Star Wars will lose it's relevancy in our lifetime

Originally posted by -Pr-
I don't think the clones were that humanised at all. Sure, we saw their faces, but they were still just cardboard cut-out soldiers that died en-masse during the battle scenes.

Far more humanized than stormtroopers and, therefore, do not form a decent parallel.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
Do you actually think they're good movies? Why?

Compared to the OT:

Better acting, better story, better effects, better "mythos", more fun, more entertaining, cooler saber duels, cooler force powers, more varied art, n'stuff.

They are better in pretty much every single way than the OT.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Compared to the OT:

Better acting

What the f*ck...?

Originally posted by Lord Lucien

What the f*ck...?

😆 Oh man. 😆

YouTube video

😐

What is amazing is you or people like you somehow justify that as decent acting that is better than anything Hayden did as Anakin. Just despicable the lengths people will go to defend another reason they like the OT better than the PT.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Far more humanized than stormtroopers and, therefore, do not form a decent parallel.

Compared to the OT:

Better acting, better story, better effects, better "mythos", more fun, more entertaining, cooler saber duels, cooler force powers, more varied art, n'stuff.

They are better in pretty much every single way than the OT.

i don't agree, tbh. There was almost nothing in the PT that was supposed to make us care about the Clones, to me.

Also, without being rude, I have to ask: Are you kidding? Though I seem to recall you saying something similar a ways back, so sadly you might not be. Either way, I honestly don't get how you can claim some of that criteria is true, but that would be going off topic, I think.

Originally posted by dadudemon

Compared to the OT:

Better acting, better story, better effects, better "mythos", more fun, more entertaining, cooler saber duels, cooler force powers, more varied art, n'stuff.

They are better in pretty much every single way than the OT.

Oh the humanity....

Originally posted by dadudemon
Compared to the OT:

Better acting, better story, better effects, better "mythos", more fun, more entertaining, cooler saber duels, cooler force powers, more varied art, n'stuff.

They are better in pretty much every single way than the OT.

I definitely disagree with plot.

The PT trilogy had some issues- Episode 1 didn't follow a single main character. Anakin started out too young so his ep 1 stuff played little into his future growth, and by ep 2 he was already chaffing and already clearly on the way to falling and we never really get to see him as a stand-up hero, so there's basic issues with the arc where we're missing a big chunk of his growth, whereas Luke's arc is very solid start to finish and we get to observe his development and changes. Several plot elements also really only came out after the fact (what was meant by 'balance' / the darkside being imbalance rather than a balance between light and dark. What, in-universe, the reason why there were mass defections from the Republic were. And that the Jedi were supposed to be too detached and hidebound, which no-one in the movies themselves commented on, and considering other characters acted similarly they didn't really stand out. And, very importantly, that the shadow of the force was throwing off their precog! Most of that stuff was talked about a lot in interviews and supplementary material and even the Clone Wars cartoon, but not the movies themselves), and there was no Han Solo figure, that is to say a major non-Jedi protagonist to provide an outside perspective, and Leia was a stronger figure than Padme.

There's a couple minor characterization/theme errors and holes- like in Ep2, Anakin's supposed to be the reckless one, but Obi-wan is the one who grabs an assassin droid and jumps out the window. Dooku should've been around in Ep1 to make it more uncertain who was pulling Maul's strings, Palpy or Dooku. Also, when it's discovered Jango Fett is both a CIS assassin *and* linked to the Clones, you'd think there'd be an investigation, but there isn't. What was really needed was some lines about how Palpatine had Republic intelligence check it out or something- to show that he killed the investigation from within and wasn't simply benefiting from incompetence. Preferably with the Jedi mentioning that it'd be confidence in it being impossible for someone to infiltrate high levels of republic intel due to their senses and have them be sure that, despite the shadow of the dark side that's been muffling their visions, this still applies, show their hideboundness without actually having them be idiots who don't even think to check.

There was also no iconic ship like the Millennium Falcon (Obi-wan + Anakin needed a sweet ride!), and the space battles, a centerpiece of the OT, were a lot lighter and fewer in number in the PT.

Plus in the fights, the PT had faster more modern choreography, but several of them lacked a major element- acting via the fighting. A lot of it was characters striking and being acrobatic for significant amounts of time, without it serving the thematic thrust of the fight, while in the OT when someone was winning or losing, it was very clear by both their actions and their faces whether someone was being desperately pressed, fighting with anger, fighting smartly, etc..

