Enough Lucas Bashing Already!

[Velaran]

I personally love all 6 movies and dont really see them as separate movies but more so one long story that is SW. That being said the hate on the PT is just annoying. Here are some great things you got from PT that you didnt get much of or at all in the OT

 

Yoda fighting (especially yoda vs sidious just awesome)

Coruscant (enough said)

Back story to rise of the empire

Obi-wan in action (his first duel with Vader while iconic is no where near as appealing to watch as any from the PT)

Many new planets

Story of Vader (yea HC wasnt the best actor ever but get over it lol)

WAAAY more lightsaber duels (people who argue that are just haters, lightsabers make SW what it is)

WAY more Jedi

Politics (perhaps the best plot of the whole PT trilogy is Sidious' manipulation)

Mace Windu (Cant hate on my man Samuel with his purple lightsaber)

A better appreciation for the diverse alien species in the SW universe (so often overlooked by PT haters)

 

Im sure theres more but im lazy and cant think of anymore right now. Please dont get me wrong im not trying to say one is better than the other as there would be no PT without the awesomeness of the OT, but true SW fans enjoy it all and can get over HC poor acting, i mean think about it the only really half decent actor in the OT was Harrison Ford, what happened to everyone else afterwords, SW was never known for its great acting but more for the curious imagination about what could be.

 

1. Meh. He should have skipped the jumping and used the Force more.

 

2. Agreed. I didn't quite like how it seemed so distant from the war though. Less then a week after the raid everyone was just flying about like nothing happened, and even in CW, (The only place we saw the ground battle.) we didn't really see the affect on the population.

 

3. Could have been better.

 

4. Agreed. I understand that lightsabers were supposed to be heavy in ANH, but that doesn't excuse the awful choreography, and the crazy way Obi-Wan held his saber.

 

5. That was pretty nice. I wish we saw a bit more of them.

 

6. Christensen's a fine actor. Nobody could say the lines he was given in those movies, and Lucas' heavy-handed direction didn't help.

 

7. No. It's the person holding the lightsaber, not the saber itself, that makes Star Wars what it is.

 

8. We only really saw five.

 

9. I did like his manipulation, but not in the first movie. There, it made no sense whatsoever, at least in the context of the movie itself.

 

10. Indeed.

 

11. Like.... Who? Can you name one alien that wasn't a type of stereotype, or just plain stupid overall? Or at least one that we got to really know?

 

12. Again, I don't think he's a bad actor, and I feel that pretty much everyone in the OT was awesome in their own way.

Edited May 24, 2012 by Velaran

[RDeanOU]

I personally love all 6 movies and dont really see them as separate movies but more so one long story that is SW. That being said the hate on the PT is just annoying. Here are some great things you got from PT that you didnt get much of or at all in the OT

 

Yoda fighting (especially yoda vs sidious just awesome)

Coruscant (enough said)

Back story to rise of the empire

Obi-wan in action (his first duel with Vader while iconic is no where near as appealing to watch as any from the PT)

Many new planets

Story of Vader (yea HC wasnt the best actor ever but get over it lol)

WAAAY more lightsaber duels (people who argue that are just haters, lightsabers make SW what it is)

WAY more Jedi

Politics (perhaps the best plot of the whole PT trilogy is Sidious' manipulation)

Mace Windu (Cant hate on my man Samuel with his purple lightsaber)

A better appreciation for the diverse alien species in the SW universe (so often overlooked by PT haters)

 

Im sure theres more but im lazy and cant think of anymore right now. Please dont get me wrong im not trying to say one is better than the other as there would be no PT without the awesomeness of the OT, but true SW fans enjoy it all and can get over HC poor acting, i mean think about it the only really half decent actor in the OT was Harrison Ford, what happened to everyone else afterwords, SW was never known for its great acting but more for the curious imagination about what could be.

 

You are totally missing the point. Those of us who think the prequels are badly flawed don't blame Hayden Christiansen's acting. George Lucas's writing is to blame.

 

I would rather see a fraction as many lightsabers in action if it meant I would actually care when they had them out. We don't really have any reason to care about the good guys except for the fact that we have been told they are good. The "villains" in the first 2 movies (Darth Maul and Count Dooku) never really do anything all that villainous in the movies. In Ep IV Darth Vader chokes a man to death in front of us and holds Leia hostage while Tarkin blows up an entire planet of innocent people. We know he is a bad guy because we have seen it and when Obi Wan fights him at the end of Ep IV we actually care who wins. I was really upset as a kid when Vader killed him. I don't know anyone that was upset when Qui Gon got killed by Darth Maul.

 

The lightsaber duels in the prequels are all flash and no substance. There is so much more going on in the lightsaber duels in the OT than anything you see in the prequels. We get Obi Wan nobly sacrificing himself right in front of Luke in Ep IV, in V we see Luke barely hanging on as Vader toys with him before revealing that he is Luke's father, and in VI we see the internal struggle of both Luke and Vader as they both battle their own turbulent emotions as they also battle one another in the Emperor's throne room. Those scenes aren't just about the action. The drama and emotion of the characters is revealed in those scenes in meaningful ways. We learn something about the characters during each of those duels.

 

We learn nothing about the characters from the duels in the prequels. They are just there as action scenes. The only one that comes close to generating emotion is the final battle between Anakin and Obi Wan in Episode III and even that falls short because the relationship we are supposed to be watching the climax of (between Anakin and Obi Wan) hasn't really been fully developed. We are told they are like brothers instead of being shown that they are like brothers.

 

I must disagree with you and say emphatically that the OT is far far better than the PT.

[Jaavik]

It might help the discussion for people to NOT be hypersensitive. Nobody is saying that Lucas is above criticism and nobody is "blindly defending Lucas".

 

We're talking. Having debate. Point, counterpoint, etc.

 

The main thing I try to bring up with people who think the Prequel Trilogy is "not up to the standards of the prequels", are these 3 points.

 

1. Think about how old you were when you first saw the Original Trilogy. If you saw it on release, was there ANYTHING comparable to it to use as a standard of measure? Now think about the Prequels. There are plenty of other films and other sagas with comparable budgets and fan bases. So the two do not start on equal footing for comparison.
   
