CHUD.com Community › Forums › SPECIFIC FILMS › The Franchises › Emotional Disconnectedness
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Emotional Disconnectedness

post #1 of 69
12/31/05 at 5:37pm
Thread Starter 
I've been thinking back to some of the films that have affected my heart and The Lord of the Rings is forefront in my mind. LOTR is one of those franchises that was able to alter my emotional conscience. I feel like I journeyed with Frodo and Sam, I weathered that storm (to some degree). Without sounding too much like an idiot (whoops, too late), I was having a discussion with someone recently about the films that really affected change in us as people.

The conversation turned towards the new Star Wars trilogy, and we both agreed that, however much Revenge of the Sith was the best of the prequel trilogy it was just information, with no emotional center. Certainly there are/were moments when certain things were said or happened that flickered your heart, but on a whole, again, it was only information.

I came to this realization after watching each of the prequels with the director/crew commentary. As I watched and listened, never did I hear anything but statements like "this was comped in here, this character was shot on a blue screen 3 months later." or "This set did not even exist" etc... which, interestingly enough, further skewered the film.

Now, what this thread is NOT is a prequel bashing or prequel loving thread. I am interested in emotional journeys, and if some of you were able to have that with this new trilogy. As much as "Loved" ROTS, there was no resonance, nothing but information and an end.

I would like to hear how this prequel trilogy affected you [or not] and if not, which trilogy of films has stayed with you. On that note, the OT has stayed with me and left an emotional and adventurous impression in my heart. Maybe that connection is attributed to my youth, maybe not. The journey is always the most intriguing for me.
Reply
post #2 of 69
12/31/05 at 8:47pm
Well, unlike a lot of people who post on this subject, I never considered the original trilogy as a whole on that level. Star Wars remains one of my all-time favorite films, and is really the film that solidified my love of movies. The Empire Strikes Back held its own against the monstrous expectations I'd built up for it, and remains quite possibly the best sequel ever made. But Return of the Jedi was a crashing disappointment for me, and has prevented me for having the love for the holy trinity that many of you do. Those three films hit me between the ages of 13 and 19, and unlike those of you yung 'uns who saw the entire trilogy as a unit, I waited three years between chapters. Consequently, the way many of you describe your letdown with the prequels is precisely how I felt about "Episode VI".

That, ironically, may be why I don't hate the prequel trilogy the way many of you do. I feel that the series had already let me down back in '83. As irritating as Jar Jar may be (and he is), Lucas had already let slip his prediliction for letting cutesy overwhelm excitement. He's just an extension of the Ewoks for me.

Given that my expectations for these films were already lower than many of yours, the flaws didn't undercut them quite so badly in my eyes. Maybe for that reason, I found Revenge of the Sith a return to form, and I find a great emotional resonance in Episodes III and IV taken as a whole (with a 20 year gap).

As for the wider question you posed, limiting our affections to trilogies is pretty limiting. Generally, I consider trilogies with a grain of salt, as I tend to feel that they almost invariably contain a chapter that's a big letdown. Return of the Jedi, Back to the Future Part 3, both of the Matrix sequels, and (I'm going to get lynched for this one) The Two Towers. I prefer to judge a film on its individual merits. If it can't work on its own, the "but it's part of a larger story" defense doesn't save it for me. In my eyes, trilogies are almost always failures.
Reply
post #3 of 69
12/31/05 at 9:03pm
The prequels didn’t affect me in any way. I couldn’t connect Obi-Wan (comically) riding monster-back in pursuit of whomever (random villain’s name escapes me) with the grave and weighty performance of Guinness in the OT. To me it’s like they exist in two entirely different dimensions.

I wanted an emotional connection – Jesus H. Christ I did! – with the promises offered by the OT – ‘And he was a good friend’. But it wasn’t there.

I know I sound like some Looney SW/Lucas etc. basher, but I can’t do anything other than call it how I see it – no matter how stupid I look.
Reply
post #4 of 69
12/31/05 at 9:10pm
For what it's worth, I don't think you look stupid. It's just an opinion on a movie. I think too many people (particularly ones on Internet forums) place far too much importance on movie opinions. Whether I disagree with someone on a movie's worth has nothing to do with what kind of person they are, or what I should think of them. Sometimes I'm afraid that there are people who really believe that anyone who doesn't like The Lord of the Rings is a despicable human being.
Reply
post #5 of 69
12/31/05 at 9:53pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nigel St. Buggering
For what it's worth, I don't think you look stupid. It's just an opinion on a movie. I think too many people (particularly ones on Internet forums) place far too much importance on movie opinions. Whether I disagree with someone on a movie's worth has nothing to do with what kind of person they are, or what I should think of them. Sometimes I'm afraid that there are people who really believe that anyone who doesn't like The Lord of the Rings is a despicable human being.
I adore Jackson’s LOTR! Okay, I think things go downhill from FOTR – which I could watch again and again forever – but the sequels remain superb entertainment and value for money. The (thankfully – dwindling) minority who are convinced that love for LOTR precludes love for SW drive me mad.

As a film devotee I want every movie I sit before to be great. Half-assed tribalism doesn’t come into it.
Reply
post #6 of 69
12/31/05 at 10:20pm
I'll agree LOTR has far more emotional resonance, it's a more fully realized effort than the SW prequels. I love the prequels but only in certain scenes, everything else seems uneven.
Reply
post #7 of 69
1/1/06 at 12:54am

Lucas is indeed, The Lord of the Sith.....

