I came across a site, http://www.lewed.net/ep3/index.html , that has pics and info about Episode III. Most of it is stuff already known, who fights who, Anakin becomes Vader, but there was one twist that if true I didn't see coming.

 

 

 

 

 

................................................

 

 

OBLIGATORY SPOILER WARNING SPACE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

---------------------------------------------------

 

 

 

 

IF YOU'RE STILL READING DON'T BITCH IF YOU DON'T WANNA KNOW

 

 

 

 

 

 

------------------------------------------------

 

 

 

 

 

Apparently Anakin/Vader force chokes Padme, who later dies from the effects (after giving birth).

 

Not only does that spiked the Hardcore-O-Meter, it also helps explain who Obi-Wan was so reluctant to tell Luke about his parents. How do you tell a kid his dad's Darth Vader *and* he killed your mom?

Can someone explain the appeal of Star Wars to me? I've seen the first three years and years ago, to the point that I can't remember the plots and really have had no interest in rewatching them. My 5-year-old God Daughter, really likes them, oddly enough, so I sat down with she and her dad and couldn't get through 5 minutes without extreme boredom.

 

I just can't figure out why people are so enthralled with it. My sister dated a guy in college who bought tickets to movies that he had no interest in just to see the various Episode 1 trailers and then left the theater. The kid dropped $8 bucks or so to see a 2 minute trailer and did so more than once. What about these movies causes so much devotion and hysteria?

 

I;m not at all knocking them, just asking for an explanation.

The original trilogy (episodes 4,5,6) are basically westerns in space. Good vs Evil, a bunch of ragtag rebels defeating the seemingly unbeatable Empire.

 

The new trilogy (episodes 1,2,3) are more political drama, which is the reason I think people tend to shit on them.

 

If you wanted to look at the movies on a larger scale, its the tale of the Skywalker family being responsible for bringing the empire to the universe then saving it from the same empire.

OK, fair enough. I'll probably breakdown and rent them at some point.

The new trilogy (episodes 1,2,3) are more political drama, which is the reason I think people tend to shit on them.

Personally, my distaste for the later films lies in the fact that they've been so frickin' gimmicky, from Jar-Jar's mere existence to Yoda fighting at the end of the second one. I almost walked out of the theatre when five-year old Anakin blew up the fleet in the first one.

Another major gripe I have with the prequels is that George Lucas seems to have forgotten that they take place BEFORE the original trilogy. By that I mean, Lucas is such a CGI and retooling freak that he seems to not realize that certain technology that existed 30 years previous to the same technology in the original movies shouldn't look better or more advanced.

 

How can you be MORE technologically advanced in the PAST then you are in the future?

How can you be MORE technologically advanced in the PAST then you are in the future?

A cataclysmic event could destroy or obscure a lot of "ancient technology" that would be missed by later generations. It's a theme in a lot of science fiction stories and, within Star Wars, I guess the event in question would be the emergence of the Empire. (Perhaps the Empire pillages all of its planets to consolidate its technology?)

Believe me, I had taken all of that into account (for some odd reason Mad Max was the first thing to come to mind) but seeing as how it's never really addressed (and how a governing body being overthrown would have no effect on technology...I mean, there's was no nuclear catastrophe that occured when the Empire emerged, as far as I know), I think that's more of a case of the Star Wars faithful being able to think farther ahead than the creator himself.

By that I mean, Lucas is such a CGI and retooling freak that he seems to not realize that certain technology that existed 30 years previous to the same technology in the original movies shouldn't look better or more advanced.

I liked that about the original trilogy; some stuff, even though it's in the future, looked like crap. Hell, Luke calls the Millenium Falcon a piece of junk when he first sees it. I dunno, it somehow made it more "real".

 

But in the new movies, everything is too damned glossy.

 

And on the spoilers bit....

 

 

 

 

 

I don't like that. I always figured the best way to kill her off would be to have the Emperor and Vader trying to find out where the kids are, by having the Emperor fry her up good with force lightning. But she doesn't tell them, so they kill her. It'd be a neat parallel with Vader eventually killing the Emperor for doing, basically, the same thing to his son years later.