2. If you saw the Original Trilogy when you were a kid, were you making mental note of 'wooden dialogue", bad direction, character development and over-used special effects? Or did you only care if there WERE cool effects, lots of action, memorable characters, memorable music (humming the theme), and occasional scenes that made you laugh? Maybe YOU are too different NOW compared to THEN to give a fair comparison of the two. KIDS of the present day, tend to like the Prequels MORE than the Original Trilogy because they find the OT boring (slower Lightsaber fights, space battles with less ships, Special effects that aren't as grand.etc). The kids of the time were MUCH bigger fans than any of the adults!
   
3. If the Prequels NEVER EXISTED and the Original trilogy was released today, would it be NEARLY as impactful? Would the criticism be more merciful, or would forums be filled with people complaining about this ridiculous muppet that is supposed to be a Jedi master that talks in a stupid way by saying all his prepositions first? (compared to complained about the stupid way Jar Jar talks) or the "whiny hero" of the film (like Anakin), or the alien that simply looks like some guy in a "bear costume", etc (claims that the aliens were just "racial stereotypes")? None of us cared to criticize a film this way back then.
   

 

I think the problem is that there are a lot of people who are unable to "tap into" that child they were when they were a kid and enjoy the movies with a naive sense of wonder that they once had.

 

The story isn't comparable because you are comparing apples and oranges. It's a completely different setting, a different set of characters, and completely different motivations for the heroes and villains. Why does it have to be "This was better than that so the other must be UNWORTHY!"

 

The Prequels still had all the elements that makes something "Star Wars". It had Aliens, Space battles, high speed vehicles, bad guys you love to hate, good guys you root for, the force, blasters and lightsabers. What it DIDN'T have was Luke, Han, Chewie (well..ok.. it HAD Chewie), etc.

Edited May 24, 2012 by Jaavik

[Jaavik]

This point is spot on. Obi Wan's body language and facial expressions are much more friendly toward that fat alien than they ever are toward Anakin and that is a great illustration of how broken this aspect of the prequels is. We are told they are friends, but they never act like friends. They act like coworkers that tolerate one another because they have a job to do rather than friends.

 

Dex was a long time friend of Obi-Wans, seeing as how we don't necessarily KNOW their relationship, it's not really fair to compare it to Obi's and Anakin's relationship.

 

Anakin and Obi-Wan initially have a master-apprentice relationship, you can tell throughout Episode II that Obi-Wan seems frustrated by Anakin's arrogance and disobedience more than anything else. They have the occasional laugh together (The nest of Gundarks thing), but the "brotherly aspect" of their relationship hadn't developed by that point. In fact, Anaking refers to Obi-Wan as "the closest thing he has ever had to a father", which is a completely different dynamic than brothers. Cap this off with the fact that Anakin is viewed as "The Chosen One" and his powers are greater than the other Jedi, then Obi-Wan's distance from Anakin and awkward relationship (due to the sheer amount of responsibility Obi faces in Anakin's training, which by Jedi standards shouldn't have happened) is more easily understood.

 

There is a large period of time that takes place between Episodes II and III (The Clone Wars) that further develops their relationship as more brotherly, once Anakin graduates as a Knight, Obi-Wan is no longer personally responsible for Anakin and their relationship develops more as friends.

 

Believing that their relationship as "friends" is not properly portrayed, you may not be including the element that even though Jedi have what may pass as "friendships", they are encouraged at the same time to "not have attachments", therefore the relationships would probably not appear to be as warm as you would expect it to be.

You CAN see that Anakin appears to be more attached to Obi-Wan (shown through his passions) than Obi-Wan is to Anakin because one of Anakin's MAJOR problems is that he develops attachments he isn't supposed to.

 

Can you give me an example of a Master/Apprentice relationship in this period that was more warm? The best example would bee Anakin and Ahsoka, which is warmer because of Anakin's attachment problem. Ahsoka takes notice of this when she observes the relationships of othe Masters with their Padawans.

 

Obi-Wan has been shown (in the Clone Wars) to have developed attachments, and even romances, which show he may have struggled himself with attachments (having lost his master to Maul), and Obi-Wan may be purposefully distancing himself in developing new ones. His attachment to Anakin is without question at the end of "Revenge of the Sith" when he and Anakin are fighting.

 

If you think that is the response of a "coworker", then you must be really fun to work with...

Edited May 24, 2012 by Jaavik

[Mordegrus]

It might help the discussion for people to NOT be hypersensitive. Nobody is saying that Lucas is above criticism and nobody is "blindly defending Lucas".

 

We're talking. Having debate. Point, counterpoint, etc.

 

The main thing I try to bring up with people who think the Prequel Trilogy is "not up to the standards of the prequels", are these 3 points.

 

1. Think about how old you were when you first saw the Original Trilogy. If you saw it on release, was there ANYTHING comparable to it to use as a standard of measure? Now think about the Prequels. There are plenty of other films and other sagas with comparable budgets and fan bases. So the two do not start on equal footing for comparison.
   
2. If you saw the Original Trilogy when you were a kid, were you making mental note of 'wooden dialogue", bad direction, character development and over-used special effects? Or did you only care if there WERE cool effects, lots of action, memorable characters, memorable music (humming the theme), and occasional scenes that made you laugh? Maybe YOU are too different NOW compared to THEN to give a fair comparison of the two. KIDS of the present day, tend to like the Prequels MORE than the Original Trilogy because they find the OT boring (slower Lightsaber fights, space battles with less ships, Special effects that aren't as grand.etc). The kids of the time were MUCH bigger fans than any of the adults!
   
3. If the Prequels NEVER EXISTED and the Original trilogy was released today, would it be NEARLY as impactful? Would the criticism be more merciful, or would forums be filled with people complaining about this ridiculous muppet that is supposed to be a Jedi master that talks in a stupid way by saying all his prepositions first? (compared to complained about the stupid way Jar Jar talks) or the "whiny hero" of the film (like Anakin), or the alien that simply looks like some guy in a "bear costume", etc (claims that the aliens were just "racial stereotypes")? None of us cared to criticize a film this way back then.
   

 

I think the problem is that there are a lot of people who are unable to "tap into" that child they were when they were a kid and enjoy the movies with a naive sense of wonder that they once had.

 

The story isn't comparable because you are comparing apples and oranges. It's a completely different setting, a different set of characters, and completely different motivations for the heroes and villains. Why does it have to be "This was better than that so the other must be UNWORTHY!"

 

The Prequels still had all the elements that makes something "Star Wars". It had Aliens, Space battles, high speed vehicles, bad guys you love to hate, good guys you root for, the force, blasters and lightsabers. What it DIDN'T have was Luke, Han, Chewie (well..ok.. it HAD Chewie), etc.