I'm still nursing the wound in my back administered to me from Lucas in the form of a 12 inch serrated bowie knife, aka-ROTS. He actually managed to fool me into believing that the movie would indeed make up for the commercialized, and hollow prequel entries preceeding it.

Instead what transpired after lulling me into a false sense of hope was the knife slipping in, but that wasn't enough for George oh no! He had to keep twisting it and ripping it up the entire length of my back till the bitter fucking end.

In light of what the OT meant to me since my wee little shaver days of 8 years old and on, I don't think that I take it too seriously or make too much of what a dissapointment and betrayal I perceive George to have perpetrated on the original fans of the OT.

I understand these movies have always been for the young/young at heart, but the prequels have consistently been nothing more than a shameless pap-ridden cash-in on the monster name brand that is Star Wars, and have achieved nothing more than stoking the furnace of George's already massive and whore-ish consumerism machine, which by the way suspiciously resembles a Jawa Sandcrawler as it perpetually pillages the moviegoing landscape.

I thank Jackson from the bottom of my heart to supply an audience in desperate need of a trilogy that contains both a magnificently beating heart full of depth and soul, and an inexaustable ability to awe us with a sense of magic and wonder.

I feel rather confident in saying that nothing shall ever eclipse LOTR when it comes to trilogy works if the future, and it saddens me that it actually winds up surpassing the Star Wars OT when all is said and done.

At least I still have Star Wars and The Empire Strikes Back to cherish without feeling like a complete sucker, since they both benefitted from a mercyful lack of the shameless marketing ploy known as, The fucking Ewoks.

Shame on you Mr. Lucas, and may the force not be with you.....always.
Reply
post #8 of 69
1/3/06 at 7:36pm
I disliked a lot of stuff about the prequels, and was very dissapointed in it but for Heaven's sake, Lucas just made some dissapointing films, he did not commit a string of serial killings.
I have plenty to criticise about Lucas as a film maker, but this whole scale hatred for him is a little puzzling.
And is not even meant to be funny, the way that Uwe Boll hatred is meant.
Reply
post #9 of 69
1/3/06 at 8:51pm
I think the main problem with the prequels, in a nut shell, is that they're too complex. There's too many things going on, too many unnecessary characters taking the spot-light, too many unecessary sub-plots that go nowhere (ie, Boba Fett, Sifo-Dyas, General Grievous etc).

The films jump around from place to place all too often and not enough time is taken to develope what actually matters. Our characters and their relationships with others evolve to such a point in between the episodes that we really need to be re-introduced to them in each film ...much of Sith doesn't make any sense without having watched the Clone Wars shorts...the story just isn't tight enough, it's too loose and sprawling. The beauty of the original trilogy is in it's simplicity.

These long periods of time between the prequels are a major flaw in that they cause a dissociation between the audience and the characters, and it's also a major detraction from the serial format which Lucas claims to be so fond of.

Besides that the characters aren't incredibly well written (although I will say the performances given by Liam Neeson, Ewan Mcgregor, and Ian McDiarmid stand out from among the rest), the audience cannot form as strong a connection to the characters or the universe they're in, in comparison to the original trilogy, when they're constantly changing and never developing a real heart and soul of their own. This is sort of an extention of one of the major complains about the prequels, that there isn't a tangible villian. The original trilogy was full of rich characters that instantly became part of pop culture, the same cannot be said of prequels and it's due to the fact that we never really get to know these characters, they're different in every film, and this is only to the detriment of the overall story.
Reply
post #10 of 69
1/3/06 at 9:17pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Uncle Cthulhu
This is sort of an extention of one of the major complains about the prequels, that there isn't a tangible villian.
To tell the truth, this turned out to be one of the things I LIKED about the prequels. The tangible villain is Palpatine from end to end. He's playing his cards one by one from the beginning of Episode I to the way he tells Vader he killed Padme in his anger in Episode III. He uses ebvery flaw in the system, every weakness to rise to power. And watching it happen little by little was great.

I love how the real evils of these films come from the so-called "good guys". How the downfall of the Jedi and the Republic comes very much from within, from how this theocracy and this so called democracy is organized. And I loved how the flaws of both show themselves in both Padme and Anakin.

It's the reason I ended up feeling so much sorrow for them both in the end, even though their dialogue is stilted as hell from time to time. Politics, moral responsibility? Fuck that....they're CHILDREN. Children given a lot of information and a lot of rules, without allowing for the emotional strength to know why. The fact that Anakin's the chosen one, and he's the one questioning and testing so much of the Jedi ideology says something right from the beginning. His story is very much one of trying to hold on to something resembling humanity and curiosity while in a profession that will allow him neither. The fact that this journey takes him to become everything he didn't want to be in a physical manifestation is pure tragedy. yes, in short, I did find myself connecting to the prequels. Not to every single little aspect of it, as I was with LOTR...but to its most vital parts. The parts that mattered.

