Star Wars Episodes 1, 2, & 3

[lamaros]

I've never been a huge Star Wars fan, though I found the original series fun at times, and so I never really got why people hated the prequals so much when they came out. I remember them being a bit cheesy and silly at times, and Hayden Christensen being a horrible actor, but otherwise I didn't get it.

The other day I watched 1-3 again because my brother had them about and the same things came to mind. They aren't great films, but they aren't that bad either.

The acting in the films, with the notable excpetion of Hayden and the Jar Jar VA, is to my mind better than the acting in 4-6. The first film only has Jar Jar as a blight (it should be noted that the toad king dude I actually thought did ok, so I place a bit of the blame at Jar Jar not just for his existence, but the moronic VA work/direction), and he's not in it as much as I remembered, while everyone else acts pretty well. What I remembered as somewhat racist alien stereotypes actually wasn't as bad as I had thought, though it was still there.

The second film wasn't as great, mostly because the plot seemed pretty meh and Hayden's bad acting completely destroyed the scenes with Portman (which were poorly written enough as it was), but it was still entertaining at times.

And the third film is actually a pretty good film.

So when watching it I was wondering about all those die hard Star Wars fans who really hated these movies and wondering why. As someone who only watched the originla ones once or twice (likely under duress) when I was younger I can't really see what makes 1-3 bad and 4-6 good. They all have silly characters, bad acting, and unbelievable plots and they all have moments where they're fun and entertaining too.

Is it the age difference and the expectations that made people dislike them so much, or are there other reasons that people might like to mention as to why they think the other films are better. Would be interested to hear what people think.

[Trippy]

Oh dear...

[lamaros]

Oh dear...

It's hard for a non Star Wars fan to understand what kind of damage they can do when mentioning such things. I hope I haven't made a terrible mistake...

[schild]

1. They aren't films, they're movies.
2. None of them are very good, they're just terribly nostalgic for all sorts of people. This includes the original series.

[WindupAtheist]

 

[Ironwood]

They weren't all that bad.

They were merely boring when they shouldn't have been, silly when it wasn't appropriate and, well, frankly took the lore (if you like) of the first/last set of films and shat on them horribly.

The Sabre Fight at the end is the best bit of the first.
The Imperial March at the end is the best of the second.
The, er, sabre fight at the end was the best of the third.

See a pattern ?  There's not much actually in the films to remember.  Then you start thinking about how they tried (badly) to tie into the other films in the last five minutes of the third one and your mind just wanders.

In short, if there had been NO other Star Wars films, these 3 would have been recieved in much the same way as, say, Transformers or The Bourne Stuff.  Lightweight silliness that has moments of cool but not much else.  Put them against the Massive Groaning Weight of the Nostalgia and Pack-Leading that was the original Star Wars and, well, they reek.

Anyway.

As WUA said 

They made money, I guess...

[Evildrider]

I actually like the clone wars cartoon better then I did SW 1-3. 

I don't find them horrible, they were just flat.  Could have been better. 

[K9]

1. They aren't films, they're movies.

What is the difference?

[schild]

* schild puts on his pompous elitist ass hat

Films have some sort of artistic value.

Movies don't.

Bring It On is a Movie.
Being John Malkovich is a film.

Star Wars 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 are movies.

I can not think of a single series that qualifies as a film.

I suppose Silence of the Lambs could be considered a film. But Hannibal and Red Dragon most certainly aren't.

Nerds being obsessed with Star Wars does not make the series a bunch of films. It just means their standards for action, dialogue, drama, and cinematography are super low. There's nothing wrong with that, but let's not make them out to be more than they are. That charade has gone on long enough.

Edit: I suppose I should add, Hidden Fortress is a film. Just because Star Wars was partially inspired by it doesn't make it better. I'm sure Uwe Boll and such can come up with some pretty compelling inspirations at the top of a hat, but it doesn't make his movies better.

[lamaros]

OED says:

Film

3
c. A cinematographic representation of a story, drama, episode, event, etc.; a cinema performance.

d. Film-making considered as an art-form.

4. A morbid growth upon the eye. Also said of the growing dimness in the eyes of a dying person; sometimes film of death.

Movie

1
b. A motion picture, a film.

Guess the odd one out!

So yeah, ok, but you can't really correct me on it.

[Velorath]

I can not think of a single series that qualifies as a film.

The Godfather movies if you give the third one the benefit of the doubt.

[schild]

Yes, I'm sure there's a million words that OED has as synonyms that are two entirely different things in the world of academia. I'm not saying it's fair or right, I'm just answering his question. Also, OED has American and British colloquialisms. Surely we don't want to look to a book that has "bridge-and-tunnel" and some obscure shit like "bumsters" as the epitome of intelligent thought. There's a reason I put on my pompous, elitist ass hat.