 

Agreed.

It just depends on what you like or what you hate.

I just think that the Prequels needed work, but there are others that think differently, and I'm fine with that.

Maybe...

Edited May 24, 2012 by Mordegrus

[RDeanOU]

It might help the discussion for people to NOT be hypersensitive. Nobody is saying that Lucas is above criticism and nobody is "blindly defending Lucas.

 

We're talking. Having debate. Point, counterpoint, etc.

 

The main thing I try to bring up with people who think the Prequel Trilogy is "not up to the standards of the prequels", I like to make a few points.

 

1. Think about how old you were when you first saw the Original Trilogy. If you saw it on release, was there ANYTHING comparable to it to use as a standard of measure? Now think about the Prequels. There are plenty of other films and other sagas with comparable budgets and fan bases. So the two do not start on equal footing for comparison.
   
2. If you saw the Original Trilogy when you were a kid, were you making mental note of 'wooden dialogue", bad direction, character development and over-used special effects? Or did you only care if there WERE cool effects, lots of action, memorable characters, memorable music (humming the theme), and occasional scenes that made you laugh? Maybe YOU are too different NOW compared to THEN to give a fair comparison of the two. KIDS of the present day, tend to like the Prequels MORE than the Original Trilogy because they find the OT boring (slower Lightsaber fights, space battles with less ships, Special effects that aren't as grand.etc). The kids of the time were MUCH bigger fans than any of the adults!
   
3. If the Prequels NEVER EXISTED and the Original trilogy was released today, would it be NEARLY as impactful? Would the criticism be more merciful, or would forums be filled with people complaining about this ridiculous muppet that is supposed to be a Jedi master that talks in a stupid way by saying all his prepositions first? (compared to complained about the stupid way Jar Jar talks) or the "whiny hero" of the film (like Anakin), or the alien that simply looks like some guy in a "bear costume", etc (claims that the aliens were just "racial stereotypes")? None of us cared to criticize a film this way back then.
   

 

I think the problem is that there are a lot of people who are unable to "tap into" that child they were when they were a kid and enjoy the movies with a naive sense of wonder that they once had.

 

The story isn't comparable because you are comparing apples and oranges. It's a completely different setting, a different set of characters, and completely different motivations for the heroes and villains. Why does it have to be "This was better than that so the other must be UNWORTHY!"

 

The Prequels still had all the elements that makes something "Star Wars". It had Aliens, Space battles, high speed vehicles, bad guys you love to hate, good guys you root for, the force, blasters and lightsabers. What it DIDN'T have was Luke, Han, Chewie (well..ok.. it HAD Chewie), etc.

 

1. This would be a valid point if we were discussing where they rank in their own era. I don't see how it is a relevant point when we are comparing them to one another. Our point of comparison for the OT in this conversation is the PT and if the PT doesn't compare then that is a problem.

2. If I were relying only on my childhood judgments then this would be valid, but I'm not. I have rewatched all of the movies recently and watching them back to back you can see a massive difference. The dialogue and direction are very obviously better by a wide margin in the OT. The character development is the biggest difference. I have pointed this out numerous times in previous posts so please refer to those.

 

3. This is an interesting point so let's take a look at it. What if the prequels did not exist and the OT had been released only recently? I think it's really impossible to answer this question because of how the OT changed filmmaking 30 years ago. We have no idea how they would be received because so many of the films (especially in the sci fi genre) that have been released since are heavily influenced by what Star Wars did. Heck, we wouldn't even have the Star Trek movies as we know them because the success of Star Wars is what convinced the studio to make Star Trek: the motion picture instead of rebooting the tv show.

[RDeanOU]

Also would argue that what it didn't have was a plot that made much sense, characters (by any name) that we cared about, and any subtlety at all in the writing and directing. It wouldn't have needed Luke, Han, and Leia if Obi Wan, Anakin, and Padme had been written with any depth.

[Jaavik]

1. This would be a valid point if we were discussing where they rank in their own era. I don't see how it is a relevant point when we are comparing them to one another. Our point of comparison for the OT in this conversation is the PT and if the PT doesn't compare then that is a problem.

 

You are making a broad indefinable statement by simply saying "it doesn't compare". If we are simply saying you didn't like the PT as much as the OT, then there is no point in going any further as we are discussing personal opinions and there is no right and wrong involved, if you didn't like it, you didn't like it. But saying "It doesn't compare", is simply your opinion as many of us think they are extremely comparable.

 

Like I said, it has all of the elements that makes something "Star Wars". Before the PT were even released, the Star Wars everyone "loved to hate" was Return of the Jedi because people were complaining that "Ewoks" were not sufficiently "Star Wars"

 

If we are simply comparing the films by dialogue and performances then we can agree that the OT was better overall, but cannot personally use this as a reason to HATE the PT. There are plenty of movies I love that either were hokey at release or SEEM hokey now. The criticisms are HARSHER for the PT because their was such a high bar set by the OT. The average "nit-picker" could easily pull on every thread of the OT until it appears to unravel if they wanted to. I think the built-in love we have for the OT has us overlook it's own flaws.

 

2. If I were relying only on my childhood judgments then this would be valid, but I'm not. I have re-watched all of the movies recently and watching them back to back you can see a massive difference. The dialogue and direction are very obviously better by a wide margin in the OT. The character development is the biggest difference. I have pointed this out numerous times in previous posts so please refer to those.

 

Re-watching the entire series NOW and making the comparison means that you are ignoring what made the ORIGINAL into the blockbuster sensation it was. I would think that those elements would be extremely relevant when comparing the two. Look at almost ANY review of a film that is a reboot of an original film that was extremely popular. It can be easily argued that reboots are much higher in quality, performances, etc. But there are those "purists" out there that will always say the original was better. It's because of a built in love for a film that is directly proportional to the impact it had on you.

 

There's a very wise statement that says, "You can't go home again". In my opinion, many people are unfairly comparing OT with PT because of the impact that the OT had on them. It was a different time and it had a completely different impact. The setting and who YOU were at the time of release are VERY relevant to the conversation. It's called "having a control group". If the methods used to compare them aren't equal, then the results will be skewed. As I already said, it has been shown that kids, who are seeing the PT at the same age we saw the OT, liked the PT better.