....that was more than I intended to write.
Reply
post #11 of 69
1/3/06 at 9:35pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crow
To tell the truth, this turned out to be one of the things I LIKED about the prequels. The tangible villain is Palpatine from end to end. He's playing his cards one by one from the beginning of Episode I to the way he tells Vader he killed Padme in his anger in Episode III. He uses ebvery flaw in the system, every weakness to rise to power. And watching it happen little by little was great.
Yes, I'm not complaining about this...I don't think it was played out as well as it could've been, but it works. The problem is that there isn't a consistent, concrete villian in contrast to this. Each film has it's flavor-of-the-month bad guy, who lacks overall important in the story and exsists mainly cause' we gotta have swordfights and stuff. Dooku had the potential to be alot more than that.
Reply
post #12 of 69
1/3/06 at 9:44pm
Visual and technological elements became primary, story became secondary, and that's what killed it. Of course, that's how it's always been for George, and probably the thing that didn't help is he hired creative staff for EMPIRE who elevated the saga to new heights, which just couldn't be met with Lucas and the staff hired for JEDI, and certainly not met by George himself.

SITH had some decent emotional scenes for me, but it was too little too late. I suppose some of it is also due to George painting himself into a corner with Episode I, but in any case, the prequels were never going to be able to match with LOTR because Jackson is just a better filmmaker, but also a better writer, and also had Fran Walsh and the Ginger Queen to reign him in, something George hasn't had for a long time.
Reply
post #13 of 69
1/4/06 at 1:33am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shatner's Brain
I smell Jackson fanboyism in full force here. *sniff* And really, Jackson's beloved LOTR trilogy is a well done adaptation of the classic books. He didn't create anything in those movies but based every design and whatnot on what's been published before.
I think I smell Lucas fanboyism. Really, no one except maybe that Vaspet guy has really said Lucas is a hack, and as for the LOTR comments, that's a pretty big insult to a great group of filmmakers and also a pretty huge misunderstanding of what goes into making a film. Especially in Jackson's case, where he and his cohorts took a huge but weighty book full of good ideas but a bit of a struggle and translated it into a seriously emotionally compelling story that transcends the original source material.

Again, people come along and immediately assume that if we love Peter Jackson, we must hate Lucas. Not at all. I don't think he's the best director in the world, but I like the man and I'm eternally grateful for the OT, as I am with PJ for LOTR, this generation's equivalent of the OT.
Reply
post #14 of 69
1/4/06 at 1:51am
Star Wars has never been about emotional depth. It's just a modern take on classic serials, like Indiana Jones. I don't believe Flash Gordon ever got into Ming's traumatic childhood either.
Reply
post #15 of 69
1/4/06 at 2:20am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Charlie Brigden
Especially in Jackson's case, where he and his cohorts took a huge but weighty book full of good ideas but a bit of a struggle and translated it into a seriously emotionally compelling story that transcends the original source material.
Transcends the original source material? You looking to get your house egged? Actually, I happen to agree with you, but the last time I suggested that the movies improved on the books, I got yelled at. Ringies are scary.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Desslar
Star Wars has never been about emotional depth. It's just a modern take on classic serials, like Indiana Jones. I don't believe Flash Gordon ever got into Ming's traumatic childhood either.
That's always been my attitude about Star Wars. I don't know where people got this idea that it's supposed to be stirring Shakespearean drama.
Reply
post #16 of 69
1/4/06 at 9:34am
As Charlie previously stated, after the release of 'Empire...' the saga was raised to a level which could be considered shakesperean in scope but was brought down again when Jedi came along and we got Mini-Lucas's i.e. Ewoks instead. I think that's where the idea SW could be more than the sum of it's influences, unfortunately there was a different creative team on Jedi, this time with GL exerting more control than on 'Empire...'

As a visionary, Lucas deserves every bit of praise thrown his way but as a filmmaker, that's a tougher call even though I think he's improved with each prequel film (That's not saying much I know)
Reply
post #17 of 69
1/4/06 at 11:03am
Jacksons LOTR is the single most emotionally satisfying filmic experience Ive had in thirty years-but thats due to many combined and deeply personal factors coming into play.

The only other trilogy that Ive gone on an emotional journey on in recent years is the Matrix Saga. Yes, thats right the matrix films. They take me on a wonderfully married cerebral, visceral AND emotional journey.

Not saying anyone else has to even like them - thats just me.
Reply
post #18 of 69
1/4/06 at 1:24pm
That's cool, RD.
Reply
post #19 of 69
1/4/06 at 2:17pm
I suppose I'll join the minority and say that I did find an emotional connection to the prequels. I enjoyed them a great deal and feel like they represent some of the better filmmaking from each of their respective years. Was I disapointed in certain aspects? Certainly. Blah blah blah, it's all been said. I will say that I think in another 10-15 years people will enjoy these movies a whole lot more. Right now Star Wars has it's stigma. There are people I know who say they don't like it despite having never given the last three films a chance. I'm not sure how this happened given the gargantuan box-office but hey it does. No biggee.

But onto the matter at hand. If you are looking for arcs I felt particularly connected to Obi Wan's arc throughout the three films. The tragedy for him is just as great as for the Skywalker "family". He loses his mentor, friends, comrades, sees the ideals he loves twisted, and finally his own apprentice/brother/metaphorical son turns to evil.

These with some of the examples already listed above aren't discussed enough when we talk about these movies. Hopefully with some time more people will actually be able to critique these without so much bias one way or the other.
Reply
post #20 of 69
1/4/06 at 7:12pm
Thread Starter 
Well, Lucas bashing aside, this is what dislocates me from the prequels, the very same thing that left me empty after watching the visually stunning but emotionally hollow Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow...and that is...BLUE SCREEN...and it's overuse.

