I'm depressed

Dan said:
I simply have no drive to see the new movie at all.
I agree with you, Dan. And contrary to the implication contained in some of the above posts, it should be possible to be "mature" and be excited about a Star Wars film. Like you, I was too young to see the original three films in theaters. Although, were not "enhanced" versions of these films released for theaters some years ago, or was that just VHS and DVD? In my opinion, the original Star Wars, and The Empire Strikes Back, were entertaining and fun films to watch. The first film was quite innovative. All the other films, 3, 4, and 5, (in real world chronological order), were awful, to put it kindly. Frankly, except for a few CG shots, film 5 was one of the worst films I have paid to see at a theater. Good SF films are very few and far between. My favorites are: The Day the Earth Stood Still, War of the Worlds, Star Wars, Alien, The Thing, and Pitch Black.
 
Dan said:
Everywhere I look, all I see is STAR WARS, STAR WARS, STAR WARS, and if I were still young, I'd be in heaven. All through my childhood years, I loved the original trilogy and often lamented the fact that I was born too late to see any of them in theaters or to get any of the good toys (all my Star Wars toys came from flea markets, believe it or not).

And, now, I find that I don't care at all. Maybe it's got something to do with Lucas' constant tweaking of episodes 4-6 (which annoys the hell out of me) or maybe it was because I HATED Attack of the Clones, but whatever it was, I simply have no drive to see the new movie at all. And that kind of depresses me, first because that's all ANYONE'S talking about and all they will talk about for the next 5 days, at least. And second, I sort of feel like I'm betraying my younger self in a way. I feel like I should be excited just because this would've been the greatest thing ever when I was a kid.

That's unfortunate Dan.

I'm excited as all hell to see this movie. All I can think about is "the Emperor's got a lightsaber, the Emperor's got a lightsaber" and I walk around work simulating the noise of Vader's respirator.

If that means I haven't matured, thank god. I made a decision long ago to never grow up and I'm glad I've succeeded thus far.
 
I saw the first Star Wars in the theatre and I haven't EVER seen another one since. They just don't "float my boat".
 
Yeah, I don't see much correlation between not wanting to see a SW movie and being mature, really. I think it also has a lot to do with my not really liking sci-fi at all anymore, too.
 
insein said:
thats unfortunate Dan. This movie looks to be the single greatest one. I cant wait. Im going today.
My son & his wife are, too! I'm babysitting. :wtf:
 
Every single person I know that's seen this movie to date says it just plain sucks, and was poorly done...
 
The Last Star Wars
Putting Revenge of the Sith and the prequels in perspective.

by Jonathan V. Last
05/19/2005 6:25:00 PM

http://weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/005/628vifsm.asp

IT IS NOW SAFE to declare the Star Wars prequels a failure. Whatever their merits as films, the three panels of George Lucas's new triptych, The Phantom Menace, Attack of the Clones, and Revenge of the Sith have failed to add permanently to the Star Wars mythology. Try to name one character or image or line of dialogue from these prequels that will, 30 years from now, have the cultural resonance that Darth Vader, the Death Star, the Millennium Falcon, the Mos Eisley creature cantina, "Use the Force," or "Luke, I am your father" have today.

The only iconic figure to emerge from the prequels is Darth Maul, the horned, red-faced Sith who had barely any dialogue and was dead by the end of Phantom Menace. But at least we'll remember him. Next to Darth Maul, the image most likely to endure from the prequels is Jar-Jar Binks, who is regarded as a campy mistake, like the ewoks from Return of the Jedi. The rest of these three movies--some seven hours of story-telling--has turned out to be merely disposable cinematic product, like Tomb Raider or Planet of the Apes.

You can judge the size of the prequels' cultural footprint by studying the merchandising. For instance, when Cingular began hawking its Star Wars tie-ins recently, they used characters from the original Star Wars movies--Chewbacca, Vader, Storm Troopers--not characters from Revenge of the Sith. The Star Wars toy industry has likewise become a shell of its former self: Where toy stores had permanent aisles devoted to an ever-growing collection of Star Wars vehicles, action figures, and paraphernalia from the late 1970s throughout the 1980s, toys tied to the prequels are now seasonal items--they blossom every three years when a movie comes out, and then quickly recede.

Or consider this: The first Star Wars, A New Hope, was rereleased in American theaters five times after its original run in 1977. The second, The Empire Strikes Back, was rereleased three times. It is difficult to imagine that there will ever be a clamor to bring any of the prequels back to the big screen.