 

I have NO arguments on bad directing, bad acting, etc. I have always said that, in my opinion, George Lucas is a better storyteller than a director. The Empire Strikes Back being the best example. But this is precisely WHY I personally don't try to weigh the prequels against the Original Trilogy. When I fell in love with the original trilogy, it wasn't due to "directing", "acting", "casting", "overuse of SFX", etc. It was cool action, awesome aliens, space battles, the force, blasters, etc. And this had all that. Although I'm not happy with the "technical problems" of the PT, it doesn't stop me for loving it and embracing it as part of a larger story.

 

3. This is an interesting point so let's take a look at it. What if the prequels did not exist and the OT had been released only recently? I think it's really impossible to answer this question because of how the OT changed filmmaking 30 years ago. We have no idea how they would be received because so many of the films (especially in the sci fi genre) that have been released since are heavily influenced by what Star Wars did. Heck, we wouldn't even have the Star Trek movies as we know them because the success of Star Wars is what convinced the studio to make Star Trek: the motion picture instead of rebooting the tv show.

 

You're making my point for me. You CAN'T measure the PT against a film series that had the impact the OT had on it's era. It has a historic quality and embedded itself into the psyches of an entire generation. If that same generation was expecting to have that same impact, it was NEVER going to happen. There was nothing to compare the OT to in it's time and the technical developments that came from it. It defies comparison on a fair level. So I don't try to compare them. On their own merit, I cringed at some of the dialogue, but overall, I was thoroughly entertained. I bought all of them, saw the film multiple times. They did fanatstic numbers in ticket sales, toy sales, etc, so by THOSE standards, the PT equals the OT.

Edited May 24, 2012 by Jaavik

[Jaavik]

Also would argue that what it didn't have was a plot that made much sense, characters (by any name) that we cared about, and any subtlety at all in the writing and directing. It wouldn't have needed Luke, Han, and Leia if Obi Wan, Anakin, and Padme had been written with any depth.

 

I am one of the ones that enjoyed the Prequels and followed the plot and story easily and even believe the story is deeper than the Original Trilogy (although I am a bigger fan of the OT). I'd be happy to help with anything that you think didn't make sense. Ask away...

 

Give me an example of the "depth" of character that Luke, Han, Leia, etc. had that Anakin didn't. Seeing as how Anakin already had 3 movies to develop him as Darth Vader, giving him that jump start and seeing what causes him to get to that point easily makes him more "deeply defined" than any character in the Original Trilogy.

[Captain_Zone]

*pelts George Lucas with onions*

 

Had to get in my Lucas bashing for the day.

[passio]

It might help the discussion for people to NOT be hypersensitive. Nobody is saying that Lucas is above criticism and nobody is "blindly defending Lucas".

 

We're talking. Having debate. Point, counterpoint, etc.

 

The main thing I try to bring up with people who think the Prequel Trilogy is "not up to the standards of the prequels", are these 3 points.

 

1. Think about how old you were when you first saw the Original Trilogy. If you saw it on release, was there ANYTHING comparable to it to use as a standard of measure? Now think about the Prequels. There are plenty of other films and other sagas with comparable budgets and fan bases. So the two do not start on equal footing for comparison.
   
2. If you saw the Original Trilogy when you were a kid, were you making mental note of 'wooden dialogue", bad direction, character development and over-used special effects? Or did you only care if there WERE cool effects, lots of action, memorable characters, memorable music (humming the theme), and occasional scenes that made you laugh? Maybe YOU are too different NOW compared to THEN to give a fair comparison of the two. KIDS of the present day, tend to like the Prequels MORE than the Original Trilogy because they find the OT boring (slower Lightsaber fights, space battles with less ships, Special effects that aren't as grand.etc). The kids of the time were MUCH bigger fans than any of the adults!
   
3. If the Prequels NEVER EXISTED and the Original trilogy was released today, would it be NEARLY as impactful? Would the criticism be more merciful, or would forums be filled with people complaining about this ridiculous muppet that is supposed to be a Jedi master that talks in a stupid way by saying all his prepositions first? (compared to complained about the stupid way Jar Jar talks) or the "whiny hero" of the film (like Anakin), or the alien that simply looks like some guy in a "bear costume", etc (claims that the aliens were just "racial stereotypes")? None of us cared to criticize a film this way back then.
   

 

I think the problem is that there are a lot of people who are unable to "tap into" that child they were when they were a kid and enjoy the movies with a naive sense of wonder that they once had.

 

The story isn't comparable because you are comparing apples and oranges. It's a completely different setting, a different set of characters, and completely different motivations for the heroes and villains. Why does it have to be "This was better than that so the other must be UNWORTHY!"

 

The Prequels still had all the elements that makes something "Star Wars". It had Aliens, Space battles, high speed vehicles, bad guys you love to hate, good guys you root for, the force, blasters and lightsabers. What it DIDN'T have was Luke, Han, Chewie (well..ok.. it HAD Chewie), etc.

 

I would argue that the very title of the thread suggests that at least one person thinks that Lucas is above criticism.

 

Also the use of the word hate has been bandied around by people disagreeing with the criticism levelled at Lucas not to mention the people also making such stupid statements as "if you hate the prequels and Lucas so much why are you here".

The very fact that people aren`t able to distinguish criticism of the PT and everything else Star Wars related shows that some are blindly defending with every ounce of their being and showing a real lack of ability to unhinge themselves from bias.

 

I`m not going to go into the rest of your post as my answers as to why i think the PT are average at best films (not just compared to the originals) have been spouted for years before and i`m sure for years after and it would serve no purpose. Its like trying to convince someone of evolution when they are a creationist. People believe what they believe.

 

The reason why i have a severe disliking of Lucas are very simple and a lot of others share this opinion.

It has nothing to do with the fact that he wasn`t able to emulate the quality of the films he released before. That would be like whining about your favourite football player not being able to perform as well as he did when he was younger.

Its the sheer contempt he has for the fans that he won`t release the OT as the original films that we grew up with, paid for and put him in the position he is today. Without us George wouldn`t have made the PT.

This could be excused if the edits added anything to the films but they don`t and you could argue that some of the more recent additions/changes have been done as an intentional F**K YOU to the audience.

 

So the Lucas bashing will continue and like i have said before, no one who releases their art is above that.

[GusVIII]

It might help the discussion for people to NOT be hypersensitive. Nobody is saying that Lucas is above criticism and nobody is "blindly defending Lucas".

 

Thank you! This is the point that I have been trying to make since I started this thread.