Now, grant it, the prequel trilogy wasn't designed as a period drama, obvisouly, but neither was the LOTR trilogy either. I am also a big fan of the Indiana Jones films and when I watch those films, I connect to Indy, I connect to his relationship with his father, his sense of adventure, his dry wit, there's something tangible and plausible about him, despite the fact that he lives and breathes in a very implausible and intangible world, much like the characters of the prequel trilogy.

I submit that technology is to blame for the sense of disconnectedness more then the stories and characters themselves. Again, case in point is the film Sky Captain starring Jude Law, Gwyneth Paltrow and Angelina Jolie. This film, however much conceptually awe-inspiring, lacked any sort of connection with the audience because of the extreme use of emotionally cold technology to tell a very simplistic, but somewhat romantic and swashbuckling tale.

This same technology was used by Peter Jackson to wonderful effect, but instead on relying on CGI to tell his story, he relied on the story to tell the story and made everything he could in 3 dimension before resulting in the use of CGI. And even when CGI was used [Gollum] it was magic. Never before have I made a connection with a computer generated image like I have with Gollum.

I am not writing all of this in god-like praise for Peter Jackson, grant it, LOTR has its issues and holes and things that don't work. But, on a whole, it works, and to wonderful effect.

There's this great line in the film 'Jurassic Park' [I know I know] that Ian Malcolm says "Just because you can doesn't mean you should." Yes, we are in an age where a world can be constructed entirely in a computer, but that doesn't mean it should be. Creatively, the film business has turned this CGI corner when it is now heavily reliant upon a computer to tell a story. The beauty of The Incredibles was that the story surpassed the boundaries of a digital construct and actually related to legions of people everywhere.

[The part I may be flamed for]

I do blame Lucas and his over-use and dependency on CGI for his latest film. I am of the opinion that CGI has made filmmakers lazy, not innovative. There is something to be said for real sets, actors, extras, real stuntment and costumes. That something is connectedness on many different levels. Against my better judgement, and my certain distance with the prequel trilogy [The Phantom Menace being my favorite of the three on second thought] I enjoy watching those films in a very cerebral sense. It does however pain me to listen to a commentary on the prequel DVDs that sound like a science and technology class, made by the brain as opposed to one, like LOTR, made from the heart. [so stop listening to it Jaime!!! ]
Reply
post #21 of 69
1/4/06 at 7:26pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by kingcujoI
I suppose I'll join the minority and say that I did find an emotional connection to the prequels. I enjoyed them a great deal and feel like they represent some of the better filmmaking from each of their respective years. Was I disapointed in certain aspects? Certainly. Blah blah blah, it's all been said. I will say that I think in another 10-15 years people will enjoy these movies a whole lot more. Right now Star Wars has it's stigma. There are people I know who say they don't like it despite having never given the last three films a chance. I'm not sure how this happened given the gargantuan box-office but hey it does. No biggee.

But onto the matter at hand. If you are looking for arcs I felt particularly connected to Obi Wan's arc throughout the three films. The tragedy for him is just as great as for the Skywalker "family". He loses his mentor, friends, comrades, sees the ideals he loves twisted, and finally his own apprentice/brother/metaphorical son turns to evil.

These with some of the examples already listed above aren't discussed enough when we talk about these movies. Hopefully with some time more people will actually be able to critique these without so much bias one way or the other.
I'll have to be in the minority too. The Original Trilogy first captured my eyes when I was around 8 years old, and that was in 93, which was an entire decade after the OT wrapped up. Of course, no one really appreciates cinema and the essence of star wars when they were 8, sure, you love vader and the whole lightsaber and space fights deal, but the story doesn't really hit you until an older age.

I think thats why I do like the prequels and I do feel connected to it. This is the Trilogy that I was old enough to witness and not just rent on video like I did in 93. It made me understand the story of Star Wars and Darth Vader.

Sure, I did feel emotional to the OT, and I still love it more than the PT.
Luke looking over to the binary sunset is still my favorite scene in any star wars film. Vader revealing to Luke that he is his father is another one, also Yodas passing and Luke looking at Anakin, Obi-Wan, and Yoda in ROTJ. All scenes I love

I do feel emotionally connected to the PT because it really does make the story of Darth Vader more human. I thought, watching the OT, that Vader was an evil guy whos lust for power took over him and made him turn. With the PT, you look at the aspects of his life, and you have to really feel for him. In AOTC when he comes back to find his mom dying and confessing the terrible revenge he committed, although Haydens performance is quite shady, is still emotional. The council chamber scene, when he starts to feel that he just killed padme by turning over Sidious to the jedi, and you see the anguish in his face when he looks out as Padme does the same, the majority of us with a fuckin heart did feel for him. As cheesy as this might sounds, a lot of us can understand as to what he did, the measures he took to save someone he loves and at the end how his anger, jealousy, and greed destroyed his life.

I know I probably will get grilled for feeling emotionally connected to the PT, but I don't care, there are a lot of us who weren't alive during the OT and feel that the PT not only reconnected a lot of people to Star Wars, but for me, it made my love for the OT a lot stronger.
Reply
post #22 of 69
1/4/06 at 8:09pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shatner's Brain
Well, this turned to a "Prequels suck/Lucas is a hack" thread pretty quick now didn't it? Go figure.