ALL OF THAT SAID, are the prequels any good? The Phantom Menace wasn't as bad you think. Buried inside its 133 minutes is a great movie dying to be born. Cut out Jar-Jar, the sea-monster chase, midichlorians, the pod race, and most of young Anakin Skywalker's lines and you have a dramatically interesting story. Qui-Gon Jinn, a well-meaning Jedi master, finds a boy whom he believes will fulfill a prophecy to save the galaxy. He is, of course, wrong: Anakin Skywalker is fated to bring death and doom. The Jedi council realizes this and instructs Qui-Gon not to teach Anakin the ways of the Jedi. Even Qui-Gon's apprentice, Obi-Wan, is wary of the child. But Qui-Gon forges ahead anyway and when he is killed in battle, he makes Obi-Wan promise to take in Anakin. Obi-Wan agrees out of a sense of fealty to Qui-Gon, despite his misgivings. That's a pretty good story.

Lucas even added some competent moviemaking to the drama and slow-speed tragedy. The climactic duel between Qui-Gon, Obi-Wan, and Darth Maul is gripping because not only is it lucidly staged, but because there is a deliberate buildup to it. First the combatants meet in a hangar, then they meet again in the palace, and finally Qui-Gon and Darth Maul find themselves trapped in a hallway where rotating force-shields keep them separated. Faced with a pause before the final battle, Qui-Gon kneels and meditates; Darth Maul paces back and forth just a few feet away, wordlessly glaring down at the Jedi. This moment is so nimbly directed that for a moment you might suspect that it's Steven Spielberg behind the camera.

Attack of the Clones had no such saving graces. A crude contraption, it reduced Star Wars to an extended action sequence. There was no arc or story to speak of and there was nothing artful in its execution. Attack of the Clones would have been better as five minutes of exposition or montage at the beginning of Revenge of the Sith.

SO HOW GOOD IS REVENGE OF THE SITH? It isn't as awful as you've feared. There is terrible dialogue. Scenes with Anakin (Hayden Christensen) and his wife, Padmé (Natalie Portman), are so incompetently wrought as to be embarrassing for all involved. And Lucas's exclusive use of CGI sets instead of real-world locations gives the entire film a sense of being animated. Nothing in Sith feels as real or lived in as, say, Empire's Dagobah swamps, or the Tatooine of New Hope and Return of the Jedi.

However, underneath all of this is an actual story: The turning of Anakin Skywalker to the Dark Side.

We've been waiting for this for a long time; the corruption of Anakin was the most interesting tale suggested by the original Star Wars back in 1977. As chronicled in Revenge of the Sith the story is badly handled: We are led to believe that the prime motivation for Anakin is a series of nightmares about his wife dying during childbirth. In a universe where interstellar travel is the norm, this seems an irrational and uncompelling fear. And faced with the prospect of Anakin's conversion, the Jedi council once again proves thoroughly and arrogantly incompetent--it is a wonder that the Galactic Republic lasted as long as it did with these twits as its only protection.

Yet despite all of that, there is drama inherent in the proceedings. The fall of Anakin Skywalker is interesting, no matter how badly it's told. In this way, Sith is much like Phantom Menace.

Another parallel to Phantom Menace is that Sith has the occasional grace note. For instance, after the crawl at the beginning of the movie, the camera pans to reveal a large star destroyer floating serenely in low orbit over Coruscant. Slowly, our point of view travels across the ship's hull and wraps around the bow where we see a furious battle being waged in what first appeared to be a moment of peace. It's a moment which inspires some genuine awe.

Sith has other small rewards, too. The evolution of design in the Star Wars universe becomes more clear. We learn that the Empire's TIE fighters are evolved in design from the single-pilot ships used by the Jedi knights. We also see the precursors to the Imperial star destroyers, speeder bikes, and X-Wings. In the corner of one scene you can spot a tiny version of the Millennium Falcon.

But the biggest payoff comes at the film's end. Bail Organa flees to the same ship which Princess Leia is using in the opening scene of A New Hope. We are returned to its stark white interior. And once Darth Vader is fully assembled, we see him taking to the bridge of a star destroyer with the Emperor. The officers on the bridge are dressed smartly in gray and all have the look of Oxbridge men. The instrument panels on the walls are simple, low-tech blocks of white and red lights. After the candy-colored futuristic design of the prequels, coming aboard the solid, dark bridge of this star destroyer is comforting, like being wrapped up in a warm, old blanket; the even, menacing respiration of Darth Vader in the background might as well be our favorite childhood lullaby.