 

There's a very wise statement that says, "You can't go home again". In my opinion, many people are unfairly comparing OT with PT because of the impact that the OT had on them. It was a different time and it had a completely different impact. The setting and who YOU were at the time of release are VERY relevant to the conversation. It's called "having a control group". If the methods used to compare them aren't equal, then the results will be skewed. As I already said, it has been shown that kids, who are seeing the PT at the same age we saw the OT, liked the PT better.

 

When I read this comment I immediately thought back to this interview:

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-january-5-2010/george-lucas

 

I think it does a good job at getting your point across.

Edited May 25, 2012 by GusVIII

[Mordegrus]

George Lucas is not the one to blame.

It's his stories and ideas for the Prequels.

[Velaran]

George Lucas is not the one to blame.

It's his stories and ideas for the Prequels.

 

... No, I think he's to blame. Without the right production, he's an awful director, and he's said himself that he just CAN'T write dialogue.

 

Dialogue is somewhat important when a story is almost completely focused on a single character.

[RDeanOU]

You are making a broad indefinable statement by simply saying "it doesn't compare". If we are simply saying you didn't like the PT as much as the OT, then there is no point in going any further as we are discussing personal opinions and there is no right and wrong involved, if you didn't like it, you didn't like it. But saying "It doesn't compare", is simply your opinion as many of us think they are extremely comparable.

 

Like I said, it has all of the elements that makes something "Star Wars". Before the PT were even released, the Star Wars everyone "loved to hate" was Return of the Jedi because people were complaining that "Ewoks" were not sufficiently "Star Wars"

 

If we are simply comparing the films by dialogue and performances then we can agree that the OT was better overall, but cannot personally use this as a reason to HATE the PT. There are plenty of movies I love that either were hokey at release or SEEM hokey now. The criticisms are HARSHER for the PT because their was such a high bar set by the OT. The average "nit-picker" could easily pull on every thread of the OT until it appears to unravel if they wanted to. I think the built-in love we have for the OT has us overlook it's own flaws.

 

I mean to say that the PT doesn't compare favorably to the OT. It's impossible not to compare them...the comparison is just not a very good one for the prequels. It's true that I don't like the PT as well, but it is far more than that. I think the writing and direction is demonstrably worse from a technical perspective. My complaint isn't that it doesn't have enough "Star Warsey" stuff in it. My complaint is that the writing and direction was lazy and the movies suffered badly from that.

 

I wanted desperately to care about the primary characters in the prequel trilogy and the movies almost went out of their way to keep me from being able to do that. Anakin is a child totally unaware of the events going on around him in Episode 1 and he isn't even on screen for over half of the movie. In Episode 2 Lucas chooses to portray him as a violent sociopath who commits genocide on Sand People and force feed him some truly brutal dialogue. Kind of hard to connect with your protagonist after that.

 

Re-watching the entire series NOW and making the comparison means that you are ignoring what made the ORIGINAL into the blockbuster sensation it was. I would think that those elements would be extremely relevant when comparing the two. Look at almost ANY review of a film that is a reboot of an original film that was extremely popular. It can be easily argued that reboots are much higher in quality, performances, etc. But there are those "purists" out there that will always say the original was better. It's because of a built in love for a film that is directly proportional to the impact it had on you.

 

There's a very wise statement that says, "You can't go home again". In my opinion, many people are unfairly comparing OT with PT because of the impact that the OT had on them. It was a different time and it had a completely different impact. The setting and who YOU were at the time of release are VERY relevant to the conversation. It's called "having a control group". If the methods used to compare them aren't equal, then the results will be skewed. As I already said, it has been shown that kids, who are seeing the PT at the same age we saw the OT, liked the PT better.

 

I have NO arguments on bad directing, bad acting, etc. I have always said that, in my opinion, George Lucas is a better storyteller than a director. The Empire Strikes Back being the best example. But this is precisely WHY I personally don't try to weigh the prequels against the Original Trilogy. When I fell in love with the original trilogy, it wasn't due to "directing", "acting", "casting", "overuse of SFX", etc. It was cool action, awesome aliens, space battles, the force, blasters, etc. And this had all that. Although I'm not happy with the "technical problems" of the PT, it doesn't stop me for loving it and embracing it as part of a larger story.

 

I am fully capable of watching the OT and PT and examining both with a critical eye in terms of their stories and character development. There is subtlety and nuance in the OT that is sorely lacking from the PT. In Episode V Luke demonstrates his weakness and impulsiveness by rushing off to save his friends against Yoda's advice, but we as the audience are with him. We took that step down the dark path right with Luke. The comparable scene in Episode II is the one where Anakin slaughters the Sand People women and children...and none of us are with him. It is Lucas beating the audience clumsily over the head with Anakin's flaws and it is just poor lazy filmmaking. It isn't the impact of the OT on me that convinces me the OT is better. The clearly superior writing, story choices, and direction are all the convincing I need.

 

Unfair or not, it is inevitable for us to compare the OT with the PT. Really the episodes are very comparable with each other (Episode I with Episode IV......Ep II with Ep V....Ep III with EP VI). The stories mirror each other in some important ways. I think you are probably smart enough to see those things, but if you want me to point them out I will. Let me be clear here, I didn't expect the prequels to be as great as the original trilogy. It's really difficult to catch lightning in a bottle the way Lucas did the first time around. I was just severely disappointed by how far apart the prequels were from the OT in terms of quality. I was especially disappointed because much of that deficiency was fully avoidable. You don't have to make me love Anakin as much as I loved Luke, but wouldn't it be nice if I cared about him enough to actually be upset when he falls to the dark side? I don't have to love Padme as much as I loved Leia, but isn't it kind of pathetic that I didn't even really care when she died? This is what I'm talking about. The prequels didn't have to match the OT, but they should have been a lot better than they were. As it was they were pretty mediocre.

 

Yeah, I know kids loved the prequels. That same generation of children also loved Air Bud enough to spawn like a dozen movies about a dog that plays sports and his offspring who talk or something. Kids aren't discerning viewers. There's nothing new about that. Their entertainment preferences rarely reflect on the quality of the product. When I was a kid I liked Scooby Doo cartoons. It wasn't until much later in life that I realized that the plot lines were all exactly the same. That realization occurred because I re-examined the material using a more critical eye as an adult and my viewpoint changed. Some things I loved as a kid were awful. Other things I liked really were amazing. In order to tell the difference I just rewatch them as an adult and judge them again by my raised standards. I am telling you that by using that same method I can judge that the Original Trilogy is still better than the prequels by an extremely wide margin.