I smell Jackson fanboyism in full force here. *sniff* And really, Jackson's beloved LOTR trilogy is a well done adaptation of the classic books. He didn't create anything in those movies but based every design and whatnot on what's been published before.

As for KING KONG, it's a remake and they always suck right? Oh wait...it's PETER JACKSON! Aaaaand the blinders go on.

What did Lucas do? He created his own universe and characters which he became somewhat famous for and then he went back to tell of an earlier time in his own universe and he gets shit on. I'm a big fan of Lucas and Jackson, but to keep calling Lucas a hack is being the most typical internet whiner I can imagine.

In ten years, people will be looking at prequels with as much fondness as they do the originals. Except here on CHUD, "Where HOSTEL rocks!"

Lucas got shit upon by a lot of people because they thought the prequels were not very good,not because they are prequels per se.
For the poster here to accuse anybody of wearing blinders is the funniest thing ever.
And if you have not noticied, Lucas and Jackson have become good friends in real life, much to the chagrin of the more fanatic fanboys
Reply
post #23 of 69
1/4/06 at 9:13pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by J.M. PRATER
[The part I may be flamed for]

I do blame Lucas and his over-use and dependency on CGI for his latest film. I am of the opinion that CGI has made filmmakers lazy, not innovative. There is something to be said for real sets, actors, extras, real stuntment and costumes. That something is connectedness on many different levels. Against my better judgement, and my certain distance with the prequel trilogy [The Phantom Menace being my favorite of the three on second thought] I enjoy watching those films in a very cerebral sense. It does however pain me to listen to a commentary on the prequel DVDs that sound like a science and technology class, made by the brain as opposed to one, like LOTR, made from the heart. [so stop listening to it Jaime!!! ]
Personally I think what Lucas accomplished in Episode 3 was everybit as innovative as LOTR, he just didn't have the writing skills to back it up, if he'd a good screenwriter instead of shouldering the load himself we might've had a different perspective of SW, as it is, what we got was visually impressive, just lacking in the screewriting department.
Reply
post #24 of 69
1/4/06 at 10:01pm
Well, my thoughts are well known so I won't rehash the hash. I am possibly a minority and will say LOTR did not affect me emotionally as it has some on here.

Fellowship is my favorite and Return has some beautiful moments, most of them belong to Sam and Frodo.

The Two Towers ruins it for me. It's just tedious.

The prequels work for me, what can I say. I don't care about the bluescreen stuff the same reason I don't care what makes the engine in my car work-irrelevant.
Reply
post #25 of 69
1/5/06 at 12:33am

Perhaps my prior post was a bit, shall we say.....overzealous?

I must clarify that I would have been deemed an ardent fanboy of George Lucas and the Star Wars saga prior to the release of Return of the Jedi, and I still retain a profound emotional attachment to SW and TESB. Although my enthusiasm and loyalty indeed began to wane for the series with ROTJ, I still love the SW:OT, and honestly have grown much fonder of ROTJ over the many years since it's initial release. What struck me as underwhelming and inapprorpiate with my initial viewings of ROTJ, have since slowly evolved into an acceptance of it's importance in the OT, and thus I appreciate it's worth far more today. I still consider it to be a flawed film when measured against the first two chapters, yet compared to the prequels it stands well above those three films in what I view as their inherent lack of quality and overall emotional bereftness that they represent for me.

Now I don't want to sound as if the prequels held nothing in the way of significance because in fact they do, albeit to a far lesser extent than I had hoped. All three of the films contain scenes that I view as important and yes, indeed resonant in the overall mythos of the SW saga. Yet it remains my contention that these "important scenes" are too few in number when compared to the abundance of such in the OT. Those films had an effortless flow and narrative simplicity that while certainly not Shakesperean in contextual depth, were without a doubt emotionally resonant containing rich characters that you could easily empathize with. The OT in comparison to the PT possesses as many "important scenes" within one film alone (yes even ROTJ qualifies in this regard) than exists in all three of the PT films combined IMO. I don't mean to offend with that last statement, I just feel I couldn't possibly articulate it more honestly than that.
Reply
post #26 of 69
1/5/06 at 6:38am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Uth Vaspetad
The OT in comparison to the PT possesses as many "important scenes" within one film alone (yes even ROTJ qualifies in this regard) than exists in all three of the PT films combined IMO. I don't mean to offend with that last statement, I just feel I couldn't possibly articulate it more honestly than that.
I would certainly agree with that (except for Jedi) up until Episode III. Lucas has said (in the more recent, and more forthcoming interviews) that 60-70% of the story he had in mind for this trilogy is crammed into Revenge of the Sith, and that the first two films are light on plot and heavy on padding, and I think that really shows. I don't think the first two are terrible, as many would have it, but they're certainly not up to the standard set by Star Wars and Empire. But I do believe that Revenge of the Sith is worthy of their company. Return of the Jedi, crazy as this may sound to some, is still my least favorite chapter, which is a serious bummer since it's the big conclusion. Fortunately, the stuff I don't like is all in the first and second acts, so at least it goes out on a high note at the very end.
Reply
post #27 of 69
1/5/06 at 6:32pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dragon Ma
Personally I think what Lucas accomplished in Episode 3 was everybit as innovative as LOTR, he just didn't have the writing skills to back it up, if he'd a good screenwriter instead of shouldering the load himself we might've had a different perspective of SW, as it is, what we got was visually impressive, just lacking in the screewriting department.
Of course if a film is not well written then the game is pretty much over.
I actually thought for the record that the last half of AOTC and ROTS were pretty good, but pretty good are not nearly good enough for a "Star Wars" film".
As for TPM, it is beneath comtempt.
There is nothing wrong with the basic concepts Lucas had for the Prequels. It is just that too much of the execution was lousy.
And I think deciding to direct the films was a mistake for Lucas, considering his well known lack of interest in acting. He should have hired somebody to direct the actual film, and then direct the big action scenes himself.
Reply
post #28 of 69
1/5/06 at 10:09pm
From my perspective, the Prequels have worked, despite SOME flaws in it's execution. Emotinally, I was connected since Episode I. Vividly, I remember walking out of the theatre on opening night and asking myself "How the hell does that kid become Darth Vader?" Jake Lloyd had taken his lumps from everyone but I was intrigued and connected from the moment he left him Mother. And at the end of it all, when watching the Saga as a whole recently, the Prequels revelance became clearer. Darth Vader, in the Original Trilogy, is now totally different.

