Wolfninjajedi Posted May 24, 2012 Share Posted May 24, 2012 (edited) But it wasn't just Lucas who wrote it. He had story writers too, didn't he? Or maybe he just fired them when they disagreed with him... No he wrote the stories, of all the movies. The screenplays however of ESB and ROTJ were done by different people, who based the screenplays(what is shown in the movies) from the stories that Lucas wrote. The screenplays of ANH, TPM, ATOC(he had help from Johnathan Hales) and ROTS were all written by Lucas. Edited May 24, 2012 by Wolfninjajedi Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain_Zone Posted May 24, 2012 Share Posted May 24, 2012 No he wrote the stories, of all the movies. The screenplays however of ESB and ROTJ were done by different people, who based the screenplays(what is shown in the movies) from the stories that Lucas wrote. And THAT's why ESB and RotJ were better than the Prequels. Back when he did ANH, he still had his mojo going on. Yes, he actually wrote some decent dialogue in that one, but the editor NEVER caught "Chewbassa" until the remakes where they edited Alec Guinness's line so he said finally said "Chewbacca". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lady_Alyria Posted May 24, 2012 Share Posted May 24, 2012 (edited) Then she still refused to even try to redeem her lover, who did everything to save her life? That's really stubborn and even heartless. Seriously? If you husband had just killed a bunch of innocent children because he had a dream you'd die in child birth, you'd be all, "lets go get you some help honey"? I think I'd be using what ounce of sanity I had left to keep from plunging into the nearby lava. Edited May 24, 2012 by Lady_Alyria Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mordegrus Posted May 24, 2012 Author Share Posted May 24, 2012 Ok, this is my conclusion, Prequels<Original The Prequels needed work, but hey, what are you going to do about it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wolfninjajedi Posted May 24, 2012 Share Posted May 24, 2012 (edited) And THAT's why ESB and RotJ were better than the Prequels. Back when he did ANH, he still had his mojo going on. Yes, he actually wrote some decent dialogue in that one, but the editor NEVER caught "Chewbassa" until the remakes where they edited Alec Guinness's line so he said finally said "Chewbacca". To each his own, I thought he did the Prequels just fine. But the screenplays still needed to follow the story he wrote, so in a way he also did have a hand in the screenplays of ESB and ROTJ. Edited May 24, 2012 by Wolfninjajedi Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mordegrus Posted May 24, 2012 Author Share Posted May 24, 2012 New topic:If Jar Jar was taken out, would it have made the Prequels better? My answer?YES!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lady_Alyria Posted May 24, 2012 Share Posted May 24, 2012 New topic: If Jar Jar was taken out, would it have made the Prequels better? My answer? YES!! My internet was down for a day so I watched all three prequels recently and I sat there through most of Episode 1 with my jaw on the floor, how could they have possibly thought JarJar was a good idea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mordegrus Posted May 24, 2012 Author Share Posted May 24, 2012 My internet was down for a day so I watched all three prequels recently and I sat there through most of Episode 1 with my jaw on the floor, how could they have possibly thought JarJar was a good idea. Answer: BUDGET CUTS!! They probably signed a deal with a toy company to get money for the movie, but had to bring Jar Jar in (part of their new toy release). Times are tough... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain_Zone Posted May 24, 2012 Share Posted May 24, 2012 Answer: BUDGET CUTS!! They probably signed a deal with a toy company to get money for the movie, but had to bring Jar Jar in (part of their new toy release). Times are tough... Episode I was the "kids movie" of Star Wars. George put Jar Jar in there for the kiddies. Like you said, to sell more toys. Funny thing is, a LOT of kids were annoyed by Jar Jar as much as us adults. lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mordegrus Posted May 24, 2012 Author Share Posted May 24, 2012 Episode I was the "kids movie" of Star Wars. George put Jar Jar in there for the kiddies. Like you said, to sell more toys. Funny thing is, a LOT of kids were annoyed by Jar Jar as much as us adults. lol Well, at least we have a picture to put on our dart board, so it's not a total loss... My Ewok picture was getting too hard to see, because of all those holes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaavik Posted May 24, 2012 Share Posted May 24, 2012 New topic: If Jar Jar was taken out, would it have made the Prequels better? My answer? YES!! I get why people didn't like Jar Jar. I don't personally HATE the character. He was the "comic relief". It's one of those things about us fanboys, we tend to take so much to an extreme with our passions. I never really minded Jar Jar, but I don't have the frothing hatred for him that so many others do. I can honestly say that I absolutely HATED hearing C-3PO saying "Oh this is such a drag" more than ANYTHING in the prequels. That made me cringe more than anything Jar Jar ever did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RDeanOU Posted May 25, 2012 Share Posted May 25, 2012 I get why people didn't like Jar Jar. I don't personally HATE the character. He was the "comic relief". It's one of those things about us fanboys, we tend to take so much to an extreme with our passions. I never