Are STAR WARS I, II, & III the worst big-budget blockbuster movies of all time?

Cafe Society
1

I haven’t watched these disasters since the theater for the most part, but I’ve caught them in bits and pieces while they’re being re-run on [some basic cable channel, not sure which]. I’d remembered them as disappointing and juvenile way in excess of just the Midichlorian Heresy and pale dim-eyed inbred “expose it on a cliff and pretend it was never born” offspring of the originals [technically ancestors, but prequel genealogy is tough], but when I saw them again I was struck by how much worse they were than I remembered.

They are just positively crap. I remember being shocked when I saw Hayden Christensen in some other movie and thought “hey, he’s actually acting!”, but on seeing them again I realized that if I only knew Liam Neeson/Natalie Portman/anybody else save Ewan McGregor, I’d have thought them incapable of acting also. (McGregor is the only one who actually manages to shine at all in the series.)

The computer graphics were obnoxious in the extreme; contrary to what Lucasfilm seemed to think they looked like the Jedi were being attacked by computer graphics. And then the plots, way more than midichlorians: A two headed broadcaster is more worthy of perhaps a Pink Panther cartoon, Han stepping on Jabba’s tail (while pleading for mercy no less) would be about as believable as Solozzo the Turk grabbing Don Corleone’s nads while asking for patronage, a 50s Diner in a galaxy far-far away (and how the hell could you even have a diner that served different aliens?), Jar-Jar of course enough has been said about, the Ben Hur chariot race is picked up and lifted and given to the worst child actor since that The Yearling kid, and Mace Windu’s “It’s the light saber that says Bad Ass Muthahfucka from Outta Space on it!” job was unintentionally hysterical (except perhaps on Jackson’s part).
If it werent’ for the fact you get to see Yoda kick some ass, it would have been completely unwatchable.

So, do you think that this would be officially, in your opinion, the worst movies ever released to have both

1- had a huge budget
2- been unqualified megahits at the box office

and if not, what would you nominate in their place? (Doesn’t have to be a trilogy, can be a stand alone.)

Or, if you agree, feel free to bash whatever you particularly disliked from the trilogy. :slight_smile:

2

I nominate the second two Matrix movies for this prize. At least with Star Wars you know you’re getting crap – and if you turn your brain off you can enjoy them for the fight scenes and whatnot.

On the other hand, going into the Matrix sequels expecting awesome scifi action movies on par with the first one, and getting nothing but pseudophilosophical wankdom interspersed with the most boring fight scenes ever should be grounds for an immediate blowjob from Carrie-Anne Moss.

3

[QUOTE=Sampiro]
I haven’t watched these disasters since the theater for the most part, but I’ve caught them in bits and pieces while they’re being re-run on [some basic cable channel, not sure which]. I’d remembered them as disappointing and juvenile way in excess of just the Midichlorian Heresy and pale dim-eyed inbred “expose it on a cliff and pretend it was never born” offspring of the originals [technically ancestors, but prequel genealogy is tough], but when I saw them again I was struck by how much worse they were than I remembered.

They are just positively crap. I remember being shocked when I saw Hayden Christensen in some other movie and thought “hey, he’s actually acting!”, but on seeing them again I realized that if I only knew Liam Neeson/Natalie Portman/anybody else save Ewan McGregor, I’d have thought them incapable of acting also. (McGregor is the only one who actually manages to shine at all in the series.)

The computer graphics were obnoxious in the extreme; contrary to what Lucasfilm seemed to think they looked like the Jedi were being attacked by computer graphics. And then the plots, way more than midichlorians: A two headed broadcaster is more worthy of perhaps a Pink Panther cartoon, Han stepping on Jabba’s tail (while pleading for mercy no less) would be about as believable as Solozzo the Turk grabbing Don Corleone’s nads while asking for patronage, a 50s Diner in a galaxy far-far away (and how the hell could you even have a diner that served different aliens?), Jar-Jar of course enough has been said about, the Ben Hur chariot race is picked up and lifted and given to the worst child actor since that The Yearling kid, and Mace Windu’s “It’s the light saber that says Bad Ass Muthahfucka from Outta Space on it!” job was unintentionally hysterical (except perhaps on Jackson’s part).
If it werent’ for the fact you get to see Yoda kick some ass, it would have been completely unwatchable.

