original trilogy". It annoys me. I mean how can you say you enjoyed episodes 4, 5 & 6 more than 1, 2 & 3 when they are all one long story?

I mean what if episode 1: tPM came out in 1977? I think of them as one long story of six rather then 2 trilogys.

Edit: I have just noticed this argument a few posts back, lol. Sorry.

[Shaun]

The stories all go together, but it is one story told in two parts. The first half is the fall of Anakin and rise of the Empire, and the second is set 20 years later and is the story of the fall of the Empire. That is why they are seperate. The dates the movies came out is not what is relevant, but the dates of when those movies are set. And the acting, and storylines in the original trilogy are much better which is why they are enjoyed more

[rj]

But that is still an opinion Just because 4, 5 & 6 were made 20+ years ago that just makes them better?

[Loz]

A universally acknowledged opinion. Except for the younger set who have no attention span and put more emphasis on the flash and bang. And like Shaun said IV, V and VI are better because they have a better story and plot and better acting.

[Shaun]

rj said:

But that is still an opinion Just because 4, 5 & 6 were made 20+ years ago that just makes them better?

No that is not what makes them better What makes them better are those things Lauren said. And I can say they are better because they are. I don't like all movies in a series equally just because they are part of the same story

And I was answering your question why they were considered two separate trilogies.

[rj]

lozza said:

Except for the younger set who have no attention span and put more emphasis on the flash and bang.

That's also an opinion and a little harsh I think. I think our opinions differ with how good acting is etc... Born in seperate times in film you think all the best acting and so on can only come from back then.

I mean what if the effects were as good back then as they are now, I think you would have a different opinion.

[Shaun]

Are you serious? There are some brilliant actors in new films, and there are dodgy acting in some old films. Acting well isn't dependent on a film era There was some very bad acting in the newer trilogy. most noticeably by Hayden Christensen. The story was there, but the delivery in comparison to the originals, was poor. And it was covered up with a lot of flash and bang I think if the effects were as good back then, the acting would still be better

[rj]

Well if that's what you think, then ok.

So what if episode 1 came out in 1977? Do you think the story would of been told much better?

[Loz]

rj said:

That's also an opinion and a little harsh I think.

You are obsessed with opinions. Pretty much everything on this board is someones opinion. You don't need to keep pointing it out. And as someone who has studied film and someone who has been writing about film since i was about 9 years old, Star Wars is, as you can imagine, something i have touched on now and then. It is generally acknowledged by the film community that children and the younger set tend to like I, II and III better because of the flash and the bang.

I think our opinions differ with how good acting is etc... Born in seperate times in film you think all the best acting and so on can only come from back then.

I don't know quite what you are saying, but if you believe i think that the best acting has to come from 30 odd years ago you couldn't be further from the truth. I am saying that i think the better acting can be found in IV, V and VI. Simple as that.

I mean what if the effects were as good back then as they are now, I think you would have a different opinion.

I wouldn't. Its the story that i enjoy the most. The characters and the mythology. When i was four i wasn't going on about the amazing ships or the laser guns or whatever...I wanted to be Princess Leia. I wanted to be as tough and heroic as Han. I wanted to have an R2-D2 and fight the Empire.

[Shaun]

What does the date it came out have to do with anything? If it had the same actors, and the same emphasis on the special effects over the story, then no I would have the same opinion because it would be the same movie If it had different actors, good actors, and the special effects weren't the biggest focus then yes the story is there to be told well. But its still not as good a story as the original trilogy, which is why they weren't made first.

[rj]

But I don't think the special effects were a big focus. If you can do the effects, then do them. George is making up for what he couldn't do in episodes 4, 5 & 6. That said, he remastered episodes 4, 5 & 6.

[Glenn]

The special effects were the main focus in the newer trilogy i think.

[rj]

Hmmm, I dunno. Maybe. I just think if you have the good effect avalible, then do them. I think if Goerge had been able to have the best effects back then, he would be thinking about them as well.

I give up with this debate. We have different likes and dislikes. Simple.

[Shaun]

rj said:

But I don't think the special effects were a big focus. If you can do the effects, then do them. George is making up for what he couldn't do in episodes 4, 5 & 6. That said, he remastered episodes 4, 5 & 6.

They were a huge focus, instead of focusing on the story they focused on the bang. Yeah the originals were remastered and the story was still there and the main focus. Strip the effects away from episodes 1-3 and there isn't much there to watch.

Yeah, have them there if you can do them. But it shoudn't take focus off the story, which should be able to stand alone as well like in the originals.

[rj]

Ok, yeah I see.

Can I ask how you think effects can steal the story away? I'm just wondering. I mean the story and how the actors put it across is done all way before effects are put in.

[Shaun]

Little effort was put into the story because they were going to surround it in effects. The acting is inexcusably bad considering they could have cast anyone they wanted. And the story itself, while good, isn't as good as the story from the originals.

[rj]

Ah ok. I see your point.

As for the acting. I do agree that there is bad and good acting in both. I mean I don't really like Ewan's acting in eps 1, 2 & 3. But I have seen more corney moments in eps 4, 5 & 6.

I don't know why I'm arguing. I like them all as one story. I think I just disagree with it being in 2 parts.

[Shaun]

They are two parts to a story in the one universe. Episodes 1-3 are Anakins story. Episodes 4-6 are Luke's story. There were corny moments in all six episodes, but the acting was good enough to pull it off in the original trilogy. It was just laughable at times in the newer ones.

[rj]

I guess, but I still like to see them as one story.

Yeah I suppose so, but I also saw laughable moments in eps 4, 5 & 6. So I dunno.

Basicly, I like them all, but if someone asked me "which Star Wars film do you wonna watch tonight?" I'd say Revenge of the Sith. But thats just me.