__________________ Recently Produced and Distributed Young but High-Ranking Political Figure of Royal Ancestry within the Modern American Town Affectionately Referred To as Bel-Air.
The character since that's what George Lucas was writing when he thought of those cheesy lines (not the actor, who was paid to do those cheesy lines).
By 21, you should really start toning down bullshit like that, imo.
lol
The OT acting was, at times, horrible...just terrible. There's nothing that bad in the PT but the PT is not a masterpiece of acting, either.
Hamill just got better as an actor, that's all.
The difference is between a super shitty actor who gradually improves his craft and an average actor acting out average lines, averagely.
Yes, this is the type of bullshit I was talking about. Double standards. That fact that Lucien made a lengthy reply to justify the atrocious acting is proof of this double standard. I don't even. It was horrible acting (and probably directing): plain and simple.
The same holds true for the "better come in quick, Ani. Storm's uh-comin'!" Horribly acted line in the PT.
That's a good point. That kid was whiny. But...here's the thing: he was a kid (both in the real world and in the movie). I think there should be more latitude given to Episode 1's Anakin than Episode 4's Luke.
__________________
Last edited by dadudemon on Jul 22nd, 2014 at 02:10 PM
In all honesty, no bullshit, not making a joke... I have no idea how you came to this. I don't know if you have a radically different take on what good acting is, or what. Maybe it's a cultural thing--were you raised outside the western hemisphere? Astner has problems navigating through native English speech due to being Swedish, were you raised in another language group? Exposed to different movies as a child that influenced how you view films now?
I truly can't fathom how you thought the PT acting was good, or why you thought the PT was good. Not even as Star Wars films, I mean just as films, period. I just don't get it.
__________________ Recently Produced and Distributed Young but High-Ranking Political Figure of Royal Ancestry within the Modern American Town Affectionately Referred To as Bel-Air.
It's not that the PT's acting was amazing, it's just that the OT's acting was so atrocious and horrible.
Well, I mean...if you can find a quote where I said the acting was good...I'd just tell you I've changed my position to it being average. But I don't recall saying that the PT's acting was ever "good." I believe I've stated, multiple times, that the PT's acting was lackluster and average.
But I don't think it was great or even that good. "Average" is the best descriptor, imo.
Some parts of the PT have great acting. For sure. Some parts are bad. But nothing in the PT is as bad as some of the shit in the OT.
The OT is not a masterpiece of acting. Not even close.
No, it never was. It was never a master of anything except practical effects and musical score. But aside from Mark Hammil, what acting example can you give from the OT that is "atrocious and terrible"? Why is it so, and how is the PT acting better?
I've argued before before that the problem with the PT's characters isn't the actors, it's the script and directing. No amount of Oscar-winning actors could work with the lines in those films, with the direction their given. The characters and their dialogue feel robotic, soulless, joyless, unbelieveable. That's the core problem with the entire trilogy. The OT, despite having average acting, still manages to pass off genuine human emotion. Something that I find is almost completely lacking from the PT. That's why I asked about the cultural differences. If you grew up in a setting where the language and culture permits that... whatever it is... then you'd be more prone to interpreting emotion where others (like Queeq, myself, and most PT haters) see nothing.
The PT characters feel fake and unrelatable. The OT characters don't. I don't blame (or credit) any of the actors for that.
__________________ Recently Produced and Distributed Young but High-Ranking Political Figure of Royal Ancestry within the Modern American Town Affectionately Referred To as Bel-Air.
Last edited by Lord Lucien on Jul 22nd, 2014 at 07:59 PM
The acting in ESB is fine, if you ask me. Not everything is atrocious for sure. The biggest cringe moments are in ANH and ROTJ. But even then, there's plenty good stuff to enjoy. And it has a certain life, enthusiasm, actors trying to make the weird stuff work.
But, watching these films in order Ep1-6, it struck me last time how dynamic the OT is, compared to the stale and static look and feel of the PT. But in the way the actors try to make it work, the camera work, the editing. The PT has "BORING" seeping from its pores.
That's the worst thing a movie can be, is boring. Even objectively horrendous films like Troll 2 or The Room are at least funny. There's some entertainment to be had. The PT is just dull.
__________________ Recently Produced and Distributed Young but High-Ranking Political Figure of Royal Ancestry within the Modern American Town Affectionately Referred To as Bel-Air.
It looks like we partially agree. Where we don't agree is you think the acting in the PT was worse than the OT, overall. I don't.
Also, I've cited, multiple times, over the years, shitty acting scenes from the OT (actually youtube clips).
This is fair.
I love the shit out of the OT including some of the hilariously bad acting. Let me clarify for you, Lucien: Just because I recognize some of the acting is atrocious does not mean I didn't enjoy it.
I know, I got that. What I'm curious about is why you define the acting in the PT as good. I'd define the PT acting as bad at most times, good a minority of the times (and usually centered around Ian McDiarmid).
What I want to know is: how, or rather why do you enjoy the PT? Without offering up bad moments from the OT as a comparison-distraction, why do you so genuinely like the PT? I truly don't understand it. Some people like to turn their brains off and just revel in the colors and sounds of a spacy action flick, which... OK. Some people have an adolescent nostalgia for films that they can't make mesh with developing standards, so they jump through psychological hoops to convince themselves that their childhood favorites are just as good now as they were when they were young. I understand that one, but it's not exactly forgivable. And some people have a pre-existing love of the established franchise and are committed to loving everything that comes out for it, no considerations for scrutiny required--this is what I used to do with the PT, actually.
I don't think that you fall in to any of those categories, so... what then? Why do you like the PT? I don't like not being able to figure this out.
__________________ Recently Produced and Distributed Young but High-Ranking Political Figure of Royal Ancestry within the Modern American Town Affectionately Referred To as Bel-Air.
Last edited by Lord Lucien on Jul 23rd, 2014 at 03:30 PM
It would take ages to say why because there are so many things.
It was like the OT but better in almost every single way. GL delivered with the PT. He brought me what I loved about the OT but better!
Defining the films without referencing the OT is just not possible. The OT has too much influence on the Star Wars culture, the fans, AND the PT to just ignore it.
If the PT came before the OT, I'm pretty sure I'd be like, "WTF is this shit?" If anything, I have on rose colored glasses for the OT.
But, yeah, I'm not going to spend 2 hours writing you an essay with all the stuff I liked.
Here's a short list:
Politics
Effects
Mythos Expansion
Comedy
Story
Natalie Portman
Lightsabers
Lightsaber Fights
Force Powers
Some movies have some of those elements (and that's just the short list) but none of them have all of them and in the proper quantities.
If you want the 2 hour version, I can give it to you over Google Hangouts, or something. It would just take too long to type it and I don't want to type it.
Wow... I am baffled... Now I do need the two hour version. Or maybe the two year version. I my opinion there is more wrong with the PT than in the bad moments of ANH.
I don't just judge it on acting, but mostly on story, motivation, performance, plot, directing, cinematography. The OT was revolutionary in its time on so many counts. The PT... well, it was not. It was... yes, I can say it now... after many years of learning how to cope with it... it was DULL... boring... uninteresting.
Now, I like complicated political intrigue. But a) I don't think SW is the place for that (it is in the end a simple B-movie, with simple plot, simple characters, simple motivations - and to get that right is already an art in itself) but b) the political intrigue in PT makes no sense at all. It's clouded in some kind of weird mystery, but when you unravel it... it's far from intelligent. It's naive, simplistic, rather dumb even. Just because Lucas decided to hide the crucial plot points (or phantom menace them) doesn't make it great. In fact, it's rather stupid. Especially with the ridiculously stupid Jedi Council...
No, I don't get it. The PT is not simple enough to match the OT and where it's trying to be clever, it is in fact rather dumb. An interesting conflict... hehehe.
I mean, wow... I actually can't wrap my head around your answer. I really mean no offense with this, but... you have shit standards for films. I'm with Queeq, give us that two month elucidation. We're gonna need at least that amount of time to soak up the WTF-itude.
__________________ Recently Produced and Distributed Young but High-Ranking Political Figure of Royal Ancestry within the Modern American Town Affectionately Referred To as Bel-Air.
Last edited by Lord Lucien on Jul 24th, 2014 at 05:53 AM
KMC Community Forums
Jul 15th, 2014 07:32 PM
