Attack of the Clones rant, revisited.

[tracilicious]

I agree with much of what's been said, but am surprised that people had such high expectations acting wise. I thought that Mark Hammill was a horrible actor. And some of the others weren't fantastic either. I think what made the original trilogy so much fun was the uniqueness of the story. I don't think being typecast was the only reason most of those actors didn't have a career after Star Wars.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Originally Posted by tracilicious

I agree with much of what's been said, but am surprised that people had such high expectations acting wise. I thought that Mark Hammill was a horrible actor. And some of the others weren't fantastic either. I think what made the original trilogy so much fun was the uniqueness of the story. I don't think being typecast was the only reason most of those actors didn't have a career after Star Wars.

They were so-so to bad to begin with. Combine that with a terrible director, and voila. But even so, Christiansen and Portman's performances were even worse. And the dialog was even worse.

[mousepod]

Originally Posted by tracilicious

I think what made the original trilogy so much fun was the uniqueness of the story.

As a 10-year-old, I was entranced by everything about the first movie. The story, the actors, the whole shebang. The sheer exuberance of the film pulled me in and held me. When I got older and started to broaden my film horizons, I found out that the story was loosely based on Kurasawa's "The Hidden Fortress," which I sought out and loved.
When I go back and watch the OT, I can see all the flaws, yet I'm more forgiving than I am with, say, a Corman quickie from the same era.
I think my fondness for SW is part nostalgia and part gratitude for being my intro to cinema.
(Sgt Pepper isn't my all-time favorite record either, but I have the same kind of respect for it)

[innerSpaceman]

Originally Posted by tracilicious

Mark Hammill was a horrible actor. And some of the others weren't fantastic either.

That may be true. But I think the big difference between the O.T. and the prequels is that America and the world became rather fond of Luke Skywalker, Han Solo, Princess Leia, Chewbacca, R2D2 and C3PO long before the finale installment hit the theaters.

Is anyone fond of Amidala or Anakin or Jar-Jar or even young Obi-Wan? If you have answered "yes" to one or none of those, then you have the major problem with the prequels right there. Beyond all the bad writing, poor story, horrible directing and all-around crappy execution ... we just don't give a fvck about the main characters. Bad acting regardless, we liked Luke and we liked Leia. We even liked Han Solo enough to forgive his RotJ performance that makes Christensen seem like Olivier.

The world loved the O.T. characters. And the world is meh about the prequel characters. Death. Knell.

[Cadaverous Pallor]

Originally Posted by tracilicious

I agree with much of what's been said, but am surprised that people had such high expectations acting wise. I thought that Mark Hammill was a horrible actor. And some of the others weren't fantastic either.

This is true. The way I look at it is this. When Lucas announced that he was going to make prequels, he could have gotten anyone he wanted. He scoured the acting world to get the exact actors he wanted. And we end up with blocks of wood? I'd agree with what some others are saying and blame a large part of the bad acting on Lucas. Look at Samuel Jackson, a fine actor that totally sucks in these films as well. I actually liked Liam Neeson and Ewan McGregor (although Ewan was much better in II) but it was obvious that they, like everyone else, were extremely limited by the crappy direction/dialogue.

Originally Posted by zapppop

It's a different set of films. Accept that and you'll be much happier.

Like I said, they are put out as being a part of the same universe. They want to inspire the feelings that the former movies did. They do not. I am disappointed.

I'll admit as quick as anyone born the year the original came out that I have no perspective on the OT. Yes, there was bad acting in it, especially ANH. Yes, there is cheesy dialog. But I maintain that it was a different kind of cheese! It was the kind of sillyness that made you LOVE THE CHARACTERS. The kind of banter that made you think that these were real human beings. The lighthearted moments weren't filled with crappy slapstick. The romantic moments were sweet. Compare Han and Leia's moment alone in ESB with the bullsh!t in AotC. If you look at the lines on paper, perhaps they might seem equally sappy, but watched on screen, it's a far different story.

Originally Posted by zapppop

They're sequels. Get over it.

That's like saying "Disney built DCA. Get over it."

[Isaac]

Originally Posted by Cadaverous Pallor

That's like saying "Disney built DCA. Get over it."

DCA is not a sequel or prequel to Disneyland but it too was created decades after the original

[Disneyphile]

When I see Yoda flying through the air with that face.... it so reminds me of Miss Piggy crashing through the wall on a motorbike in The Great Muppet Caper. Since then, I can't shake the "Yoda is a Muppet" image from my mind.

[mousepod]

Originally Posted by Disneyphile

When I see Yoda flying through the air with that face.... it so reminds me of Miss Piggy crashing through the wall on a motorbike in The Great Muppet Caper. Since then, I can't shake the "Yoda is a Muppet" image from my mind.

Wait.... Yoda is a muppet???

[Disneyphile]

Originally Posted by mousepod

Wait.... Yoda is a muppet???

He was in the original trilogy.

[€uroMeinke]

Originally Posted by mousepod

Wait.... Yoda is a muppet???

[Jedi Mind Trick]These are not the muppets you are looking for[/Jedi Mind Trick]