The Official Movie Thread

[Kin]

Sorry, I should have clarified Oscar winning. I was referring to the non-technical categories.
Now I love A New Hope, but there is no way it should have been nominated for Screenplay, Direction or Supporting Actor.

I can't argue with Screenplay or Supporting actor(well, I could, but being as there's a lot there that's subjective it wouldn't have much of a point) but I think that if you don't think that it deserved a best direction nomination that you're largely looking at it in hindsight. Think of everything Lucas had to do, to pioneer, to even get that movie made. It required tons of innovation.

Looking back, it's easy to say that parts of it look outdated or the idea of shooting largescale space battles is par for the course for a science fiction movie but I think that ignores the practical realities of what Lucas did in the mid-late 70's.

So I went to Wikipedia to check what else was nominated that year and see that John Travolta was nominated for Best Actor for Saturday Night Fever and my entire argument got thrown out the window. So I give up.

It's not like it was a bad years for movies. Annie Hall, Close Encounters of the Third Kind, Slapshot, A Bridge too Far and so on.

My point is, my kids and all their friends like the Prequels much more than they like the original Trilogy.

Sure but kids, as a general rule, are not the most discerning critics. My point is that there's genuine artistic merit to the originals that isn't there in the prequels.

 

[TimKerr]

To your last point about kids not being good critics. I agree. And I also agree that there was more artistic merit to the originals and than the prequels.
But people are acting like the prequels ruined the franchise.
I am saying that it actually brought more fans to Star Wars in the shape of all the young kids who love the prequels. And then get absorbed into all the toys and marketing available for Star Wars.
The prequels were a bad thing for hardcore fans who loved the originals and didnt want to see them sullied. But for Lucas and those who made the prequels, they were nothing but a success in growing the Star Wars fan base and thus the revenue associated with it.

 

[#1PilarFan]

My point is, my kids and all their friends like the Prequels much more than they like the original Trilogy.

Which doesn't really speak to anything as far as I see it. If your kids like Madagascar 3 over Argo, does that mean Madagascar 3 was the superior movie? Probably not.

And maybe Lucas really did intend to market the movie to children (and that's not just something he said in retrospect when he realized his attempt to pay homage to his own creation fell flat on its face) but that doesn't make a ton of sense because he already had a built in market which he tapped. I mean, it wasn't your kids sitting out on the street for hours dressed as Luke Skywalker and Princess Leia and it certainly wasn't your kids sustaining Lucas' business before the prequels were made by buying books, magazines, toys and anything else Star Wars related that they could get their hands on because they loved the original movies so much. So why intentionally shirk that market and make a movie made for kids that will both alienate huge numbers of your fanbase and make you into a villain when you could just make a movie geared towards the fans of the original sequel who were going to drag their kids to see the movie anyway?

I mean, George Lucas is many things and he doesn't deserve half of the things he gets blamed for, but to say he made these movies for kids just doesn't add up. He made three bad movies. There's no way around that.

Also, a general note - if something states its geared towards kids, it's usually pretty stupid. Which is why a company like Pixar is so unique in its ability to create movies that appeal to both adults and children.

 

[Kin]

The prequels were a bad thing for hardcore fans who loved the originals and didnt want to see them sullied.

That might be true for some but personally, I'm someone who is fine with reimaginings and reinterpretations. I don't think a new, worse version of something I liked sullies the thing I liked originally. . For me the prequels were disappointing because they were bad movies, that's all.

 

[bustaheims]

For me the prequels were disappointing because they were bad movies, that's all.

This. These movies had so much potential. There was a really interesting story there, some potential for some great new characters and some great new looks at characters we already knew, but, these movies seriously failed to deliver on any of that. Instead, we got some well polished, shiny looking turds.

What sullied the original trilogy are the "Special Editions" with all the unnecessary CG that was tacked on to them.

 

[LittleHockeyFan]

For me the prequels were disappointing because they were bad movies, that's all.

This. These movies had so much potential. There was a really interesting story there, some potential for some great new characters and some great new looks at characters we already knew, but, these movies seriously failed to deliver on any of that. Instead, we got some well polished, shiny looking turds.

What sullied the original trilogy are the "Special Editions" with all the unnecessary CG that was tacked on to them.

totally agree with you! I still have my vhs copies of the Original Trilogy in their Original Release form. Can't stand all the special edition, extra special edition, newly remastered extra special special edition crap......

 

[#1PilarFan]

I just want to emphasize this because of how strongly I agree with this particular point. The older movies have their issues, and to be fair I don't think anyone ever seriously argues that they should be considered some of the finer works of filmmaking in history, but I do think that there's something to be said for the authentic, lived in quality of the original movies that comes from the fact that sets had to be built and authentic out door settings be found/

Personally, when a movie is almost entirely CGI I find that there's a distance to it because of how much it resembles a cartoon. The Prequels don't just have CGI'd characters but most of them are almost entirely shot against green screen. To me that's just so visually ugly when compared to the first one being shot in the Tunisian desert.

