Emotional Disconnectedness - Page 2

Do they give you robes when you join that church, or do you have to buy them yourself?

I'm kidding. Personally, I don't think the prequels are as good as Lord of the Rings. I just don't think that Rings' margin is nearly as wide as most of you would have it.

One of the weakest (if not the weakest) aspects of TTT and ROTK (ROTK in particular) was how they trumped up the melodrama with Arwen.

I love LOTR's and would rate it clearly over the prequels but this aspect always bothered me.

The glue that holds the prequels together is Palpatine's arc. From TPM to ROTS, Palpatine's rise in the Senate hierarchy and eventually as Emperor is Lucas' storytelling skills shining like never before. This is why TPM is an enjoyable ride for me, even with all of the Jar-Jar shenanigans and the sterile, cold environments of Otah Gunga and the final land battle. The prequels are uneven, no doubt, but when they hit their mark it's like watching myth and fantasy and history all colliding with finesse. Palpatine's portrayal in ROTS was a real treat to witness. The Emperor of ROTJ was back (technically born, but you know what I mean), with all of the wicked and slimy personality that makes a truly great villain absorbing and hypnotic. Ian McDiarmid's acting in the prequels is the best of anyone in the entire series, bar none, and much of the prequels' success and focus all points to his instrumental contributions. It's no coincidence that much of the dialogue McDiarmid was given is the strongest material Lucas had written during the course of these films, too. The politics may have bogged down the pacing of the films and bored more than a fair share of people, but if you ask me, it's what made the prequels worth the effort in the first place.

I will always have a place for SW in my heart, and will always respect George Lucas (he's given me much joy over the years, and both his SW and Indy sagas are two of the greatest stories ever told in film, IMHO), but in the end, the prequels are just good entertainment, rich in visual invention, mismatched storytelling, and a mythic core vying for the heavenly stars, even when they don't always reach their ambitious grasp. George Lucas' good intentions ring true even when his dialogue doesn't or when the pedestrian seams of his directing show through. So, yeah, I like the prequels, even love them in some spots, and think there's more worthwhile in the trilogy than not.

Nigel St. Buggering, it's interesting that I agree with you on the weakest of the SW lot (RETURN OF THE JEDI), but find THE TWO TOWERS to be the strongest of the LOTR trilogy. Aragorn's arc is TTT is my favorite of the entire series, which is why RETURN OF THE KING felt like a letdown of sorts.

I liked ROTK, but it had some glaring problems that I could not simply look past with ease. For one, the relationship between Aragorn and Arwen seemed a random, second thought in ROTK, which REALLY shocked me considering their love story was integral and developed in both FOTR and TTT. And then you have Eowyn's nonchalant reaction to Aragorn's rejection, something the Eowyn of TTT wouldn't have accepted. It didn't even seem like she cared for Aragorn anymore...out of the blue.

While I agree that the romance seemed like a distant subplot in ROTK, I kind of felt that way about it through the whole trilogy. I actually wondered if it were a cynical attempt to draw in a female audience by shoehorning a love story between the battles. And yeah, Eowyn seemed to cheer right up once someone else was dangled in front of her. And of course, the someone else was only dangled in the extended edition.

I always knew that Aragorn would end up with Arwyn, I never really felt that the attraction was strong enough for Aragorn to leave Arwen for Eowyn. The only thing that bothered me in ROTK was the line 'I AM NO MAN' it just felt off to me, seeing as Pippin was the reason why she was able to defeat the 'Black King'

Ehem, that's Witch King. And that situation is handled pretty much exactly the same as it were in the book. Doesn't make the moment any less cheese, but still...

I guess my LOTR membership is cancelled then. It's been awhile since I read the book, I guess I just didn't like the way the line was delivered.

Oh I didn't either. Wasn't the only scene from Mirana Otto that I thought was a bit overacted though.

Given the source material, there's not a lot of ways to go without it being completely outlandish, because they have to emphasize Aragorn and Arwen as a couple and how high the stakes are in their relationship, for her particularly.

What a shame that the prequels arent actually meant to be about Palpatine.

Last time I checked, the films protagonist was meant to be some poorly scripted and acted retard called Anakin...

Yeah, the book route is too improbable. "Hey, remember that elf chick Viggo was smooching in the first movie? Well, they've really missed each other the whole time and now she's back to get married to him."

Aaah, but they are. There wouldn't be no Darth Vader without Palpatine's manipulation and there wouldn't be no Empire without The Republic giving up their democracy to one power-hungry, corrupt individual. I just don't believe many (including me) envisioned The Emperor of ROTJ to play such a stirring role in the prequels when they were first announced and even back during the release of STAR WARS. Luckily Ian McDiarmid was still available.

Well, the opening prologue to the novel of Star Wars hinted at Palpatine's role. And I definitely agree that Palpatine's arc is the glue of the Prequels.

I guess that's one of the reasons why Episode III works so well for me because Anakin's arc and Palpatine's arc collide and what we get are great scenes between the two characters finally.

Still, I appreciate the time Lucas took to set up the events in Episodes I and II to come to the climax in Episode III. For some, it may not be exciting to wait it out but I think it makes for a more insteresting story progression.

If Episode I was released first in '77, I'm not too sure Lucas would be able to get away with the set up in the manner that he did with the Prequels.

Absolutely. Its a tricky thing and Jackson, Walsh and Phillipa were quite frank about the whole deal. Which of course makes me love them even more.

I guess I wanted a little more simplicity and perhaps better execution but given the material (as you noted) and the structure of the films that would have been a miraculous feat to pull off.

i dont know where that citizen kane thing came from, but if you want to actually talk about this lets talk about it. your post is an opinion post with no backing.
if they are comparable, please compare them in any category besides visual effects/cg. in any one, where do those series' even approach even ground?

acting, editing, writing, characters... the differences in those dont drastically seperate the films? i must be watching different movies than other people.

I think you pretty much reiterated my point. Yes, my post is an opinion. I hate to break it to you, but so is yours. And there's simply no backing an opinion if the other guy strongly disagrees. We could go back and forth all day, and wind up basically saying the same thing twelve times.

Honestly, I'm not even sure what "on another level" means. It sounds like just a trumped-up way of saying "better". And again, "better" is an opinion. Unless you can provide mathematical analysis, you can't prove that Lord of the Rings is "on another level" from Star Wars. There is no backing that up.

yeah, youre right. pearl harbor isnt any worse than lawrence of arabia, i guess. theres no such thing as 'better' or 'worse', just opinions.

i didnt prove your point, i seceded the point that these post were opinions. but opinions can still be right and wrong, cant they? a misinformed opinion or an opinion from a skewed perspective can certainly be wrong. so how is your opinion right? im asking not because im telling you you are wrong but rather because im curious.

acting... which films are better?
dialogue... which?

structure, storyline, editing, continuity... you certainly cant be of the opinion that these things cant be decided, can you? maybe some things, but not the staples of filmmaking?

i said lotr is on another level because of the craftsmanship of the films in many respects are superior to the prequels. is that incorrect?

<fx: cough! cough! drops dead>