really minded Jar Jar, but I don't have the frothing hatred for him that so many others do. I can honestly say that I absolutely HATED hearing C-3PO saying "Oh this is such a drag" more than ANYTHING in the prequels. That made me cringe more than anything Jar Jar ever did. Jar Jar was comic relief that wasn't funny to anyone over the age of 9. His whole comic routine was to goofily walk around and step in poop or otherwise act clumsy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lady_Alyria Posted May 25, 2012 Share Posted May 25, 2012 I get why people didn't like Jar Jar. I don't personally HATE the character. He was the "comic relief". It's one of those things about us fanboys, we tend to take so much to an extreme with our passions. I never really minded Jar Jar, but I don't have the frothing hatred for him that so many others do. I can honestly say that I absolutely HATED hearing C-3PO saying "Oh this is such a drag" more than ANYTHING in the prequels. That made me cringe more than anything Jar Jar ever did. The Pitch: Lets make the most idiotic character we can think of and give him a Jamaican accent. That won't be offensive in the least. He was meant to add comedy but at his best he was simply not funny, at his worst he was an offensive caricature. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wolfninjajedi Posted May 25, 2012 Share Posted May 25, 2012 The Pitch: Lets make the most idiotic character we can think of and give him a Jamaican accent. That won't be offensive in the least. He was meant to add comedy but at his best he was simply not funny, at his worst he was an offensive caricature. Which was why in EP 2 he was more serious, he grew up so to speak and became a senator. Yet people still hate on him, when clearly you no longer see the clumsy gungan anymore. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lady_Alyria Posted May 25, 2012 Share Posted May 25, 2012 Which was why in EP 2 he was more serious, he grew up so to speak and became a senator. Yet people still hate on him, when clearly you no longer see the clumsy gungan anymore. Aye, they had to give him a huge change because people found him to be so awful. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wolfninjajedi Posted May 25, 2012 Share Posted May 25, 2012 Aye, they had to give him a huge change because people found him to be so awful. I didn't but thats just me, and regardless of what people thought he was probably going to go through that huge change anyway. Jar Jar represented the child like wonder, that some adults can still have though eventually the said adults need to grow up and act mature which is what happened with him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GusVIII Posted May 25, 2012 Share Posted May 25, 2012 (edited) New topic: If Jar Jar was taken out, would it have made the Prequels better? My answer? YES!! Taking Jar Jar out would not have changed much in my opinion. Sure he was annoying, but he wasn't as prominently featured in the films after Phantom Menace. My main gripe with the Phantom Menace wasn't even Jar Jar, it was the way Anakin Skywalker was portrayed. He should have been older in my opinion, at least 13. Darth Vader should never have uttered the words "yipee" at any point in his life. As for Attack of the Clones, I really don't see why some people seem to hate it as much as the Phantom Menace. I personally don't hate the Phantom Menace, it was just okay in my opinion. It had it's share of flaws and good moments. Attack of the Clones was good, save for the cheesy romance. It kept me entertained, as it was supposed to. And it elevated Yoda to the level of bad@ss. As for the people who say that Revenge of the Sith sucks, I am seriously at a loss. Most fans know it was an excellent film. Again, save for the cheesy romantic scenes, it had it's flaws, but they were pretty much the same flaws that all the Star Wars films share. People often point to stuff like the dialogue, the story, or the acting. In my opinion, the dialogue was just okay most of the time. Better in the OT, but I never watch any of these movies expecting stellar dialogue, I watch it for the story and epicness. As for the acting, the only performances that I actually loathe were those by Jake Lloyd and Natalie Portman, and even they weren't enough to ruin the overall films in my view. Everyone else ranged from good to okay. Finally the stories. What it comes down to is the prequels had the deeper story, but the original trilogy was more well executed. People often complain that the the PT should have skipped all the politics, but that just isn't realistic. In the original trilogy there wasn't much in the way of politics because of one simple reason, the emperor already ruled everything. Politics were put aside to overthrow the tyrant. The PT could not have shown us the tyrant's rise to power without including the volatile political situation that allowed him to do so. Overall I think the entire Star Wars Series is good as a whole. The thing about me is, watched them all in close succession. Starting with the special editions in theaters back in 1997. I never had to wait more then 2-3 years to see next one. I wasn't over nostalgic about the OT when I saw the PT. Edited May 25, 2012 by GusVIII Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mordegrus Posted May 25, 2012 Author Share Posted May 25, 2012 Taking Jar Jar out would not have changed much in my opinion. Sure he was annoying, but he wasn't as prominently featured in the films after Phantom Menace. My main gripe with the Phantom Menace wasn't even Jar Jar, it was the way Anakin Skywalker was portrayed. He should