What is most satisfying about Revenge of the Sith is that it finally delivers us back to the beginning, to the Star Wars we loved; to the Star Wars we still remember after all these years. Sith and the other prequels will, happily, soon be forgotten.
-
 
This is why I hate critics. I think Revenge of the Sith ranks up with Return of the Jedi, though I still think Empire is better. Whoever wrote that review is either a) anxious to jump on the "new Star Wars sucks" bandwagon or b) the same kind of stuck up, anal retentive jerk who gave The Hitchiker's Guide to the Galaxy bad reviews because it wasn't exactly how they imagined it.
 
I hate Star Wars snobs. Look he's telling a story. The dialogue sucks yes, but the story is the substance here. Phantom was slow because it built up to this one. It was neccessary to see how Palpatine was allowed to gain power and where Padme and Anakin met. Attack of the clones i thought was the best action of all 5 ive seen (going to see 3 today). You got to see what Obiwan was capable of and the types of missions he was on. You got to see the Jedi's in action. I thought episode 2 was awesome. After i see 3 today, the story will be complete.

You can hardly call the prequels a failure either story wise or financially. This critic simply has an axe to grind.
 
I never saw the first one, but I honestly hated Attack of the Clones. It very well may be because I didn't see the first one and was therefore lost sometimes.

But, I think most of us are more willing to forgive because it's Star Wars. If some random guy put out a trilogy wherein the first two were all buildup for the final one, I don't think anyone would like it at all. One could maybe say that for Lord of the Rings, but I'd have to point out that I loved the first one and hated the last one. Maybe it's just me.

Like I said, I can't comment on the first one. The second one was too much of a soap opera (the ratio of people standing around talking scenes to action scenes had to be at least 10 to 1), and I didn't think the special effects were all that great. The Yoda fight was pretty cool but it lasted, what, thirty seconds?

I'm not defending that article (I didn't even read it), just putting in my 2 cents.
 
Dan said:
I never saw the first one, but I honestly hated Attack of the Clones. It very well may be because I didn't see the first one and was therefore lost sometimes.

But, I think most of us are more willing to forgive because it's Star Wars. If some random guy put out a trilogy wherein the first two were all buildup for the final one, I don't think anyone would like it at all. One could maybe say that for Lord of the Rings, but I'd have to point out that I loved the first one and hated the last one. Maybe it's just me.

Like I said, I can't comment on the first one. The second one was too much of a soap opera (the ratio of people standing around talking scenes to action scenes had to be at least 10 to 1), and I didn't think the special effects were all that great. The Yoda fight was pretty cool but it lasted, what, thirty seconds?

I'm not defending that article (I didn't even read it), just putting in my 2 cents.

Well i just saw it and WOW!!! Action was great and the crappy talking scenes were cut down. It explains pretty much everything. The ending was kinda eh but its hard to end a movie on a positive note when everything went so bad. I loved it. I'll probably go see it again.
 
Well i just saw it and WOW!!! Action was great and the crappy talking scenes were cut down. It explains pretty much everything. The ending was kinda eh but its hard to end a movie on a positive note when everything went so bad. I loved it. I'll probably go see it again.

Sounds good, glad to hear they didn't have some fake sappy ending.

Settle something for me: my friend is trying to tell me that Luke and Leia are going to be in Ep. III as little kids, and I'm saying that they weren't born until after these events took place, who's right?
 
May 23, 2005
'Star Wars' Breaks Box-Office Records
By SHARON WAXMAN

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/23/movies/23boff.html?pagewanted=print&position=

OS ANGELES, May 22 - "Star Wars: Episode III - Revenge of the Sith" became the year's first movie blockbuster while setting some historic benchmarks, as it rode a record-breaking debut on Thursday to the biggest number ever for a four-day opening, $158.5 million.

But even an outsized hit like the final installment of the director George Lucas's Skywalker saga could not break a box-office slump that has kept movie attendance and ticket sales lagging behind last year's for 13 weekends, a trend that has some in Hollywood concerned about the habits of American moviegoers.

Even with last Thursday's record one-day ticket sales of $50 million, the year's box-office total is lagging 5 percent behind last year's, and attendance is down almost 9 percent, said Paul Dergarabedian, president of Exhibitor Relations, which tracks the box office.