I'm gonna get in on this.

There's two problems with relying too much on CGI. The first is that these objects, places and people look too foreign to suspend the adequate amount of disbelief needed for the audience to really get into a movie. I mean, yes, the prequels were constantly pushing the boundaries of what could and could not be done, but they did it a terrible price.

The second problem is that blue screens and CGI aliens, clones, robots, etc, make it really hard for the very few real actors to get into character. Now you might say a great actor should be great no matter what - but I don't think that's ever the case. Many people believe that once they're in costume, they're immediately more attached to the character. Real sets and real actors to react to and bounce lines off serve the same purpose. It's hard enough getting great performances out of even great actors - but George Lucas did himself no favours by hiring a bunch of pretty good actors and shoving them in a studio while telling them to respond to a slapstick alien. 

 

[Bullfrog]

All excellent points. I definitely agree with the CG part. It was unnecessarily over the top.

 

[maplesyrup]

Maybe Episode 7 redeems the franchise.  :-\

 

[CarltonTheBear]

Pretty good day for Lucas, I'd say. Quite the pile to retire on.

He's going to use the cash to build his very own death star.

Or he'll donate most of it to charity.

 

[CarltonTheBear]

If you're unconvinced, check out Red Letter media's reviews of Star Wars. They're long, but they do a much better job of demonstrating the noticeable dip in quality between the original series and the prequels.

I'd highly recommend anybody who hasn't already seen these to watch them. I was kind of in the same position as Bulldog before I did. I never watched the films as a kid and so probably about 4 or 5 years ago I watched them all within a couple of weeks (original trilogy first). At the time I didn't notice much of a difference between the two trilogies. I thought they were both enjoyable, but didn't love any particular movie.

The RLM videos really broke down what the prequels did wrong and what they should have done instead. Not only is the guy pretty funny, he definitely knows his stuff when it comes to film criticism. In the end does it make a difference since when I personally enjoyed all six somewhat? Maybe not, but it does make me realize what the hardcore fans are complaining about.

Just skip the stupid parts where he isn't talking about the movies. You'll know what I'm talking about.

 

[Guru Tugginmypuddah]

Pretty good day for Lucas, I'd say. Quite the pile to retire on.

He's going to use the cash to build his very own death star.

Or he'll donate most of it to charity.

He should give to those whiners over at the NHLPA. 

 

[maplesyrup]

Would Harrison Ford Return for Star Wars: Episode VII?
Harrison Ford is reportedly open to the idea of reprising the role of Han Solo in the newly announced Star Wars: Episode VII.
ign.com/articles/2012/?

Sorry, I don't have much more to add here because the link is fire-walled here.)

 

[maplesyrup]

Going to see a Skyfall matinee this afternoon - with very high expectations. If it's as good as Casino Royale, I'll be happy.

 

[Chev-boyar-sky]

Saw Argo last night and while it was good I wasn't blown away.

After The Town, I had very high expectations for this one and while I liked it enough it was kind of underwhelming. Great cast, good acting, decent script, just not a lot happens, I guess.

 

[brothert]

Going to see a Skyfall matinee this afternoon - with very high expectations. If it's as good as Casino Royale, I'll be happy.

Saw it last night.  You have high expectations to hope it's as good as Casino Royale(IMO the best bond film made).  The skyfall trailers certainly do not give a feel for the movie.  There are scenes that made me bust a gut (something I never pictured happening during a bond film).  It seemed like a Retro-Bond movie but very enjoyable none the less. 

 

[maplesyrup]

So many good Bond films and unfortunately, too many stickers including the last one. I'm partial to Goldfinger as the quintessential Bond film but yeah, I'd say Casino Royale makes my top 5 with ease... Possibly my top 3. - Can't wait to see this one.

 

[maplesyrup]

Completely met my expectations. Another terrific Bond film, IMO. Probably in my top 5 too. So, to homers and a strike out for these new Bond films. Not bad at all.

As a side, I almost said to homers and a strike out for Craig but truth be told, I don't think any of the problems with Quantum are to be blamed on Craig. He was fine.   

 

[OldTimeHockey]

Saw Argo last night and while it was good I wasn't blown away.

After The Town, I had very high expectations for this one and while I liked it enough it was kind of underwhelming. Great cast, good acting, decent script, just not a lot happens, I guess.

I dunno....I found it intense from start to end..though sitting beside my wife, who was clenching onto my arm tight enough to leave bruises, may of upped the intensity.

 

[CarltonTheBear]

Saw Argo last night and while it was good I wasn't blown away.

After The Town, I had very high expectations for this one and while I liked it enough it was kind of underwhelming. Great cast, good acting, decent script, just not a lot happens, I guess.

I dunno....I found it intense from start to end..though sitting beside my wife, who was clenching onto my arm tight enough to leave bruises, may of upped the intensity.

That's exactly how I felt too. Thought it was a terrific movie. I really can't decide which one I liked better, but I have to watch The Town again soon.