 

You say it wasn't the directing, acting, casting, etc. that made you love the OT, but the cool action, space battles, and such. I contend that that action and those battles are only compelling so long as you care about the characters involved. Lightsaber duels and space battles are more interesting when we as the audience feel we have something at stake. We desperately want Luke to take out the Death Star in Episode IV and we are on the edge of our seat during that battle because the clock is ticking down to the moment when Leia and the Rebels will all die if he doesn't succeed. We have something at stake. Compare that to Episode I where child Anakin herp derps his way through the space battle around the droid control ship by randomly pressing buttons and accidentally destroying the mother ship. We don't feel a sense of suspense in that scene. If anything we are rolling our eyes at the ludicrousness we are being expected to swallow in this scene.

 

You're making my point for me. You CAN'T measure the PT against a film series that had the impact the OT had on it's era. It has a historic quality and embedded itself into the psyches of an entire generation. If that same generation was expecting to have that same impact, it was NEVER going to happen. There was nothing to compare the OT to in it's time and the technical developments that came from it. It defies comparison on a fair level. So I don't try to compare them. On their own merit, I cringed at some of the dialogue, but overall, I was thoroughly entertained. I bought all of them, saw the film multiple times. They did fanatstic numbers in ticket sales, toy sales, etc, so by THOSE standards, the PT equals the OT.

 

It's inevitable that we will measure the PT by comparing it to the OT. Now, I agree it wouldn't be fair to judge it as total trash simply because it wasn't as great as probably the greatest trilogy of all time. The problem is that I think it falls short of being good by any measurement you want to use. Good filmmaking doesn't require the characters to explicitly tell me how they feel ("Anakin, you're breaking my heart"). Good filmmaking makes me care about the characters and I feel what they feel because I am with them. Good filmmaking doesn't disconnect me from the protagonist halfway through the story by turning him into a cold blooded murderer. Good filmmaking is subtle. The prequels are none of these things. They are a mediocre mess.

[passio]

I mean to say that the PT doesn't compare favorably to the OT. It's impossible not to compare them...the comparison is just not a very good one for the prequels. It's true that I don't like the PT as well, but it is far more than that. I think the writing and direction is demonstrably worse from a technical perspective. My complaint isn't that it doesn't have enough "Star Warsey" stuff in it. My complaint is that the writing and direction was lazy and the movies suffered badly from that.

 

IIn Episode 2 Lucas chooses to portray him as a violent sociopath who commits genocide on Sand People and force feed him some truly brutal dialogue. Kind of hard to connect with your protagonist after that.

 

You make a lot of good points but the one regarding episode 2 stands out the most.

This is one of the worst things about the series.

You have someone falling in love with a person who acts like a child, says creepy stuff all the time and freely admits to mass-murdering an entire camp of men, women and children......thats right CHILDREN. Then the female lead falls in love with him.

 

Now when you consider all the other impossibilities in the Star Wars universe from laser-swords to moon sized space stations capable of destroying entire planets its never a good sign when this "love-story" sticks out as the most unlikely thing to actually happen.

 

If George hadn`t been so obsessed with showing that Anakin was going to be evil the whole time instead of having him be a good guy with some slight flaws we could connect with him. The direction was so bad and i`m surprised that Lucas didn`t have HC do a doctor evil pinkie to the mouth every time the camera zoomed in for a reaction shot at the end of each scene.

 

This is all wasted on most of the people here though my friend.

[RDeanOU]

You make a lot of good points but the one regarding episode 2 stands out the most.

This is one of the worst things about the series.

You have someone falling in love with a person who acts like a child, says creepy stuff all the time and freely admits to mass-murdering an entire camp of men, women and children......thats right CHILDREN. Then the female lead falls in love with him.

 

Now when you consider all the other impossibilities in the Star Wars universe from laser-swords to moon sized space stations capable of destroying entire planets its never a good sign when this "love-story" sticks out as the most unlikely thing to actually happen.

 

If George hadn`t been so obsessed with showing that Anakin was going to be evil the whole time instead of having him be a good guy with some slight flaws we could connect with him. The direction was so bad and i`m surprised that Lucas didn`t have HC do a doctor evil pinkie to the mouth every time the camera zoomed in for a reaction shot at the end of each scene.

 

This is all wasted on most of the people here though my friend.

 

Yep. I was focusing on how disconnected this choice makes us from Anakin, but you are spot on that it disconnects us from Padme by extension. He tells her that he slaughtered a bunch of women and children like animals and he doesn't display an ounce of remorse and minutes later she is telling him she is madly in love with him. Yeah, that's a totally sane response to mass murder.

[Maaruin]

Yep. I was focusing on how disconnected this choice makes us from Anakin, but you are spot on that it disconnects us from Padme by extension. He tells her that he slaughtered a bunch of women and children like animals and he doesn't display an ounce of remorse and minutes later she is telling him she is madly in love with him. Yeah, that's a totally sane response to mass murder.

 

I think it's easier if you try to connect to Obi-Wan instead. Of course he it is not as easy to connect to as th Luke, Han and Leia. But it works better than connecting to Anakin.

 

Imagine the prequels as the story of a young Jedi Knight who get's driven into the teacher role far to early. Training Anakin is a big challange for him and they have their differences. And in the end, when they finally seem to become friends, Anakin betrays him and he has to kill him.

[ElrohirEluchil]

Oh this is how YOU rank them... ps the rest of the world does not think this.

 

1. Revenge of the Sith

2. Empire Strikes back

3. Return of the Jedi

4. Phantom Menace

5. A New Hope

6. Attack of the Clones

 

Dont go spewing your hatred as fact

[LeeC]

I liked it when Plinkett compared the PT to Citizen Kane.

 

"Is it fair to compare these movies? Nope!"

 

Really breaks them down.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HCTffAjsUfs

 

or this one which shows the comparison in full

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IRUMt9-Oig0&feature=relmfu

Edited May 25, 2012 by LeeC

[Captain_Zone]

*bashes George with a hockey puck* Slapshot!

 

Couldn't resist. Stanley Cup Finals are right around the corner!

[Drudenfusz]

George Lucas is not the one to blame.

It's his stories and ideas for the Prequels.