have been older in my opinion, at least 13. Darth Vader should never have uttered the words "yipee" at any point in his life. As for Attack of the Clones, I really don't see why some people seem to hate it as much as the Phantom Menace. I personally don't hate the Phantom Menace, it was just okay in my opinion. It had it's share of flaws and good moments. Attack of the Clones was good, save for the cheesy romance. It kept me entertained, as it was supposed to. And it elevated Yoda to the level of bad@ss. As for the people who say that Revenge of the Sith sucks, I am seriously at a loss. Most fans know it was an excellent film. Again, save for the cheesy romantic scenes, it had it's flaws, but they were pretty much the same flaws that all the Star Wars films share. People often point to stuff like the dialogue, the story, or the acting. In my opinion, the dialogue was just okay most of the time. Better in the OT, but I never watch any of these movies expecting stellar dialogue, I watch it for the story and epicness. As for the acting, the only performances that I actually loathe were those by Jake Lloyd and Natalie Portman, and even they weren't enough to ruin the overall films in my view. Everyone else ranged from good to okay. Finally the stories. What it comes down to is the prequels had the deeper story, but the original trilogy was more well executed. People often complain that the the PT should have skipped all the politics, but that just isn't realistic. In the original trilogy there wasn't much in the way of politics because of one simple reason, the emperor already ruled everything. Politics were put aside to overthrow the tyrant. The PT could not have shown us the tyrant's rise to power without including the volatile political situation that allowed him to do so. Overall I think the entire Star Wars Series is good as a whole. The thing about me is, watched them all in close succession. Starting with the special editions in theaters back in 1997. I never had to wait more then 2-3 years to see next one. I wasn't over nostalgic about the OT when I saw the PT. I'm just saying that it could be better. Sure, I'm looking at the small details, but isn't that what fans do? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Velaran Posted May 25, 2012 Share Posted May 25, 2012 As for the people who say that Revenge of the Sith sucks, I am seriously at a loss. Most fans know it was an excellent film. Again, save for the cheesy romantic scenes, it had it's flaws, but they were pretty much the same flaws that all the Star Wars films share. Simply put, it's because (In the context of the film) every character is stupid. Sure, now because of the EU, I can look back on everyone and everything and almost all of it makes sense, AND I care more for the characters, but if you JUST watch the movies every character seems like an idiot with no plan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain_Zone Posted May 25, 2012 Share Posted May 25, 2012 Which was why in EP 2 he was more serious, he grew up so to speak and became a senator. Yet people still hate on him, when clearly you no longer see the clumsy gungan anymore. But then they gave us a new reason to hate him because HE was the one who really backed Palpatine on the "Emergency Powers" issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RDeanOU Posted May 25, 2012 Share Posted May 25, 2012 As for Attack of the Clones, I really don't see why some people seem to hate it as much as the Phantom Menace. I personally don't hate the Phantom Menace, it was just okay in my opinion. It had it's share of flaws and good moments. Attack of the Clones was good, save for the cheesy romance. It kept me entertained, as it was supposed to. And it elevated Yoda to the level of bad@ss. AOTC had some of the worst dialogue of the prequels. It also turned the main character of the story into a genocidal maniac. The weird part is that he isn't the villain yet...that comes later. So we are still stuck in the position of this guy being the main protagonist except none of us can identify with him or like him because he's clearly a sociopath. This is one of the problems that ruins the entire prequel trilogy. Anakin isn't likeable....and he's supposed to be the main character. These kind of unsubtle plot devices are exactly what I hated about the prequels. Instead of showing us his negative traits in some subtle way that we could identify with (like when Luke rushes off to save his friends against Yoda's advice in ep V) Lucas chose to be so blunt about him having anger issues that it totally and irreparably broke his character as a protagonist. Perhaps those are some reasons that might help you understand why people hate AOTC...even if you don't agree with them. As for the people who say that Revenge of the Sith sucks, I am seriously at a loss. Most fans know it was an excellent film. Again, save for the cheesy romantic scenes, it had it's flaws, but they were pretty much the same flaws that all the Star Wars films share. I can't speak for what "most" fans think as I only know the dominant opinion within my own circle of Star Wars loving friends. Within our circle it is generally accepted that ROTS was clearly the best of the prequels, but still far far below the level of the original trilogy. I think it had a glaring set of flaws that are not present in any of the films from the OT. Most glaringly, it had characters that we didn't care about and that makes it hard for the action or drama to be all that compelling. I mean it's interesting to watch Anakin's fall, but I don't feel emotionally invested in it the way I was when Palpatine and Vader