He'll never be the same again.

Instead of seeing the badass that we all grew up with; all I see and feel are Anakin's fear of losing his wife and what it drove him to lose and become. The Prequels have made Darth Vader tragic.

We can go on and on about what worked and what didn't work from every angle til the end of time. But, for me, the scene (and their were many for me throughout the Prequels) that sealed it was the Padme's Rumination Scene in Episode III.

In that scene with Padme at her apartment and Anakin in the Jedi Council Chambers, it became crystal clear and the Prequels became one with the Originals. Lucas basically led up to that particular scene(which is funny because it's a pick up scene).

I can not look at Star Wars in two parts any longer. It is one now. Hayden, Ewan, Natalie, Frank Oz, and Ian have done the job for me to have an emotional connection to the new Trilogy. Lucas, eventhough taking his sweet time in Episodes I and II, came through when it was time.

The Original Trilogy is the Original Trilogy eventhough I've never held it to the standard as most have.

With Rings, I had an emotional connection to only part of the story and that was Aragorn's story. And that is one of the failures of Return of the King from my prespective.

To me, Aragorn's story reached it's apex in the Two Towers. His moments in that film felt more like the King was returning to lead the world of men to victory. I've never been a fan of the Two Towers. The film has too many problems that could've been avoided had Jackson stuck closer to Tolkien but I consider the film worthy because of Aragorn's moments in that film. In Return of the King, I was only concerned for his journey as a character but the moments where not nearly as impactful as his moments in Towers. The Extended Edition of King helped a bit but not much.

Of the six films between the two trilogies, The Fellowship of the Ring Extended is the masterpiece; pure and simple. But, for emotional resonance, Episode III is the victor. The story of Anakin will never leave me. And I give Lucas credit for that effort. He could've phoned it in. The majority feel that he did. I do not.
Reply
post #29 of 69
1/5/06 at 10:32pm
I think the concept of Anakin as a tragic,flawed hero who destroys himself is a great concept, though not original. (See the ancient Greek dramas). But I think that Lucas hopelessly messed up a lot of he execution.
You can't substitute "intent" for "acheivement",which is something a lot of fans do.
Once again, there are extremists on both sides of the issue.
Reply
post #30 of 69
1/5/06 at 11:25pm
Personally, I think he achieved it but again, it's all subjective. Even still, it's been an interesting time for the genre considering the Prequels, The Rings, and The Matrix.

9 films. 3 stories, you can endlessly debate about.
Reply
post #31 of 69
1/5/06 at 11:55pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nigel St. Buggering
Transcends the original source material? You looking to get your house egged? Actually, I happen to agree with you, but the last time I suggested that the movies improved on the books, I got yelled at. Ringies are scary.
it absolutely transcends the source material, in terms of a dramatic, narrative story. the lord of the rings is a history book. in fact i can think of numerous history books id rather reread than lotr.

whats incredible about lord of the rings is the world thats created, not the immediate story taking place.
Reply
post #32 of 69
1/6/06 at 2:27am
I'm probably the only one who thinks Lord of the Rings would have been better had Jackson's original plan with Miramax gone ahead. He was going to do what Bakshi failed to do, which was make the whole thing in two parts instead of three. I think a lot of the fat could have been trimmed away, mostly from The Two Towers.
Reply
post #33 of 69
1/6/06 at 11:57am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nigel St. Buggering
I'm probably the only one who thinks Lord of the Rings would have been better had Jackson's original plan with Miramax gone ahead. He was going to do what Bakshi failed to do, which was make the whole thing in two parts instead of three. I think a lot of the fat could have been trimmed away, mostly from The Two Towers.
Problem with that for me is....the fat (Two Towers) was the best threatrical cut of the three. I think the decision to go ahead with three films allowed for proper story and character development. By the end of the third movie you really feel like you've been through something. I don't think that would remain if you cut it down to two films. Maybe this is a good editing excercise. For experimental purposes only of course. I would try it but my harddrive is full on another project at the moment.
Reply
post #34 of 69
1/6/06 at 12:01pm
TTT is my favourite of the three, and the best chapter imho. It's so radically different from FOTR, and instead of coming away from that film almost glowing, here you're exhausted because you've been through three gruelling hours of darkness. You now know how high the stakes have been raised, and this is no longer a happy jaunt, but this is a full-on WAR.
Reply
post #35 of 69
1/7/06 at 12:36am
All I knew at the end of The Two Towers was that nothing about the larger situation had really changed at all. The middle part of a trilogy should involve some major shake-ups. As a for-instance, look at The Empire Strikes Back. By the end, the Rebel Alliance is homeless, Han has been captured, Luke has confronted Vader and lost, learned that Vader is his father, and had a limb hacked off, and a new hero (Lando) has been introduced. At the end of The Two Towers, what's really changed since the end of Fellowship of the Ring? Sure, there was a huge battle, but it didn't really resolve anything in the larger conflict. Sam and Frodo are still on their way to Mordor; the only new development is that they've hooked up with Gollum; but the biggest developments in that storyline were saved for Return of the King. Even The Matrix Reloaded, which I personally can't stand, made some major alterations to our assumptions about the world and the situation. I didn't feel any of that after The Two Towers.