Now, can I do a thing about the flaws in the OT too? Sure, especially RotJ has some problems, but the overall arc is well done and even if you prefer the PT, it is not strictly better in all areas.

Originally posted by dadudemon
😆 Oh man. 😆

YouTube video

😐

What is amazing is you or people like you somehow justify that as decent acting that is better than anything Hayden did as Anakin. Just despicable the lengths people will go to defend another reason they like the OT better than the PT.

Don't make me bring up the terrible acting on the 'sand' dialogue (and most of the dialogue from AOTC for that matter..)

I notice that you didnt cite everything else by Hamill in ESB, to suit your argument, which still failed as even this moment was better and more convincing than the sum of all of the acting by Christiansen in the PT.

And the supporting actors too. All of it was superior in OT to PT.

Now it may not have been the actors' fault, most of them were great actors. But maybe the direction or lack of patience in getting the best performance out of them was an issue, but either way you have to be either out of your mind if you think that decent acting by Ewan McGregor, Samuel L Jackson, (and Liam Neeson in the 1st one) and Ian McDiarmid among a terrible pile of awkward recitations of dialogue, stiff unbelievable "expressiveness" was enough to sustain victory over the entirety of the OT...
Maybe it was having to film against blue and green screen whereas the original actors had the benefit of feeding off of a great and well thought out script in addition to context supplying actual sets and backdrops...?

(Although the reactions to things that werent there at the time of fiilming in OT were WAY more convincing thanks to the acting and direction of the OT cast...)
"Thats no moon..."
"Look at the size of that thing"
The Alderaan obliteration scene (Cushing, Fisher etc)
All cockpit reactions in action scenes etc

Now you compare that to Ralph Brown's (and indeed the whole cast involved at that time's) acting escaping the trade federation blockade in the Phantom Menace, and apologise for your trollery.
OT just seemed like better stuff all round and had mythology, whereas PT almost destroyed that imagination capturing mythology. (Midichloreans)

The FX did more with less and still looked more naturalistic and less like a computer game.

And on top of all this: "Jar Jar". End of.

Originally posted by dadudemon
😆 Oh man. 😆

YouTube video

😐

What is amazing is you or people like you somehow justify that as decent acting that is better than anything Hayden did as Anakin. Just despicable the lengths people will go to defend another reason they like the OT better than the PT.

YouTube video

McGregor seems to be trying not to laugh himself in that "The gungans will not be easily swayed" bit in TPM.. granted it is a funny sounding line though...

McGregor is one of the few actors that I felt could actually come out of the PT with any real sense of self-respect. That's what happens when you get a critically acclaimed actor, though.

Poor Natalie Portman, on the other hand.

I'd agree with that. Said his part was decent...maybe except for the posted scene above (which was a bit too comedically melodramatic). He did a great Kenobi though overall. Natalie Portman didn't have it easy though: Having to form a 'chemistry' with someone delivering one of the most wooden acting performances in not just Star Wars, but arguably in all of major motion picture scifi...

Yeah. The woman is a phenomenal actress, those scenes with Anakin were just so badly written...

The one scene with Christensen and Portman that I thought was... natural sounding... was their discussion about "the system" on the Naboo island. For about three lines of dialogue it sounded like real people conversation, not forced scripted conversation. Portman's one bit of stammering "th-the trouble is, the people..." little things like that can stand out and make a character sound like a real person. She's a mediocre actress in most of her films, so this isn't exactly praise.

Episode III had some good acting and was more together overall compared to Eps I and II.

Agreed. Though considering it gave people like Palpatine and Windu more scenes, I think that was always going to happen.

Originally posted by Sadako of Girth
Don't make me bring up the terrible acting on the 'sand' dialogue (and most of the dialogue from AOTC for that matter..)

Still better than most of every single line delivered in Episode IV.

Originally posted by Sadako of Girth
I notice that you didnt cite everything else by Hamill in ESB, to suit your argument, which still failed as even this moment was better and more convincing than the sum of all of the acting by Christiansen in the PT.

If my point was to "cite" every example of atrocious acting, it would take forever. I think everyone here knows how horrible the acting was in the OT without me having to cite every example.

Originally posted by Sadako of Girth
And the supporting actors too. All of it was superior in OT to PT.

For me, all of it was superior in the PT.