I think the prequels aren't that bad... sure, they are by far not as good as the original trilogy, but they worked well enough as sommer blockbusters (and Episode III is maybe as good as Episode VI was). The true problem is that people expected the prequels to be much more than Lucas could deliver (it seems like he forgot all the things he knew about how to make good movies). Back in the 70s Lucas said something about that the story is more important than the special effects, and now watch the prequels again... they are all about special effects (but many action movies are like that). Even that is not the worst about Lucas! The worst is that he changes stuff in the old movies... and not necessary for the better (and that's also aginst something he said a long time ago he cannot stand when people do that and now he is doing it himself).

 

I am thatnkful that Lucas made the movies, but I really think he lost his magic somehow and screws up the movies more with each iteration he does on them.

[Jaavik]

I mean to say that the PT doesn't compare favorably to the OT. It's impossible not to compare them...the comparison is just not a very good one for the prequels. It's true that I don't like the PT as well, but it is far more than that. I think the writing and direction is demonstrably worse from a technical perspective. My complaint isn't that it doesn't have enough "Star Warsey" stuff in it. My complaint is that the writing and direction was lazy and the movies suffered badly from that.

 

No disagreement here. My defense of the movies are primarily about story. I agree the execution wasn't as tempered as the original. I've said many times on here that George is a better storyteller than he is a director. I think his films do much better when he hands his script off to someone and lets them direct it and tweak it as they see fit to do.

I wanted desperately to care about the primary characters in the prequel trilogy and the movies almost went out of their way to keep me from being able to do that. Anakin is a child totally unaware of the events going on around him in Episode 1 and he isn't even on screen for over half of the movie. In Episode 2 Lucas chooses to portray him as a violent sociopath who commits genocide on Sand People and force feed him some truly brutal dialogue. Kind of hard to connect with your protagonist after that.

 

I am fully capable of watching the OT and PT and examining both with a critical eye in terms of their stories and character development. There is subtlety and nuance in the OT that is sorely lacking from the PT. In Episode V Luke demonstrates his weakness and impulsiveness by rushing off to save his friends against Yoda's advice, but we as the audience are with him. We took that step down the dark path right with Luke. The comparable scene in Episode II is the one where Anakin slaughters the Sand People women and children...and none of us are with him. It is Lucas beating the audience clumsily over the head with Anakin's flaws and it is just poor lazy filmmaking. It isn't the impact of the OT on me that convinces me the OT is better. The clearly superior writing, story choices, and direction are all the convincing I need.

 

What is Darth Vader, if NOT a violent sociopath? Anyone who fails an order he gives gets force-choked to death? And this is kinda what I refer to when I talk about a fair comparison. Luke going against Yoda's recommendation to save his friends is absolutely relatable. I agree with you 100%. ANAKIN doesn't commit "genocide" on a whim or in an "unrelatable way". Anakin's mother was kidnapped by a savage tribe of Sand-people. She was kept there, tied up for over a month, SUFFERING the entire time. The cuts and bruises on her body indicates that she was tortured and beaten to near DEATH (if NOT anything worse). And Anakin gets there just in time for her to die in his arms.

 

I don't know about you, but if I had the skills and abilities to avenge the kidnapping, torture, and murder of my mother (and she was the ONLY family I've ever had), and she had JUST died at that moment (heat of the moment), I'm pretty sure I would have blacked out in a blind rage and woke up in a pile of dead Tuskens. Luke's situation and Anakin's situation were completely DIFFERENT. Anakin's situation was FAR more severe.

 

The audience connected with Vader at the end of "Return of the Jedi". Once he was turned back to the light and dropped the Emperor over the railing, the audience related to a point in thier lives when they may have done something bad and wanted a chance to "make good". The difference with story telling in a Prequel is that you already come in knowing the ending. You are simply wanting to see how he got there. What makes a good person make bad decisions? How easy is it to make bad decisions for a selfish purpose? How difficult would it be for someone to NOT be arrogant, when they have so much power and ability and have all your peers look to you as "The Chosen One" and expect you to fulfill a specific purpose described through prophecy?

 

If you remember "Return of the Jedi", once Vader realized that Luke had a twin sister and simply threatened to "turn her", Luke lost all control and began lopping off Vader's appendages and nearly turned to the Dark Side himself. Seeing what Anakin did is supposed to show what COULD happen when a Jedi doesn't "govern their passions". The stories of Anakin and Luke are meant to mirror each other. Luke was just as capable of falling and being manipulated by Sidious, and it took Luke realizing how similar their lives were (and HANDS were) to stop himself from crossing that line.

Unfair or not, it is inevitable for us to compare the OT with the PT. Really the episodes are very comparable with each other (Episode I with Episode IV......Ep II with Ep V....Ep III with EP VI). The stories mirror each other in some important ways. I think you are probably smart enough to see those things, but if you want me to point them out I will.

 

Nope, no need, I'm completely aware of Lucas' desire to mirror the hero's path in both trilogies. And once again, I'm not saying they don't invite comparison. I'm simply saying that to expect the PT to be of equal impact as the OT is unreasonable and the PT NEVER had a chance. In many of the posts here, I see that the problem is that there was a bar set by the OT that people wanted to PT to reach. All I'm saying is that it was never going to. We don't have to take the quality of one to beat the other to death. If the films were released in order, and the PT was the only releases available, they wouldn't have been as viciously scrutinized. Jar Jar wouldn't have been as much of a "disappointment". I think the Prequels would have been enjoyed much more by those of us who were destined to become Star Wars fans.

 

The acting and dialogue would still have been awful..LOL. Those criticisms are completely fair.

 

But we just keep hammering the PT's ability to reach a bar that was unreachable.

 

Let me be clear here, I didn't expect the prequels to be as great as the original trilogy. It's really difficult to catch lightning in a bottle the way Lucas did the first time around. I was just severely disappointed by how far apart the prequels were from the OT in terms of quality. I was especially disappointed because much of that deficiency was fully avoidable. You don't have to make me love Anakin as much as I loved Luke, but wouldn't it be nice if I cared about him enough to actually be upset when he falls to the dark side? I don't have to love Padme as much as I loved Leia, but isn't it kind of pathetic that I didn't even really care when she died? This is what I'm talking about. The prequels didn't have to match the OT, but they should have been a lot better than they were. As it was they were pretty mediocre.

 

Would you agree that many people on here ARE upset because the Prequels WEREN'T as "great" as the Original Trilogy?

 

Do you think it's at all possible that the average fan's inability to be "upset" that Anakin fell to the Dark Side and "distraught" when Padme dies giving birth to Anakin's twin offspring could be blamed on the fact that we ALL knew it was GOING to happen? Could it be that the impact would be less in both cases because we already knew how this story ends?