I do agree, though, that its Extended Edition was the most improved of the three.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Charlie Brigden
TTT is my favourite of the three, and the best chapter imho. It's so radically different from FOTR, and instead of coming away from that film almost glowing, here you're exhausted because you've been through three gruelling hours of darkness. You now know how high the stakes have been raised, and this is no longer a happy jaunt, but this is a full-on WAR.
You came out of Fellowship almost glowing? You thought that was a happy movie? I don't know about you, but the last hour of Fellowship was pretty damn dark from where I was sitting.
Reply
post #36 of 69
1/7/06 at 1:32am
The major battle in TTT wasn't meant to resolve anything, in the context of the entire story it just served to illustrate what the stakes were and they were only going to get bigger. It was the first indication that the good guys may not win, that the odds were stacked against them.
Reply
post #37 of 69
1/7/06 at 1:44am
I know it wasn't meant to resolve anything. That was the problem. The whole movie was just illustrating things, without ever changing the situation. I wanted something to develop.
Reply
post #38 of 69
1/7/06 at 8:00am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nigel St. Buggering
I know it wasn't meant to resolve anything. That was the problem. The whole movie was just illustrating things, without ever changing the situation. I wanted something to develop.
Ummm... have you actually read the books?

There was canon Jackson was remaining faithful too here.

You couldnt have some whizz-bang revelations that never happened in the book just to make the film more revelatory really.

Then it wouldnt be TTT.
Reply
post #39 of 69
1/7/06 at 8:08am
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Rain Dog
Ummm... have you actually read the books?

There was canon Jackson was remaining faithful too here.

You couldnt have some whizz-bang revelations that never happened in the book just to make the film more revelatory really.

Then it wouldnt be TTT.
And if it was in the books, it must be perfect.

The Two Towers was my least favorite of the books for the same reasons that it's my least favorite of the movies: not much happens. While I do think that Jackson improved on a lot of the problems with the books, his determination to remain faithful keeps many of them alive. In addition to the "nothing actually happens" problem with part two, there's the overall issue that the big villain has never really won a battle, which makes him somewhat less than terrifying.

I feel that, from a dramatic standpoint, a great deal of The Lord of the Rings could be improved. Unfortunately, people are a little too reverent about it to ever attempt such blasphemy.
Reply
post #40 of 69
1/7/06 at 7:17pm
Thread Starter 
I feel the need to further clarify my stance. Perhaps emotional connectedness was the wrong characterization. I just view the film Master and Commander : The Far Side of the World (which is one of the greatest pure adventure / classic films to be released in a while) and with that film there's this 'lived in' feel, this idea and knowledge that the men in the film lived and worked on the HMS Surprise. This came about because this ship was built to its entirety and a lot of the action was either shot on the ship in a tank, or out at sea.

When Ridley Scott filmed ALIEN, he had a bulk of The Nostromo built on a sound stage at Pinewood (or was is Elstree) studios in England. The set was connected and you had to walk through corridors to access much of it, like a real starship.

When actors are relegated to pretending, soo much, when they are on an empty set it comes through and many times, leaves the audience with a lack of tangible resonance (if that makes any sense).

I write all of this out of my INTENSE love for movies, and the idea of escaping, if only for a couple of hours, coupled with the knowledge of the budgets these films have. It disappoints me that Sky Captain does not stay with me. I am disheartened that the bulk of the prequel trilogy lessens over time and does not get better. Perhaps these are my own issues, or perhaps there is a larger issue at hand? I am continually flabbergasted at films with 100+ million dollar budgets that tank, or the story is poorly written, etc... I expect more from filmmakers. It's actually an embarassment to me that so much money is wasted on mediocre films.

I view much of the prequel trilogy as an excercise in technology rather then a series of films that poured from the heart [like LOTR, The Dark Crystal, Indiana Jones, King Kong 05', The Fountain, etc...] I want Hollywood to get off the CGI crutch a return to filmmaking with actual sets and props. I want to connect, and be more then entertained.

Maybe that's too tall of an order. Again, maybe this is all me.
Reply
post #41 of 69
1/7/06 at 9:23pm
The problem with the prequels is in the execution, plain and simple. Lucas had all the right ingredients for an EPIC, TRAGIC and EMOTIONALLY GUTWRENCHING saga. Instead we got a sloppy series of films piggy-backing the OT.

The script, direction and acting were all below par. That combination in any other film would've been completely unacceptable. But this is Star Wars and that alone assured a thousand pardons.