Kevin Smith's SUPER SPOILER-HEAVY review of "Sith"

 

Again, REALLY heavy on spoilers, so beware if you don't want a ton of crap ruined for you.

Wow... I don;t know if I can take a true Star Wars flick that brings everything together in this day and age. Part of the appeal to Star Wars for myself are the memories I take with me from my childhood and how Star Wars affected my senses. I have been detached from the new trilogy even though I saw both movies several times; downloaded the Clone Wars cartoon; bought the DVDs; bought a few action figures here and there. Now, Lucas wants to appeal to my heartstrings again and I don't know if I am ready for that.

 

Also, just curious, but how many people feel that the Lord of the Rings trilogy and the acclaim it received may have lit a fire up his ass?

I think the bashings the first two prequels got is what lit the fire. You can tell it bothers him by how he mentions in every interview that it doesn't bother him. If it really didn't bother him, he wouldn't always talk about it.

 

 

I still maintain the first two movies weren't as bad as people make them out to be. They just didn't offer what people were expecting going into a Star Wars movie. They got political drama when they were expecting cowboys in space.

I still maintain the first two movies weren't as bad as people make them out to be. They just didn't offer what people were expecting going into a Star Wars movie. They got political drama when they were expecting cowboys in space.

Even though I'm a huge Star Wars 'fanboy', I don't feel the first two movies were that bad either. There were moments in Episode I where the movie itself just DRAGGED and you have Jar Jar, but other than that I was entertained by both movies.

I hated Episode One. I thought it was just so boring and such a drag. Not one of the characters was in any way, shape or form entertaining. But then again, I thought Episode 2 was pretty fucking good, so what do I know?

If this movie pays off like I think it will then it wil all be worth it. Also, I am curious to see if this third installment enhances the first two episodes or just exposes them for being far inferior.

I agree that Episode I tended to drag, but I'd rank Episode II ahead of Jedi.

 

To me the order of quality is V, IV, II, VI, I.

That's a fairly accurate assessment. But if what Kevin Smith has to say is true, and from what I've seen of three of the four comic adaptations, get ready to rank Episode III at the top.

CGI and all, CJ?

This one may have a ton of CGI shots but that's not where the story lies. In the other prequels I think they built the story around the effects; the characters, etc. were secondary. With this one, they've got alot to wrap up and tie together. The story has to be at the forefront. So while it looks all shiny and new, at least all the CGI is there to compliment the story and not the other way around like in the previous two installments.

I don't understand why people bash CGI, certainly they can't be arguing that puppets were better.

It isn't so much that the puppets were better but they were def. more organic. And in most places, in the reissues, the CGI looked incredibly out of place esp. when things that should have been improved upon were left untouched.

No doubt, CGI looks out of place in the reissues because we're used to seeing them without.

 

I don't see how puppets are more "organic" (I hate when that word is used to describe something decidedly not living), I think CGI Yoda looks way better than Puppet Yoda, but naturally CGI would look out of place if it was inserted in the original movies.

I call it organic becuase I felt there was more LIFE in the puppets than the CGI even if both are actually non-living entities.

I call it organic becuase I felt there was more LIFE in the puppets than the CGI even if both are actually non-living entities.

I know that's what you meant, but when Yoda was a puppet you could practically see the puppet frame move when he talked. The CGI Yoda seems much more lifelike and fluid in movement since he's not bound to the limitations of the puppet model.

 

The only thing I agree with the CGI haters about is what CJ mentioned, how the CGI makes the movies that took place earlier in time seem more advanced than the ones that are set 20-30 years later.

From IMDB.com:

 

George Lucas on "Sith": ""I have a feeling this one is going to be sort of like the last one in terms of some people like it, some people hate it. And like everyone who makes movies, I'm always convinced the next one will be a flop. So right now I'm thinking it probably won't make any money and will be considered a failure."

 

Shut the fuck up, George.