Television Star Wars Universe

[berbatrick]

I'd have RotS as one of the worst (I was 17 when it was released and I remember the laughter in the cinema with the Vader "nooo" seqence, we Brits never do that). But I was the wrong age when the Prequels came out and i'm sure some people like them because they were that little bit younger when they were released.

Have a very similar experience with rots. It's while watching it I realised what good and bad films are
I was about 14 and had just liked everything i'd seen earlier, watched Empire on repeat for a year, and then ....
That nooo really stands out.

 

[stevoc]

I like the prequels. Saw all of them in the cinema. That's not to say that they are flawless - the CGI is a bit much, the dialogue is pretty ropey to say the least, and the performances are pretty wooden, but the overall story was great - obvious that there was a clear plan behind it.

The sequels got right what the prequels got wrong - the acting performances are much better and the dialogue is improved. The visuals are also better as they are using real sets for a lot of it rather than just CGI. Unfortunately, the sequels got horribly wrong the main thing that the prequels got right - the story.

Daisy Ridley was being interviewed after The Rise of Skywalker came out and she said that there was no overarching plan or story throughout the entire trilogy, and that major plot points were being changed at the last minute pretty regularly.

I'm sure I read somewhere that there were actually more practical effects in just the Phantom menace than the 3 sequel movies combined.

 

[Drainy]

Ask George Lucas. He fecked up his own franchise with the prequels.
And the prequel story should have been a piece of cake for any competent writer and director, which he isn't.

Star Wars was still a money printing operation until whatever that one after The Force Awakens was

 

[DarkLord1984]

I'm sure I read somewhere that there were actually more practical effects in just the Phantom menace than the 3 sequel movies combined.

Really? I remember Mark Hamill speaking in an interview about the large amount of practical effects they were using, and that they were preferring to build real sets even when it was easier and cheaper to do CGI.

I'm curious now, will have to go do some research!

 

[stevoc]

Really? I remember Mark Hamill speaking in an interview about the large amount of practical effects they were using, and that they were preferring to build real sets even when it was easier and cheaper to do CGI.

I'm curious now, will have to go do some research!

I could have misremembered what I read and of course it might not have been correct either way. But I do know the prequels used a tonne of practical effects.

https://www.cbr.com/star-wars-prequel-trilogy-cgi-practical-effects/

 

[Salt Bailly]

Everything in the prequels is trash outside of the podrace and duel of the fates sequences, making TPM the best one by default.

 

[sullydnl]

I like the prequels. Saw all of them in the cinema. That's not to say that they are flawless - the CGI is a bit much, the dialogue is pretty ropey to say the least, and the performances are pretty wooden, but the overall story was great - obvious that there was a clear plan behind it.

The sequels got right what the prequels got wrong - the acting performances are much better and the dialogue is improved. The visuals are also better as they are using real sets for a lot of it rather than just CGI. Unfortunately, the sequels got horribly wrong the main thing that the prequels got right - the story.

Daisy Ridley was being interviewed after The Rise of Skywalker came out and she said that there was no overarching plan or story throughout the entire trilogy, and that major plot points were being changed at the last minute pretty regularly.

Yep.

As individual films the sequels are better made in a whole host of ways. But, for good or ill, the prequels did at least felt like the the product of a single person's vision, whereas the sequels felt like they were assembled via a rather disorganised committee.

By the time the TROS came around they were firing the writer/director they had lined up, coming up with major plot points that hadn't been pre-planned and leaving JJ Abrams to make the film in three fewer months than he had for TFA. This is the film's editor describing what it was like:

It’s a struggle. It affected everything. About a third of the way through, [Lucasfilm president] Kathy [Kennedy] was like, ‘JJ has got to spend more time in the cutting room.’ And I knew that wasn’t going to happen. Not with the schedule that we were on. Not with what he was dealing with on a daily basis…he was just exhausted at the end of the day.

I suggested I cut on the set…we had two tented rooms…so I just went wherever JJ was, usually 10 feet away from the camera, wherever the camera was, and I just mobile-y cut. And in between takes, [J.J.] could sit down with me and we could go over things

That's just a bad way to make a film.

 

[Drainy]

Also don't take a beloved character who is part of the zeitgeist/ popular culture and make them pathetic if you want to keep public approval

 

[DarkLord1984]

Yep.

As individual films the sequels are better made in a whole host of ways. But, for good or ill, the prequels did at least felt like the the product of a single person's vision, whereas the sequels felt like they were assembled via a rather disorganised committee.

By the time the TROS came around they were firing the writer/director they had lined up, coming up with major plot points that hadn't been pre-planned and leaving JJ Abrams to make the film in three fewer months than he had for TFA. This is the film's editor describing what it was like:



That's just a bad way to make a film.

Reading that interview is shocking. I'm surprised they put such poor planning and foresight into something as culturally significant as a new Star Wars trilogy.

 

[Wedge]

Looks like Kathleen Kennedy is going nowhere soon