Lucas got many things in ROTS right. But it was like cheering the retarded backetball player on and he finally makes a shot after a hundred attempts. Just because he made a shot doesn't mean he's any good. The first two were so dissapointing and just totally awful that I think everyone just felt a great sense of relief we got a passable Star Wars movie with ROTS and it was elevated higher than it should have been.
Reply
post #42 of 69
1/7/06 at 9:26pm

Conspicuous Technological Consumption

I knew the use of CGI instead of practical effects would be a negative factor upon first hearing of George's delayed return to the series. It actually wound up being worse in this regard for me than I had predicted. Originally I envisioned only a stark contrast of visual continuity of the shiny new PT, versus the tangible, lived in look and feel of the physical sets and locations of the OT. I never factored in the possibility of George allowing the CGI to practically consume the human element, overshadowing the relevance of the storyline and the characters therein.


"If you leave now, help them you could but...You would destroy all, for which they have fought, and suffered."

It definitely showcases ILM's advancement in CGI/VFX, and highlights George's progress as a director insofar as visual composition, but the result of this IMO winds up feeling a lot like a massively budgeted, 3 disc tech demo most of the time. I desperately wanted to connect with these characters, but I consistently felt a distance and separation from them and their plight due to the overwhelming presence of CGI. The actors rarely seemed to physically connect with their computer rendered environs, and George's heavy reliance of it's use makes the technology timeline of the trilogies feel inappropriately backwards as well.


"Once you start down the dark path, forever will it dominate your destiny, consume you it will!"


Reply
post #43 of 69
1/8/06 at 2:27am
there is no comparison between lotr and the prequels except on that 'well i sure like them!' level. that does nothing for these discussions, lets talk about actual filmmaking. acting, editing, directing, writing, dialogue, plot, pacing.

and this is from someone who really really likes (and owns mind you) the prequels. they are pretty crap movies. the lotr series is on another level.

sry.
Reply
post #44 of 69
1/8/06 at 3:21am
Quote:
Originally Posted by J.M. PRATER
When Ridley Scott filmed ALIEN, he had a bulk of The Nostromo built on a sound stage at Pinewood (or was is Elstree) studios in England. The set was connected and you had to walk through corridors to access much of it, like a real starship.

I view much of the prequel trilogy as an excercise in technology rather then a series of films that poured from the heart [like LOTR, The Dark Crystal, Indiana Jones, King Kong 05', The Fountain, etc...] I want Hollywood to get off the CGI crutch a return to filmmaking with actual sets and props. I want to connect, and be more then entertained.

Maybe that's too tall of an order. Again, maybe this is all me.
How do you know they didn't use set's on the prequels. I actually watched some of the documentaries on the ROTS DVD. They did build set's for the film but they were just blended into the background. It's not like Lucas created a totally CGI world, he did have actual set's built.
Reply
post #45 of 69
1/8/06 at 3:33am
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheCynic
there is no comparison between lotr and the prequels except on that 'well i sure like them!' level. that does nothing for these discussions, lets talk about actual filmmaking. acting, editing, directing, writing, dialogue, plot, pacing.

and this is from someone who really really likes (and owns mind you) the prequels. they are pretty crap movies. the lotr series is on another level.

sry.
I love it when people say things like this. Because you think they're crap, well, sorry, it's a fact. Well, it's not a fact. It's your opinion. I for one do not believe that Star Wars and Lord of the Rings are on different levels. I think they're pretty comparable. I neither hate the prequels the way many here do nor love Rings the way they do. I meet both in the middle. Twenty years from now, I seriously doubt that people will be looking back on Lord of the Rings the way they do Citizen Kane.
Reply
post #46 of 69
1/8/06 at 4:54am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nigel St. Buggering
I love it when people say things like this. Because you think they're crap, well, sorry, it's a fact. Well, it's not a fact. It's your opinion. I for one do not believe that Star Wars and Lord of the Rings are on different levels. I think they're pretty comparable. I neither hate the prequels the way many here do nor love Rings the way they do. I meet both in the middle. Twenty years from now, I seriously doubt that people will be looking back on Lord of the Rings the way they do Citizen Kane.
It's fine to point out we all have our own opinions... but you're misrepresenting what he said.
Reply
post #47 of 69
1/8/06 at 6:04am
On reading it again, I guess I am. Sorry.
Reply
post #48 of 69
1/9/06 at 1:32pm
And just to clarify - if you honestly think the prequels are on the same level as the Lord of the Rings movies, you're not only wrong, you're fucking certifiable and have no business whatsoever posting on a movie message board. Opinion doesn't come into it.

Reply
post #49 of 69
1/9/06 at 10:06pm
This whole debate ends up like it always does: A Fan eqiuvilant of World War One on the Western front endless attacks and counterattacks and not a fucking thing changing on the battleline.
Reply
post #50 of 69
1/9/06 at 11:54pm
For the record, some things that have changed between the end of FOTR and TTT:

A new people and three important characters are introduced (Theoden, Eowyn, Eomer)

Gandalf has come back to life.

Frodo and Sam have picked up Gollum and he has decided to betray them.

The major villian up to this point, Saruman, has been defeated.

The plight of Gondor has been elaborated on, and Faramir introduced.

Our understanding of Aragorn and Arwen's relationship has changed, and she has decided to leave Middle-Earth.


I would consider all of these important, plotwise.
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: The Franchises
CHUD.com Community › Forums › SPECIFIC FILMS › The Franchises › Emotional Disconnectedness