Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith

[chaotic]

Originally Posted by jazz lady

I think FT mentioned them, too. I've heard of them but have never seen any of them.

They're very smart-azz, amusing, bad puns, etc. Like drinking, don't watch them alone.

[jazz lady (Premo)]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

Jazz & chaotic,

That is what we did at my job for YEARS. My co-workers would bring them and I would just go along with the program. I miss those days. I saw so many movies that I wouldn't have bothered or known to rent that way, and it really made night shift worth working.

It was a computer operator job (my first contractor job on base!) and once we got our daily workload done, usually in a couple of hours, there was NOTHING to do unless a special job was running, they were printing a lot of reports, or there was a problem, which wasn't often.

I can't complain because I got to see a lot of movies like you did and it also allowed me a lot of time to work on my degree, too.

[jazz lady (Premo)]

Originally Posted by chaotic

They're very smart-azz, amusing, bad puns, etc.

Right up FT's alley.

Like drinking, don't watch them alone.

Oops - I guess I'd better pour out the glass of Cayuga White from Cove Point Winery I'm drinking now...NOT. BTW - it's pretty good!

[Larry Gude (Premo)]

...we watched A New Hope yesterday and we see Darth is just a mid level commander, not #2 in the empire. Did LucasCo NOT watch the originals in making Sith? NO.

Dummies. Clones. Tools.

A New Hope is even greater in stature now.

AND we watched Phantom Menace which was suk city and NOW I have a new appreciation for it because of the dreckery of Sith.

phatooey.

[vraiblonde]

Originally Posted by Larry Gude

...we watched A New Hope yesterday and we see Darth is just a mid level commander, not #2 in the empire. Did LucasCo NOT watch the originals in making Sith? NO.

Lucas has probably done interviews where he explains it, but it's pretty obvious to me that the original Star Wars was a stand-alone movie. Then, after it was so successful, he slapped together the sequels. Then, many years later, decided to do the prequels to tell the story of Vader.

The only character that I feel was nicely done, with a realistic chronology of behavior and good continuity throughout the series, is Obi Wan. It's hard to see the adult Anakin, much less Darth Vader, in that little boy from Phantom.

And in just three movies, Padme goes from a brave butt-kicker (a Queen and Senator, no less) to a "little woman" who sits around crying because her man done gone wrong - so fragile that she dies in childbirth of a broken heart.

Leia would have never put up with that. If Han gave her grief, she'd have slapped him upside the head with her blaster belt.

[Larry Gude (Premo)]

Leia would have never put up with that. If Han gave her grief, she'd have slapped him upside the head with her blaster belt, made him put an apron and got HIM preagnant.

Lucas is the Halliburton of Hollywood. He's in it for the big league profits after all.

[Pete (Premo)]

Captain Jack Sparrow could kick Darth Vaders ass.

[bresamil]

Originally Posted by Pete

Captain Jack Sparrow could kick Darth Vaders ass.

I love Captain Jack Sparrow.

[cholo]

Originally Posted by vraiblonde

Padme dies in childbirth with nary a bead of sweat on her perfect brow and taupe eyeshadow freshly applied. Not to mention that the doctor says they must do emergency surgery to save the twins, yet Padme is clearly having a natural delivery.

You're assuming that emergency childbirth surgery in a galaxy far, far, away would be exactly like our Earthen Caesarean-section. How do you know they don't cut through the hoo-hoo?

[SamSpade]

Haven't seen it yet. I plan to wait a couple weeks so I don't have to watch it next to a smelly Chewbacca on one side and a rubber-suited alien on the other. Too weird.

But what's been said so far has churned up some old memories, and some of MY first impressions of "Star Wars" when it was first being advertised.

I thought it was going to be the worst pile of sci-fi crap that had ever been filmed.

Bear in mind, prior to 1977, sci-fi in movies was basically *VERY* bad. It even took a few years later for popular sci-fi NOT to be very bad. After Star Wars, we got classics like Blade Runner and Alien - but we also got Buck Rogers on the tube and the boring first Star Trek movie.

I saw a shot of Han, Chewie and our intrepid heroes along with their robots swinging from cables like Tarzan. Androids falling over and squealing. And a bad guy dressed in a helmet and black cape who looked like something out of Robot Monster from Space.

I liked it. It was a fun movie to watch. I watched it several times that summer.

But make no mistake - it wasn't "Citizen Kane". It wasn't "The Godfather". This was fun, slightly campy space opera. A live action cartoon. Not a single performance was Oscar-worthy. I was *very* surprised years later when Harrison Ford began getting roles like Blade Runner and Indy Jones.

The story - the one with Darth being Luke's father and Leia being his sister - was - well - AWFUL. And when I listened to Obi Wan's "it depends on your point of view" I thought ok, ok, you made the damned thing up on the fly, it's a STUPID idea, and no way you were thinking this when Leia smacks one on Luke's lips in the first and second movies. You threw in the whole Leia/Han romance AFTER the first movie, because it's clear in the first who the romance interest is.

Please. They chase Anakin's old robots back to the PLACE HE WAS BORN - and he doesn't have the faintest clue about where they're going? OR WHO THEY ARE? Somehow, in his interrogation of Leia, with that little floating robot - he has NO IDEA it's his own daughter - but concocts an elaborate plan to lure LUKE, because he's known all along Luke is his son - but apparently had no idea who he was facing him down in the first movie?

I could go on. Fact is, the first three movies, while fun, are rife with weak story lines and plot holes. So what? We liked 'em.

And now to my MAIN POINT.

Surveys have shown that, while the older crowd more familiar with the first trilogy have not grown as interested in the newer films - the younger crowd DEFINITELY is MORE interested in them. There's a measurable generation gap in interest in the two trilogies. Yeah, YOU probably know some kid who says "Yeah, Mom, the old ones were definitely better", but the truth is, the younger set is far more loyal to the new trilogy - at least, if surveys are to be believed.

To be HONEST - the first three were flawed. The second of the first trilogy was the most intense - but - it had several weak and dumb premises. The third in the first trilogy - WAS **TERRIBLE**. Ewoks my azz. Jabba. Death Star II. Leia as Luke's sister. The BIKE scene. Oh - My - God. What a pile of crap that was.

And you're complaining about THIS pile of crap? I'd have to say, the Ewoks and Jar-Jar are at a dead TIE for annoying.

(Great romance lines - "I love you!!" -- "I know".)

Pot, meet kettle. Kettle, meet Pot.

That said - I like 'em all, warts and everything. It's fun to watch. But comparing them and critiqueing them? What's the point?