Here's a better example: The difference between a movie and film is why gaming journalism sucks.

Fake Edit:

The Godfather movies if you give the third one the benefit of the doubt.

The Godfather 1 & 2 are one movie and the third one does NOT get the benefit of the doubt. Ever.

[Tebonas]

I find this distinction between films and movies interesting. It doesn't exist in German. Movies are movies, they are either good or bad, and they either have artistic value or not.

Is a bad movie with artistic value better than a good movie that just wants to entertain?

[schild]

I find this distinction between films and movies interesting. It doesn't exist in German. Movies are movies, they are either good or bad, and they either have artistic value or not.

It might not exist in Germany but there are entire sections of cinematic study that in fact completely draw a line straight through German Film. It's HUGE topic in most Srs Bsns college courses.

Is a bad movie with artistic value better than a good movie that just wants to entertain?

Not at all. The discussion has nothing to do with that. Both films and movies can entertain. My collection of DVDs probably consists of more movies than films if we wanted to take an inventory of it. Calling something a movie or a film isn't meant to disparage it, you need actual adjectives to do that. The former is just used to define.

[Velorath]

I find this distinction between films and movies interesting. It doesn't exist in German.

It generally only exists here among people who study film.  It's not any sort of technical distinction obviously, since any movie that's on film is technically a film.  You say the word film though when describing a movie and people will generally get what you mean.

[ghost]

To be honest, if Lucas could get a "redo" on Star Wars 2 people probably wouldn't be quite so negative about them.  2 is a putrid pile of steaming crappy goodness.  Star Wars 1 could have done without Jar Jar Binks, but otherwise was pretty good.  I like the third installment a lot. 

It is interesting to note how many people who are fans of the series think back on 4-6 as great movies.  They weren't that great, we were just young and they had great special effects.  Mark Hammill makes Jar Jar Binks look like Kenneth Branagh with his acting in Empire, particularly the big fight scene.  To be honest, if Ford wasn't in the originals they probably wouldn't have done as well.

[schild]

To be honest, if Ford wasn't in the originals they probably wouldn't have done as well.

Say hello to the only reason their watchable today.

[Tebonas]

But all of that seems redundant to me. Film is a medium, whatever you do with that medium makes it either art or entertainment (ideally both). You can then rate and categorize this movie, but that doesn't change the medium. Just like a book doesn't cease to be a book just because it is a pulp novel instead of poetry.

We have the subcategory of Kunstfilme (Art movies) as well, but as a subspecies. Not something to differentiate on such a basic level.

Edit: Overlap with Veloraths posting

Thats what I suspected. In that case it sounds a bit pretentious if you try to enforce that distinction on non-students, though.

[Velorath]

But all of that seems redundant to me.

Like I said, it's not a term that's used because it's technically accurate.  If I had to guess, I'd say it gets used in this manner because the word film just has an old, classic resonance to it that movie, show, or flick don't.

[schild]

Mostly it's used because well, academics needed a word. Film and movie worked just fine. I'd wager the original usage of it in this capacity was because film sounded more classic. But mostly, at this point, it's purely a masturbatory practice. Like I said, it's not disparaging to either thing - yea, obviously, everything is cinema. But under cinema we have film and movies.

As for your book comparison, you're right. But book woulds be cinema here. Literature/Classics would be films and everything else would be well, labeled as per their genre. But yea, they're all still books.

[Velorath]

And then there's Oscar Bait, which are movies trying to be films.

[Tebonas]

Thanks for clearing that up. Didn't want to derail the thread, but its something Schild got agitated more than once about, and I didn't get where it comes from.

Its like all these people running around talking about their "CPUs acting up" when they in fact mean their Computers, and everybody who knows ANYTHING about that stuff realizes how retarded that saying is. Morons!  

[Velorath]

Derailing this thread is the best thing that could have happened to it.

[schild]

And then there's Oscar Bait, which are movies trying to be films.

I'm looking at you, Crash.

Crash also gets the lucky branding as a band-aid movie where there's an ensemble trash of actors who have fallen from grace.

Derailing this thread is the best thing that could have happened to it.

You didn't think I'd let this be about Star Wars, did you?

[ahoythematey]

One of my favorite distinctions between a movie and a film is the pairing of Tombstone and Unforgiven.  Both are top-notch classics in their respective genre, both have fantastic performances from the primary cast, and both have that special sauce that allows them to resonate with people who might not care about westerns.  While Tombstone is very entertaining, and it easily has one of, if not the, defining Doc Hollywood performances in cinema, it isn't really saying anything on the level that Unforgiven says something, depending on the viewer.