So, do you think that this would be officially, in your opinion, the worst movies ever released to have both

1- had a huge budget
2- been unqualified megahits at the box office

and if not, what would you nominate in their place? (Doesn’t have to be a trilogy, can be a stand alone.)

Or, if you agree, feel free to bash whatever you particularly disliked from the trilogy. :slight_smile:
[/QUOTE]

No, all three are excellent films and a pleasure to watch despite the bad acting. The plots move right along, the special effects are tremendous and the visual appeal of the films are great. I have watched all three several times, and will watch them again.

In their place, I would nominate the Lord of the Rings trilogy. What a waste of celluloid. All that effort for a story about some hairy-footed idiots squabbling over a ring with a guy with serious dry eye problems.

4

Hard to beat SW 1-3 for lowered expectations, if nothing else. I rather liked about 15 minutes total of SW1, but the other two ranged from boring to irritating without ever engaging an emotion. Both eveporated from my brain as soon as I left the theater, leaving just a vaguely unpleasant feeling that was itself gone by the time I got to my car.

The only thing that really stood out was the amazement I felt at how skillfully Lucas removed even a hint of acting ability from virtually the entire cast. I love Liam Neeson, Christopher Lee, Ewan McGregor and Ian Mc Diarmid (sp?), and lord knows I’ve sat through some horrendous dreck to see them, but they at least have always shown through the material. How Lucas managed to digitally edit their talent was the only Oscar-worthy thing about the series.

5

Until the next movie Lucas makes without Spielberg around to make it watchable, yes.

6

Yes, they’re awful and no, they aren’t within miles of the worst.

You can walk into any multiplex any summer day and hit a worse movie by throwing a large rock.

I don’t advocate this, but it does make for a better fantasy than what is up on the screen.

7

I thought the third Pirates of the Caribbean movie was a complete trainwreck with a plot that almost required Cliffs’ Notes from the second movie - not that they would have been worth reading - a lot of wasted time and a really silly ending, and worldwide, it outgrossed all of the Star Wars and LOTR movies, and even awful Matrix sequels.

I’d put the Star Wars prequels in the running, but most of the contenders would probably be things that I haven’t seen.

8

[QUOTE=Marley23]
I thought the third Pirates of the Caribbean movie was a complete trainwreck with a plot that almost required Cliffs’ Notes from the second movie -
[/QUOTE]

Okay, I have to backtrack on my own OP and admit that PotC3 is definitely at very least a strong rival for worst big budget/blockbuster. I hated that movie with a passion.

9

I’ve willingly watched the Star Wars prequels a second time on TV but I’d change the channel and watch freakin’ Tila Tequila before sitting through Spiderman 3 again.

10

Boy, you guys seem to have blocked out some real winners from the past few years:

Armageddon.
Independence Day.
The Day After Tomorrow.
Godzilla 2000. (or whatever year it came out, I’m not spending one second on IMDB for that crap)
Jurassic Park 3.
Fantastic 4. (both)
Superman Returns.

I mean, come on. Those movies make the Star Wars prequels look like the damn Godfather trilogy (well, okay, maybe just Parts I and II, but still…)

11

No, the Star Wars prequels are weak movies but they at least demonstrate a basic level of competence in elementary film making skills. The story Lucas was telling was terrible and the acting was painful but his editing skills were just fine and his cinematography (such as it was given the effects shots) was decent.

Transformers doesn’t even follow those basic levels of competence. Along with the problems of the Star Wars prequels I could use Transformers as a step-by-step guide on how not to make a movie. The shot that actually matches the previous shot is rare. The editing (something Michael Bay has never been any good at) is close to the worst I’ve ever seen. There might be some reasonable cinematography in there but it’s buried under crap.