 

It's very easy to say that it could have been executed better. Of course it could, you can pretty much say that about any film ever made. I would have liked the Original Trilogy better if it had "better performances". I agree by comparison, the acting in the Prequels are worse. No debate here.There is ALWAYS a way to do something better. To passionately HATE it because "it could have been better" seems silly to me.

Edited May 25, 2012 by Jaavik

[Jaavik]

Yeah, I know kids loved the prequels. That same generation of children also loved Air Bud enough to spawn like a dozen movies about a dog that plays sports and his offspring who talk or something. Kids aren't discerning viewers. There's nothing new about that. Their entertainment preferences rarely reflect on the quality of the product. When I was a kid I liked Scooby Doo cartoons. It wasn't until much later in life that I realized that the plot lines were all exactly the same. That realization occurred because I re-examined the material using a more critical eye as an adult and my viewpoint changed. Some things I loved as a kid were awful. Other things I liked really were amazing. In order to tell the difference I just rewatch them as an adult and judge them again by my raised standards. I am telling you that by using that same method I can judge that the Original Trilogy is still better than the prequels by an extremely wide margin.

 

You say it wasn't the directing, acting, casting, etc. that made you love the OT, but the cool action, space battles, and such. I contend that that action and those battles are only compelling so long as you care about the characters involved. Lightsaber duels and space battles are more interesting when we as the audience feel we have something at stake. We desperately want Luke to take out the Death Star in Episode IV and we are on the edge of our seat during that battle because the clock is ticking down to the moment when Leia and the Rebels will all die if he doesn't succeed. We have something at stake. Compare that to Episode I where child Anakin herp derps his way through the space battle around the droid control ship by randomly pressing buttons and accidentally destroying the mother ship. We don't feel a sense of suspense in that scene. If anything we are rolling our eyes at the ludicrousness we are being expected to swallow in this scene.

 

I think we're kind of arguing the same point but missing each others views. Yes, the climax in "A New Hope" was fantastic, but this also has to do with the fact that the ending was unknown. To use that comparison against prequels (a different kind of animal from a sequel) is what I describe as an "unfair comparison". We already know that Anakin, Obi-Wan, Yoda, Chewbacca and the Droids survive the Prequels before we begin. We know Vader is Anakin, Darth Sidious is Palpatine, Padme will die after giving birth to twins and The Bad Guys are going to win and form "The Empire". You aren't going to be able to create a tense, life or death "race against the clock" scene involving any of these characters. There was never a chance that Anakin was going to die in Episode I, so how do you create tension for it? Lucas went the other way and tried to make it fun and "funny", and I agree. It was more ludicrous than anything.

 

But is it any more ludicrous than having a space station the size of a moon that can be destroyed by a single shot into an exhaust port? Or someone with minimal force training, turning off his targeting computer to eyeball a crucial shot to destroy The Death Star using The Force, or programming a droid to act like a flailing coward, or A tribe of Teddy Bears taking down a heavily armed and armored group of soldiers with AT-STs using rocks and spears? As Star Wars fans, we take all this in stride and have fun with it. We don't expect realism from our Star Wars movies

 

When you develop a love for something, especially as a kid, you carry that love into adulthood. And then you are in the position of comparing something completely NEW to something you already had 30+ years of love for. It's similar to your parents getting a divorce and your Father remarrying a new woman. The new woman will NEVER be as important or as loved as your real Mother, and to invite a direct comparison may seem insulting. And it may be absolutely true that she isn't as good as your real mother, but that doesn't mean you can't love her for who she is. She doesn't have to live up to the standards of your real mother.

 

This is all I'm really saying. I'm not saying that the Prequels are better. I'm not saying they are EQUAL. I like the Original Trilogy for the same reasons you do. I think the acting is better and since 2 of them were directed by other people, the performance quality is quite a bit more solid. They also had a HUGE impact (if you CAN'T tell) on my life and I embrace everything Star Wars. All I'm railing against is the over-dramatized criticisms about "how absolutely, gut-wrenchingly awful" the Prequels were. If you aren't comparing them side by side to the OT, they are still enjoyable.

It's inevitable that we will measure the PT by comparing it to the OT. Now, I agree it wouldn't be fair to judge it as total trash simply because it wasn't as great as probably the greatest trilogy of all time. The problem is that I think it falls short of being good by any measurement you want to use. Good filmmaking doesn't require the characters to explicitly tell me how they feel ("Anakin, you're breaking my heart"). Good filmmaking makes me care about the characters and I feel what they feel because I am with them. Good filmmaking doesn't disconnect me from the protagonist halfway through the story by turning him into a cold blooded murderer. Good filmmaking is subtle. The prequels are none of these things. They are a mediocre mess.

 

I don't know. Once again, I'm not defending the dialogue. It's indefensible. But if I was going to pick a scene to complain about it, I would have more gone towards the scene in Episode II between Padme and Anakin before they are brought out to the Geonosian arena. "I truly... deeply... love you". It doesn't get much more wooden. Complaining that Padme tells Anakin that he's breaking her heart is something I've personally said to someone before. I had no problem with THAT line.

 

Lucas makes the types of films he WANTS to see. He doesn't do it ONLY to sell toys. Lucas grew up watching the old cliff-hanger serials like "Commando Cody" (hence the character of Commander Cody as a clone trooper), "Flash Gordon", etc. He was also a huge fan of Akira Kurosawa who made "Yojimbo" and "Seven Samurai" (hence the Samurai nature of the Jedi). He puts things into his films that mirror elements of bygone eras. He also has described his own style as having a "naive quality", elements of impossibility to his action, characters, etc, but still having a "get the crowd cheering" element to them. I don't know if I'd use the word "subtle" to describe most of his films.

 

There are SEVERAL styles of film-making, some subtle, some not. Subtle doesn't make for a better film in all circumstances. It's a matter of understanding a film-maker's style and if you enjoy it, you do, if you don't-you don't. Not everybody appreciates Kevin Smith films, or Gregg Araki films, or Guillermo Del Toro, or Tim Burton. Each of these directors have had success, some financial, some critical, etc. I wouldn't necessarily describe their styles as "subtle".

Edited May 25, 2012 by Jaavik

[Jaavik]

*bashes George with a hockey puck* Slapshot!

 

Couldn't resist. Stanley Cup Finals are right around the corner!

 

I bet that slap-shot to the head would make that "seagull pouch" under his chin wobble for like an hour...