Pairing the two also highlights how nebulous the distinction between a movie and film can be, because both types can affect you and stick in your thoughts for the rest of your life.

[IainC]

Jar Jar Binks didn't irritate me in Ep 1 as much as Anakin's mother did. She must be the wettest and least effective individual in the entire galaxy.

Films 4-6 were pretty terrible (4 especially), even Ford is visibly cringing as he delivers some of his lines but in general they tell a mostly consistent story that's entertaining and resonates with the audience. 1-3 just didn't have the same cohesiveness and were more about showing off the setting than about telling a story. You can pretty much chart the points in every one of the prequel movies where a scene only exists to sell toys.

[schild]

resonates with the audience.

Yea, an audience of 8 year olds. Poop jokes would work too.

HAHA.

I'm here all week, folks.

[Gutboy Barrelhouse]

The Peter Jackson LOTR are films. Not movies, well at least the expanded versions.

[schild]

The Peter Jackson LOTR are films. Not movies, well at least the expanded versions.

This is a good example of a trilogy of films. Well played. I tend to block it out because of all the walking.

And walking.

And walking.

[Engels]

I dunno if LOTR raises to the level of films. I'd say that its very rare that a cinematic event straddles both genres, as defined by schild. Laurence of Arabia might, although it still somehow stays kinda movie-ish. Some Hitchcock does both the best of what movies are meant to do while having the deeper inflection of films.

[schild]

I dunno if LOTR raises to the level of films. I'd say that its very rare that a cinematic event straddles both genres, as defined by schild. Laurence of Arabia might, although it still somehow stays kinda movie-ish. Some Hitchcock does both the best of what movies are meant to do while having the deeper inflection of films.

Along with Hitchcock:

Fukusaku (Battle Royale), Takashi Miike (Ichi the Killer, etc), Lars von Trier, Kurosawa, the Cohen Bros., Soderbergh, Miyazaki (Mononoke, Grave of the Fireflies, etc), Cronenberg, Woo, Paul Thomas Anderson, Boyle, etc. etc. etc.

There's a shitload of directors capable of making movies that can be intelligently discussed and studied. They don't always nail it and a lot of them are past their prime (Woo and Soderbergh most definitely). It's not as rare as you state, but it's certainly not common.

[Nevermore]

I found the biggest difference between 4-6 and 1-3 to be the pacing.  4-6 had a much better flow.  2 also had the big problem of Obi Wan spending too much time alone.  3 was way too rushed as Lucas realized 'Hey, I left 75% of the story for the last movie.'  Plus he screwed up the end where Anakin becomes Vader. 

1-3 had its share of problems too, of course (I'm looking at you, Ewoks).  But they were just put together better so they're more watchable.

[Nevermore]

Miyazaki (Mononoke, Grave of the Fireflies, etc)

Nitpick: Isao Takahata wrote and directed Grave of the Fireflies, though he hired Studio Ghibli to do the animation for it.

[ghost]

Jar Jar Binks didn't irritate me in Ep 1 as much as Anakin's mother did. She must be the wettest and least effective individual in the entire galaxy.

Films 4-6 were pretty terrible (4 especially), even Ford is visibly cringing as he delivers some of his lines but in general they tell a mostly consistent story that's entertaining and resonates with the audience. 1-3 just didn't have the same cohesiveness and were more about showing off the setting than about telling a story. You can pretty much chart the points in every one of the prequel movies where a scene only exists to sell toys.

Anakin's mother was terrible, too.  That scene in their house during the sandstorm was one of the more awkward scenes in the series.  

My favorite scene in the whole movie is in the cantina where Ford says that the Falcon can "make the Kessel run in 12 parsecs" and Guinness smirks at him because he actually fucked up the line.  He was supposed to say something besides "parsecs" but it stuck throughout the series.  

Bottom line:  Lucas got lucky with 4-6.  The timing was great, he surrounded himself with good people and he had a simple, yet effective story line.  He got derailed in 1-3.  The story was there, he just surrounded himself with idiots.  

As an aside, how do you fuck up with Liam Neeson and Ewan MacGregor?  Also, Ian McDermid is very, very good.  It was easy to fuck it up in 3 fell swoops.  1.  Insert yourself as director (cough, cough), 2. Jar Jar Binks and 3. Hayden Christenson

[ahoythematey]

The difference between the two trilogies is almost entirely nostalgia.  No movie(s) could have lived up to the expectations we had going in, especially when the bulk of the movies are genuinely bad.  Just to make things clear, I feel Sith is actually a good movie that was shackled by a shitty backstory combined with sub-par direction.