were tempting Luke on the second Death Star in ROTJ. It's difficult to call any movie with characters that I don't really care about an "excellent film." I wouldn't go so far as to say it sucks either though. If I were to choose one word to describe my feelings of ROTS it would be "disappointing." It's impossible for me not to compare all of the prequel movies with the OT and the fact that we reach the climax of the prequel trilogy and I still feel nothing at all for Anakin when he falls or Padme when she dies is really a disappointment. People often point to stuff like the dialogue, the story, or the acting. In my opinion, the dialogue was just okay most of the time. Better in the OT, but I never watch any of these movies expecting stellar dialogue, I watch it for the story and epicness. As for the acting, the only performances that I actually loathe were those by Jake Lloyd and Natalie Portman, and even they weren't enough to ruin the overall films in my view. Everyone else ranged from good to okay. The dialogue is far worse than okay. Some of the exchanges are extremely brutal to watch. Anakin: Don't be afraid. Padme: I'm not afraid to die. I've been dying a little bit each day since you came back into my life.:rolleyes: Anakin: What are you talking about? Padme: I love you. Anakin: You love me? I thought we had decided not to fall in love. That we'd be forced to live a lie and that it would destroy our lives.:rolleyes: Padme: I think our lives are about to be destroyed anyway. I truly... deeply... love you and before we die I want you to know. :rolleyes: From the moment I met you, all those years ago, not a day has gone by when I haven't thought of you. And now that I'm with you again... I'm in agony. The closer I get to you, the worse it gets. The thought of not being with you- I can't breath. I'm haunted by the kiss that you should never have given me. My heart is beating... hoping that kiss will not become a scar. You are in my very soul, tormenting me... what can I do?- I will do anything you ask. :rolleyes::rolleyes: And my personal favorite.... I don't like sand. It's coarse and rough and irritating and it gets everywhere. Not like here. Here everything is soft and smooth. ......WOW.......I mean just.......WOW! The acting is not the problem. Absolutely indefensibly bad writing like that along with unlikeable characters and an unnecessarily convoluted story are the problem. You could assemble the greatest group of actors from all time and they wouldn't be able to deliver that dialogue convincingly. Finally the stories. What it comes down to is the prequels had the deeper story, but the original trilogy was more well executed. People often complain that the the PT should have skipped all the politics, but that just isn't realistic. In the original trilogy there wasn't much in the way of politics because of one simple reason, the emperor already ruled everything. Politics were put aside to overthrow the tyrant. The PT could not have shown us the tyrant's rise to power without including the volatile political situation that allowed him to do so. The story in the PT is awful. Inexplicable choices were made (such as making Anakin a clueless child in EP 1 who barely understand the events going on around him and isn't on screen for over half of the film) that eliminated any opportunity for the viewer to care about the characters and what would be happening to them for the duration of the movies. We never see Obi Wan and Anakin really develop their friendship. Instead we are told in passing about all the times they have had each others backs. Instead of spending 2 movies actually showing us the two of them having each other's backs they feed us a single line about it and choose to make the plot of the first two movies all about convoluted political intrigue. I'd rather hear about the political intrigue in a few lines and spend the majority of the film actually watching the main characters form a bond. I guess us haters are silly and unrealistic in that way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wolfninjajedi Posted May 25, 2012 Share Posted May 25, 2012 But then they gave us a new reason to hate him because HE was the one who really backed Palpatine on the "Emergency Powers" issue. Yes but its not his fault is it? He didn't know Palpatine was a sith lord, he didn't know what was going on. He thought he was doing the right thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain_Zone Posted May 25, 2012 Share Posted May 25, 2012 Yes but its not his fault is it? He didn't know Palpatine was a sith lord, he didn't know what was going on. He thought he was doing the right thing. Or did he? His new Tell-All book: "Theysa Never Suspicious" by Jar Jar "Darth" Binks with fwd by Emperor Palpatine Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaavik Posted May 25, 2012 Share Posted May 25, 2012 (edited) Jar Jar was comic relief that wasn't funny to anyone over the age of 9. His whole comic routine was to goofily walk around and step in poop or otherwise act clumsy. Agreed, he was the birth of the "Fart Joke" in Star Wars. Not a good idea.... Edited May 25, 2012 by Jaavik Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaavik Posted May 25, 2012 Share Posted May 25, 2012 But then they gave us a new reason to hate him because HE was the one who really backed Palpatine on the "Emergency Powers" issue. Jar Jar, as a senator, can't grant emergency powers, he can only bring the topic to a vote. The Senate voted by majority to grant him the emergency powers, he was just manipulated into getting the ball rolling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts