On September 03 2011 06:02 Okiesmokie wrote: Tasteless would call you all hipsters. The only reason the "noo" seems out of place is because you are used to seeing the scene without it. Had you have never seen Starwars before, I highly doubt any of you would even think twice about it.
lol who seriously gives a shit. People just find a reason to bitch over anything. It wasn't like the scene was life altering. Although that noooooooooooo was funny. It turned the scene from a scifi thriller to comedy though
On September 03 2011 00:43 SlimeBagly wrote: Haha, that's really goofy.
Still a minor offense compared to making Greedo shoot first.
So true.
Of all the things he's done to Star Wars, that was the one change that made me say, "Wow, this guy has lost all perspective on his characters, the story as a whole, and what makes for interesting cinema."
This is just one more slap in the face, and one more clue to the burning question:
'Has George Lucas forgot how to make a good movie, or were his earlier successes nothing but a fluke?'
On September 03 2011 00:43 SlimeBagly wrote: Haha, that's really goofy.
Still a minor offense compared to making Greedo shoot first.
So true.
Of all the things he's done to Star Wars, that was the one change that made me say, "Wow, this guy has lost all perspective on his characters, the story as a whole, and what makes for interesting cinema."
This is just one more slap in the face, and one more clue to the burning question:
'Has George Lucas forgot how to make a good movie, or were his earlier successes nothing but a fluke?'
The former, imo. American Graffiti was a great film, so Lucas must have known how to make good movies in the years past.
On September 03 2011 06:02 Okiesmokie wrote: Tasteless would call you all hipsters. The only reason the "noo" seems out of place is because you are used to seeing the scene without it. Had you have never seen Starwars before, I highly doubt any of you would even think twice about it.
You mean the same Tasteless who hates the prequels and mentioned during some GSL that according to him there are only 3 star wars movies? Yeah, I'm pretty sure he'll love the "nooo"
On September 03 2011 02:54 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On September 03 2011 02:50 aDd3z wrote: thats a pretty bad change but i like that yoda will be computer-generated in episode one now but i dont like the old movies (4-6) anyway so i dont really care
Please watch that. At least the five first minutes.
One of the worst reviews I've ever seen in my life. You would actually use this as your basis for proving a point?
Thanks for sharing.
That review makes numerous good points about the film.
On September 03 2011 02:54 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On September 03 2011 02:50 aDd3z wrote: thats a pretty bad change but i like that yoda will be computer-generated in episode one now but i dont like the old movies (4-6) anyway so i dont really care
On September 03 2011 00:43 SlimeBagly wrote: Haha, that's really goofy.
Still a minor offense compared to making Greedo shoot first.
So true.
Of all the things he's done to Star Wars, that was the one change that made me say, "Wow, this guy has lost all perspective on his characters, the story as a whole, and what makes for interesting cinema."
This is just one more slap in the face, and one more clue to the burning question:
'Has George Lucas forgot how to make a good movie, or were his earlier successes nothing but a fluke?'
The former, imo. American Psycho was a great film, so Lucas must have known how to make good movies in the years past.
On September 03 2011 00:43 SlimeBagly wrote: Haha, that's really goofy.
Still a minor offense compared to making Greedo shoot first.
So true.
Of all the things he's done to Star Wars, that was the one change that made me say, "Wow, this guy has lost all perspective on his characters, the story as a whole, and what makes for interesting cinema."
This is just one more slap in the face, and one more clue to the burning question:
'Has George Lucas forgot how to make a good movie, or were his earlier successes nothing but a fluke?'
The former, imo. American Psycho was a great film, so Lucas must have known how to make good movies in the years past.
This is probably my favorite scene in the original trilogy, the one that really made me love Star Wars.
Subtlety is an important tool in filmmaking, and Lucas lost it ages ago and no longer has any comprehension of the concept. A good filmmaker knows when to use words and when not to.
On September 03 2011 07:51 CptCutter wrote: i dont understand the point of the title. your not serious with it right? because if you go with that logic then parents hate their children.
From a lot of interviews with him it definitely feels like theres a bit of antipathy from Lucas towards the fans, cause of the way the prequels got trashed.
What's the big deal? Any true Star Wars fanatic already has the original edition anyway. I for one don't care about blu ray quality.
Anyway this is how I see it: George Lucas is an artist. As an artist, you tend to envision such great things that when you try to make them become real, to substantiate them, then the actual results are oftentimes below your expectations. I believe that to him, his works are not perfect (and may very well never be); he's always looking to reach perfection, he's always striving to stay faithful to what he envisioned in the first place.
Now please tell me if I'm totally wrong or if this does not make sense but, in my opinion, it's clear that this guy is struggling to make his work live up to his expectations. So it's perfectly understandable that he wants to change details here & there, even if it turns out to be an endless endeavor. You know what they say about genius and madness...
Anyway in some cases the guy definitely needs someone close to him, a friend or a business partner to step up and say "You got to stop, it's good as it is".
PS; the indiana jones hate was totally exaggerated. You guys need to stop with this whole hate band wagoning bullshit.
I've long suspected Lucas keeps making ridiculous changes to these just so he can eventually sell "original" versions to the same fans who buy the film when it's released on a new format.
On September 03 2011 06:17 wingweaver415 wrote: ....its his movie, his franchise, his way of seeing that moment and how he felt Vader was "feeling" at that time. He probably felt in the original movies Vader didnt express his real emotions thoroughly in episode 3. He still came across as a cold person and Lucas probably never meant to show him in that way.
The real killer for me in the prequel movies was casting Hayden Christenson as Anakin Skywalker. He is so BAD. I think if they wanted someone who looked just as good but acted better, James Franco would have been a better choice.
100% of all movies considered great, have a deeper meaning to them than what is presented.
George Lucas hates his fans? pretty strong oppinion coming from someone who knows nothing about the man.
Hayden Christensen is a good actor, he just got given a shitty script. It's hard to make lines like "You've grown... More beautiful I mean" sound good. Shattered Glass is a much better demonstration of his ability since it has a good script and good direction. If you've seen that then you know that cringe-worthy Anakin Skywalker moments are direction/scripting issues rather than Hayden's inability to act.
That's what I think anyway.
Go check out Shattered Glass. Same well below average acting In my oppinion. He was hired for his looks not his abilities.
I've seen it, hence why I referred to it in my post, which I'm guessing you didn't really read. Hayden Christensen received a reasonable amount of critical acclaim for his role in that movie, although he was slightly overshadowed by Peter Saarsgard, who was amazing.
I stand by my point that it was poor scripting and direction (esp. scripting) which lead to Christensen looking like a shit actor. No actor could make the cheese that Lucas injected into Anakin's script sound good.
On topic, I don't think the actual change that Lucas made is bad at all. In fact, had I seen it this way originally I would be perfectly happy with it. I think the real issue that fans have with it is that he is essentially changing the events that occurred in the movies retroactively, however minor the changes may be. No respectable writer would go back and change certain lines or events post-publication because it ruins the illusion that the story is something that actually happened. Basically, it's difficult to connect with a story whose events are constantly changing.
EPT