Originally posted by Sadako of Girth
Now it may not have been the actors' fault, most of them were great actors. But maybe the direction or lack of patience in getting the best performance out of them was an issue, but either way you have to be either out of your mind if you think that decent acting by Ewan McGregor, Samuel L Jackson, (and Liam Neeson in the 1st one) and Ian McDiarmid among a terrible pile of awkward recitations of dialogue, stiff unbelievable "expressiveness" was enough to sustain victory over the entirety of the OT...

No, the worst of the PT was better than most of the best of the OT when it came to acting. That's how bad the acting is in the OT. I think it is absurd that you and many others won't admit that. Almost anyone else I know that likes the OT over the PT admits to how horrible the acting was in the OT.

Originally posted by Sadako of Girth
Maybe it was having to film against blue and green screen whereas the original actors had the benefit of feeding off of a great and well thought out script in addition to context supplying actual sets and backdrops...?

I would agree that some of the acting was wooden in the PT and that may have had something to do with the woodiness of it, lol.

Originally posted by Sadako of Girth
(Although the reactions to things that werent there at the time of fiilming in OT were WAY more convincing thanks to the acting and direction of the OT cast...)
"Thats no moon..."
"Look at the size of that thing"
The Alderaan obliteration scene (Cushing, Fisher etc)
All cockpit reactions in action scenes etc

I read this section, thrice, to understand what you were trying to say. At first, I thought you were pointing out horrible scenes of acting. But then I thought that you could not possibly be making that point since you are trying to say the acting is better in the OT over the PT. So I read it a second time and then it was obvious that you were pointing out some horrible acting scenes but that did not fit well with the epiphany I had the first time I read it. So I read it a third time...and then I realized you actually think those are great acting moments.

Originally posted by Sadako of Girth
Now you compare that to Ralph Brown's (and indeed the whole cast involved at that time's) acting escaping the trade federation blockade in the Phantom Menace, and apologise for your trollery.

Yeaaaaahhhh....no. That is still better acting than almost all of Episode IV. I mean, really...you don't honestly believe the acting was good, at all, in the OT, do you? Be honest...no games...no posturing...nothing like that. Do you honestly think the acting was good in the OT, at all?

I don't. I think it was, overall, atrocious. The acting in the PT is definitely better. However, overall, it is just passable.

Originally posted by Sadako of Girth
OT just seemed like better stuff all round and had mythology, whereas PT almost destroyed that imagination capturing mythology. (Midichloreans)

Translation: "I am butthurt over the introduction of the concept of midichloreans so I choose to ignore all the other lore and myth created in the PT."

Originally posted by Sadako of Girth
The FX did more with less and still looked more naturalistic and less like a computer game.

I disagree. It was ahead of its time, for sure...but even as a child, it looked hilarious at parts.

For example...ZOMG! DEEZ HAND PUPPETS LOOK SOOOOO REALISTIC!

Did anyone say that? I don't think anyone did.

Originally posted by Sadako of Girth
And on top of all this: "Jar Jar". End of.

A character I liked and found hilarious. I still do not get the JarJar hate even after multiple people pointed out why they hated him. I think people just say that because it is something they heard a looooong time ago from someone else so it makes them feel better to jump on that wagon.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
Lol, ok. You're trolling.

YouTube video

And the acting in that scene is superior to almost all of Episode IV's acting...which is saying something of the OT's acting.

Originally posted by Q99
Now, can I do a thing about the flaws in the OT too? Sure, especially RotJ has some problems, but the overall arc is well done and even if you prefer the PT, it is not strictly better in all areas.

I disagree, of course. I think the PT is better in almost every single area compared to the OT. Especially the story portion. The OT is so full of plotholes, it is absurd: but we love it not because you have to be a retard to think the plot progression is coherent but because it was fun as hell. The PT suffered less from that...maybe because it was done with more George at the helm?

Originally posted by dadudemon
And the acting in that scene is superior to almost all of Episode IV's acting...which is saying something of the OT's acting.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Still better than most of every single line delivered in Episode IV.

Phew I thought there was a possibility that you were actually serious til now.. good one you had me going for a while there.
Excellent sardonicism.

If my point was to "cite" every example of atrocious acting, it would take forever. I think everyone here knows how horrible the acting was in the PT without me having to cite every example.

For me, all of it was superior in the PT.

No, the worst of the PT was better than most of the best of the OT when it came to acting. That's how bad the acting is in the OT. I think it is absurd that you and many others won't admit that. Almost anyone else I know that likes the OT over the PT admits to how horrible the acting was in the OT.

Well if you no longer wanted to be taken seriously on these boards, thats all you had to say. This elaborate trolling/simulated nervous breakdown was totally unnecessary.