Transformers is far from the only big budget movie with this sin, it’s just a fairly recent one that makes a good example. So the Star Wars prequels stink, but they’re no where near the worst.

12

[QUOTE=Just Some Guy]

Transformers doesn’t even follow those basic levels of competence. Along with the problems of the Star Wars prequels I could use Transformers as a step-by-step guide on how not to make a movie. The shot that actually matches the previous shot is rare. The editing (something Michael Bay has never been any good at) is close to the worst I’ve ever seen. There might be some reasonable cinematography in there but it’s buried under crap.
[/QUOTE]

My main problem with TRANSFORMERS was that the transformations themselves were so lightning quick you couldn’t really enjoy them. Since the whole market for this film was based on 80s nostalgia, they should have made it where you can relive changing them from robot to truck and back, rather than just fasterthanthis changes. (And of course the blatant product placements, though on that no movie will ever come near the first scene of I ROBOT when Will Smith receives the vintage ca. 2000 Converse shoes- that’s not even trying to work them in; it’d be like a scene from Titanic where Rose dreams she’s in the future and sees a really comfortable disposable shoe called a Croc.)

13

-why do technologically advanced civilizations (they can travel between stars!) wear such dingy, cheap-looking clothes? Here I am (21st century), and I wear fine Italian suits and silk ties
-why do they have such backward forms of government (monarchies)?
-how come their houses are so crummy?
-why all the domestic animals around? In 21st century America, we don’t use horses
-why are their macnies so ponderous? We have much better stuff now!

14

The third X-men movie shocked me in how completely terrible it was. It felt like some sort of made-for-tv movie or direct-to-DVD knockoff. Just totally laughable.

15

[QUOTE=ralph124c]
-why do technologically advanced civilizations (they can travel between stars!) wear such dingy, cheap-looking clothes? Here I am (21st century), and I wear fine Italian suits and silk ties
-why do they have such backward forms of government (monarchies)?
-how come their houses are so crummy?
-why all the domestic animals around? In 21st century America, we don’t use horses
-why are their macnies so ponderous? We have much better stuff now!
[/QUOTE]

A lot of this depends on the planet. The equivilent on Earth would be third-world countries, where you can find cars and radios and advanced weaponry, but it’s all very dirty with crappy clothes, cattle in the city, etc. In the captial Coruscant and the palaces of Naboo, you see more of what you expect of a technologically-advanced society.

To the OP, yes they were disappointing, but hardly as bad as so many summer movies. The Matrix sequels were crappity crap-fests. However, I enjoyed Transformers immensly, I laughed my ass off through the entire thing.

16

[QUOTE=Sampiro]
Han stepping on Jabba’s tail (while pleading for mercy no less) would be about as believable as Solozzo the Turk grabbing Don Corleone’s nads while asking for patronage.
[/QUOTE]
While I agree the Han-Jabba scene was awful, it wasn’t in the prequels.

17

[QUOTE=Evil Captor]
No, all three are excellent films and a pleasure to watch despite the bad acting. The plots move right along, the special effects are tremendous and the visual appeal of the films are great. I have watched all three several times, and will watch them again.

In their place, I would nominate the Lord of the Rings trilogy. What a waste of celluloid. All that effort for a story about some hairy-footed idiots squabbling over a ring with a guy with serious dry eye problems.
[/QUOTE]

ROFL! Beautiful satire! I almost bought that you believed that for a second!

18

Battlefield Earth was pretty horrendous and cost $73,000,000.

19

[QUOTE=Intravenus De Milo]
Boy, you guys seem to have blocked out some real winners from the past few years:
Jurassic Park 3.

[/QUOTE]

2 was worse. Much worse.

20

And you can’t really count The Day After Tomorrow because it was a satire.

It was a satire, right?