Star Wars 1-3? Why did they suck so bad? What was different? The writers or what!
Question: There was such attention to detail, pacing, story, acting in the first. What went wrong? Who, staff-wise, was different?
Was Lucas less involved? More involved but less caring?
Answers: There was such attention to detail, pacing, story, acting in the first. What went wrong? Who, staff-wise, was different?
Was Lucas less involved? More involved but less caring?
I personally agree with you. They were 'ok' but certainly no where near as good as the originals. Lucas was still involved with the directing and the screenplays, but unlike Peter Jackson he chose to do things the easy way. Instead of going back to his original blue screen tactics, real monster make up, costumes, puppets etc. he chose to rely on technology to create most of the alien species, including some of Yoda's scenes. Almost all of the fighting space scenes were done with CGI and digital technology. To me, this lost the original appeal of why the others were so cool. As I've pointed out to anyone who complains about them I refer them to the originals noting that was 'cutting edge' technology and the blue screen had never been used so widely in a movie before. Peter Jackson copied such tactics for LotR and made three fabulous movies with awesome fight scenes and visual effects. Some of it was computerized, but not near as much as SW 1, 2, and 3. I believe if Lucas hadn't strayed from his original ideas of real people and blue screen the movies would have been a whole lot better. At least that's what I think.
1-3 were great!!!i looooovedddddddd 3!!
Different directors and writers.
well i think they were great but on your be half..maybe you didnt like the dialogue as much..or the acting sucked...the writers maybe swtiched and the story went a little out of hand maybe..if thats what you think
Geroge has never been that good of a writer. Most people have commented that his dialogue is blocky and thick.
George was so keen om making everything fit into place, he jettisoned a lot to make it work. The end result was, it didn;t work
It was due to the attack of the goiter.
http://images.google.com/images?hl=en&q=...
---
http://ekbworldwide.blogspot.com/
I thought 1-3 were also great. very good addition and perspective on the whole story line. The first 3(4-6) where good and still are good in there time, and the 1-3 are good in this time IMO
I hated 1 and 2 at first, but have since grown to like them, immensely. I always liked 3, though. I think the problem with 1 was the writing and Jar Jar Binks. The problem with 2 was the writing and the acting. By 3, I think it all came together. What redeems them for me is the awesome duels and special effects.
I read one statement about the question you asked. It was that Lucas had too many yes men. I am not in the know, but it seems likely to me.
George Lucas wrote and directed all three episodes, same as Episode IV. V and VI had other directors and outside help with the screenplays. The extra writers probably helped, as Lucas is not that great with dialog.
I suspect most of what went wrong was that there was too much exposition to be handled. Lucas had to cram in a lot of backstory to the original three movies, and I think it cramped the action.
Also, nobody came up to the swashbuckling heroics of Han Solo or the menacing evil of Darth Vader. Hayden Christiansen, in particular, just seemed whiny and petulant to me. No way he grew up to be James Earl Jones. Some of the supporting characters were good (Christopher Lee, Samuel L Jackson), but the stars were not up to it.
Contributing factors might be heightened viewer expectations, an over-reliance on CGI and spectacle, and Lucas being more concerned with the franchise than the action at hand.