I would agree that some of the acting was wooden in the PT and that may have had something to do with the woodiness of it, lol.

I read this section, thrice, to understand what you were trying to say. At first, I thought you were pointing out horrible scenes of acting. But then I thought that you could not possibly be making that point since you are trying to say the acting is better in the OT over the PT. So I read it a second time and then it was obvious that you were pointing out some horrible acting scenes but that did not fit well with the epiphany I had the first time I read it. So I read it a third time...and then I realized you actually think those are great acting moments.

The ramblings of a madman. Well we have all seen the PT thrice also. And thats why we know that it is shit compared to OT.

Yeaaaaahhhh....no. That is still better acting than almost all of Episode IV. I mean, really...you don't honestly believe the acting was good, at all, in the OT, do you? Be honest...no games...no posturing...nothing like that. Do you honestly think the acting was good in the OT, at all?

I don't. I think it was, overall, atrocious. The acting in the PT is definitely better. However, overall, it is just passable.

Translation: "I am butthurt over the introduction of the concept of midichloreans so I choose to ignore all the other lore and myth created in the PT."

Oh, you are? Ok.

I disagree. It was ahead of its time, for sure...but even as a child, it looked hilarious at parts.

And making people laugh intentionally was something that the PT could never achieve.

For example...ZOMG! DEEZ HAND PUPPETS LOOK SOOOOO REALISTIC!

Did anyone say that? I don't think anyone did.

A character I liked and found hilarious. I still do not get the JarJar hate even after multiple people pointed out why they hated him. I think people just say that because it is something they heard a looooong time ago from someone else so it makes them feel better to jump on that wagon.

And the acting in that scene is superior to almost all of Episode IV's acting...which is saying something of the OT's acting.

I disagree, of course. I think the PT is better in almost every single area compared to the OT. Especially the story portion. The OT is so full of plotholes, it is absurd: but we love it not because you have to be a retard to think the plot progression is coherent but because it was fun as hell. The PT suffered less from that...maybe because it was done with more George at the helm?

He's either trolling you (and putting a helluvan effort in to it), or he genuinely believes the PT are good films. Either way it's laugh-worthy.

Originally posted by Sadako of Girth
Phew I thought there was a possibility that you were actually serious til now.. good one you had me going for a while there.
Excellent sardonicism.

Fixed.

Maybe you'll try spinning...thats a good trick....

Well if you no longer wanted to be taken seriously on these boards, thats all you had to say. This elaborate trolling/simulated nervous breakdown was totally unnecessary.

Most of it was. Even the worst of the OT lines looked like Ingmar Bergman's 'The Seventh Seal' next to the PT's average lines and depthless recitals.

The ramblings of a madman. Well we have all seen the PT thrice also. And thats why we know that it is shit compared to OT.

It was better than PT acting.

Most of it was not passable.

Oh, you are? Ok.

And making people laugh intentionally was something that the PT could never achieve.

Yoda looked WAY better as a hand puppet in the OT compared to the abortional monstrosity that was in TPM.
You are obviously blind if you think that the PT didnt look like a FMV CGI part of a video game...

And do you STILL find him hilarious now that you aren't 5, and now that you've seen PT more than 6 times?
You think that about people because you find it easier to thank that than to face the fact that you obviously have no taste.

Yes it says that you've never seen it.

And this is why you no longer have to be regarded as serious. Trollyboy. PT's plotholes are so extensive that for someone to say that, they obviously need to visit Red Letter Media and watch the reviews in order for those points to be made clear to them. Watch the reviews, come back here and tell me you have the same opinion with a straight face.

Oh boy, you've really convinced me that my opinion on which trilogy I like better is factually wrong. 😬

I did not read any of your post. All the points you brought up last time were rubbish, lame, or fail. Just face it: the same reasons you pretend to hate the PT are the same reasons you should hate the OT. You can't have your cake and eat it too. All the same arguments for why you hate the PT can be correctly applied to the OT.

Try me...but without all of the lengthy whining. Give me one point...not a thousand. I'll show you how it can be applied to the OT.

Edit - Lucien, I feel that every last one of you is part of a troll mob. It is simply a troll-meme to hate the PT. It is some massive, weird, hypocritical, and borderline delusional mob thing that I have observed. Lately, it is getting worse and worse. I consider that entire lot, trolls. Trolls of Star Wars. Mostly just children throwing fits that they would have thrown no matter the outcome. Almost all of you were children when you saw the OT for the first time. Children.