159
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 11 Jun 2024
159 points (88.0% liked)
Asklemmy
43027 readers
1647 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- !lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
Very true. Rewatching stuff later with a new perspective certainly changes things.
That is where I disagree. THe orginals do hold up, because Starwars was about classic adventure story. The character of Luke Skywalker. The original trilogoy (and there are quality differences between the eopisodes) overall get this right. It's the sort of timless story, just with a spin on it beeing a sci-fi world.
The prequels and sequels completley missed that aspect of basic stoytelling. The OT stands out as a piece of revolutionary cinema, where the prequels are an elaborate ad to sell more Starwars toys.
This is clearly not true, Lucas cared a lot about his story and universe. I say this hoping it helps effectively communicate points later: statements like that detract from your premise because they’re obviously false to an audience that knows and cares. It would be better (from a rhetorical standing) to double down on the poor storytelling allegations by acknowledging it as true instead, then going on to say that they were cinematic incoherence regardless.
I haven’t seen a single one of the prequels in over a decade except RotS (which I thought was an interesting story but a poorly made film), but my dislike of the prequels is because they’re not good movies. My dislike of the sequels is that they were not good and were made to maximize profits.
This is where I completely disagree. Movies should not be aiming to do only the classic adventure story over and over again, and the prequels weren’t bad because of the story. They actually had a pretty classic story too: an evil being corrupts a well-meaning but slow-to-react institution filled with self serving or incompetent representatives by manufacturing conflict to seize power. All the while the forces of good are distracted and unfocused by the chaos— and too sure that their institutions will not bend to tyranny— until it is too late. With a solid director, the prequels could have been excellent, and also perhaps a prophetic warning about complacent democracies.
AHAHAHAHAHAHAH. Oh wait, your're serious. Let me laugh even harder.
Right. Movies shouldn't. But Starwars should. But that's not even the main issue. The prequels are just terribly written, no matter what genre they were supossed to be. Bad story, terrible characters with no development, inchorent and self condtradictory and padded with stupidly long and boring action scences. They are just bad movies. A director couldn't have fixed that, they would need a complete rewrite.
Does that mean that from your point of view all the movies are evil?
Not sure what you mean by that.
I can offer you bad, terrible, aweful, dreadful, horrendous, vile, digusting .... but I wouldn't say evil.
I was joking using the meme by Anakin