"One movie cannot change the whole course of events over one weekend," he said. "This indicates a resurgence. People will come back to the movie theaters, but one film - that's a lot of pressure to turn everything around. We could not reverse three months of downward with one film. We're way down."

Last year at this time, there were two major films to lure moviegoers, the wildly popular "Shrek 2," and the less well-received epic, "Troy," which starred Brad Pitt.

Still, none of this news seemed to dampen spirits at 20th Century Fox, which is distributing "Episode III" for Mr. Lucas's Lucasfilm - a privately held company that stands to reap most financial benefit from the hit.

"We set records domestically, internationally and intergalactically," said Bruce Snyder, Fox's distribution president. "A big part of the success, and the continuing amazing grosses, is that people are coming out of the auditorium and are getting back on line to buy more tickets for future shows."

"Episode III" benefited from a ubiquitous marketing campaign, huge anticipation from generations of fans and reviews that were far better than for the last two episodes. (And the film's performance didn't appear to be measurably hurt by the fact that a copy quickly became available on the Internet and was downloaded by thousands of file-sharers.)

In the United States, the movie took in an estimated total of $158.5 million in 3,661 theaters, a figure that bested the last four-day record, set for "The Matrix Reloaded" in 2003, of $134.3 million. "Episode III" also opened almost everywhere around the world, and took in and additional $144.7 million overseas. International box-office records are difficult to calculate because of the myriad countries involved, but the figure was certainly a huge success for the film, whose total box office was $303.2 million for the first four days.

The strong performance became a kind of final triumph for legions of "Star Wars" fans who grew up on the first three "Star Wars" films in the 1970's and 1980's, and hungered for a conclusion to the story of Anakin Skywalker, who in this last installment turns into the archvillain Darth Vader. Many fans were disappointed by the more recent installments, "Star Wars: Episode I - The Phantom Menace" in 1999 and "Star Wars: Episode II - Attack of the Clones" in 2002.

"Episode II" took in $311 million at the domestic box office, a figure the latest film looked likely to surpass within a number of weeks. While the current film had wide appeal, polls by Fox found that an estimated 58 percent of the audience was male.

Mr. Snyder said he did not put much stock in concerns over the lagging box office, though he acknowledged getting congratulatory calls from his colleagues at other studios saying, " 'Thank you, we needed this to jump-start everything.' " He added: "I think the industry is awakening from bit of slumber. It's absolutely fine."

Next weekend will bring another pair of major commercial bets, the animated comedy "Madagascar," from DreamWorks Animation, and an Adam Sandler vehicle, "The Longest Yard," from Paramount. Studio executives said they were expecting both to draw big summer audiences.

This weekend, the New Line comedy "Monster-in-Law" took second place at the box office, with $14.3 million in its second weekend. Universal's comedy "Kicking and Screaming," which stars Will Ferrell, took in $10.5 million.

Warner Brothers slipped its "Dominion Prequel to the Exorcist," by director Paul Schrader, into 110 theaters this weekend, and took in $119,000. In an unusual twist, essentially the same film was already made by another director, Renny Harlin, and released last year by Warner as "Exorcist: The Beginning."
-
 
Dan said:
Sounds good, glad to hear they didn't have some fake sappy ending.

Settle something for me: my friend is trying to tell me that Luke and Leia are going to be in Ep. III as little kids, and I'm saying that they weren't born until after these events took place, who's right?

Spoiler Ahead: Read no further if you wish not to see.


















They were Born and Padme dies during childbirth. You see where they went as was obvious from where they were in episode 4, 5 and 6. Leia goes with Bail Organa to Alderran. Obiwan takes Luke to Owen and Beru on Tatooine. So they were actually infants just born. They werent kids.
 
Spoiler free answer to the same question

Luke and Leia are born at the end of the movie, and right before the closing credits role, it shows them being taken to the adoptive parents they were with in Episode IV (though you never really see Leia's parents in that one).

As for the ending, I thought it was great. Sure, it wasn't at all happy, but it wasn't supposed to be, or else Star Wars would have opened all happy in 1977 and would have sucked.

As for the crappy dialogue, there's a phenomenon I can't understand. Natalie Portman (Padme) can act...well. Hayden Christensen (Anakin) can also act well. However, Natalie Portman and Hayden Christensen cannot act when together.
 

Forum List

Back
Top