Bingo on both counts. Empire was hailed as the best entry, as I recall, but even that never overshadowed A New Hope – BTW, is it weird that I still find it difficult to call it by this name? It’s Star Wars, dammit.
As far as bad acting, I can’t imagine seeing Alec Guinness as doing a bad acting job. It’s not his best role, certainly, but he’s always worth watching, even in this.
Peter Cushing, also. This was a true acting professional who could be trusted to bring a sense of integrity and versimilitude to any scene, even when acting in a goofy space opera opposite Cyborg Dracula and Carrie Fisher.
A hack is somebody who writes only for money. Shakespeare and Poe were not Great Arteests who suffered for their art–they wrote specifically because it was their jobs and the way they made money. But nobody mentions that anymore because Shakespeare and Poe wrote good stuff–as I said in my post. I don’t believe Lucas wrote a word in his life except for money. Which is fine, I certainly don’t pass judgement on that. But he sucks at it. He really, really sucks.
Fortunately for him, when he drunkenly and haphazardly ripped off better writers and better movies, nobody noticed and/or cared. I think with the benefit of hindsight, it’s pretty clear that Lucas really, really, really got lucky. And now we’re stuck with him and his horrid movies forever.
Eh, I got it wrong about ROTJ. To me, all three movies are about equal when it comes to ridiculous dialogue, wretched acting, “are you fucking kidding me?!” moments, and tedium. Fine, my point still stands. Saying Empire is the best movie is like saying crabs is the best STD.
Alex Guinness, like Ewan McGregor later, did the best with what he had–which wasn’t much. But they’re both consummate professionals, and it’s good that somebody was taking the films seriously (though I literally winced with embarrassment for Ewan in the 3rd movie, whatever that POS was called). I love Harrison Ford, but he’s no great actor–he’s just charismatic enough that you’re willing to go along for the zany ride.
I’m pretty sure you’re the only one who uses that particular definition. Even if you’re doing it for the money, you’re not a hack if you’re doing it well. Or even adequately.
I’d pick it any day over anything that “Great Arteests who suffered for their art (and now it’s your turn)” created.
Yeah, I’m the only one who defines a hack as somebody who writes for money.
The difference is that when hack work is so good it actually overcomes it’s origins, nobody remembers the author in question as a hack–even if that’s why the work was created. Lucas never, ever overcame his “hack origins” with work that transcends the genre because he is incapable of it. He does not write timeless stories. He does not create characters that are rich with life and meaning. He does not write witty dialogue. He doesn’t explore the nuances of the human condition. His thin stories are so obviously rip offs that everybody has to nod and agree that clearly he intended to rip off serials, and it was always meant to be an homage–and not the fact that he does not have an original or radical bone in his body.
Lucas didn’t suffer for his art, but he sure as hell made sure that somebody would. Sometimes, I think he does it on purpose. How else would you explain Anakin and Panda Bear? Sometimes, I think he is entirely sincere in his badness. Which may make the movies more forgivable, it certainly doesn’t make them more tolerable.
Yes, when I think of Shakespeare and Poe, I think “low-quality work.”
pepperland girl, you sound really really angry with Lucas, and at the same time you sound like you don’t really know anything about him. It’s honestly kind of weird. Maybe you should go do something else for awhile and then come back and read your last fews posts later.
I know plenty about him. I’ve been subjected to each of his films–more than once shudder. And my husband and sister are both big fans, so it’s not like I don’t know all the arguments about why the dude doesn’t suck. I could generate a full reading of each of the films, explaining why they are truly wretched–I’ve done that in the past for Revenge of the Sith and posted it here. But that’s getting far from my central point, which is basically you can apply most of the complaints in this thread about Phantom to the other five. It’s not a matter of “Why does Phantom suck so bad?” It’s a matter of “Why will we forgive the suckiness of the original trilogy, but not the suckiness of the prequels?”
There is good cheese, and there is bad cheese. If you hate cheese, you probably can’t tell the difference.
Dude. You, like, just blew my mind. That’s deep, man.
It’s really like this: imagine if in Godfather II Coppola told Luca Brassi story. THE MOVIE IS ABOUT THE F… GODFATHER.
SW prequels were supposed to be about how Anakin turned into Darth Vader, Lucas didn’t deliver so he should be shot.
It blows my mind that I’m somehow defending George Lucas on a message board.
You do not know that Shakespeare wrote ONLY for money, as your own definition would have it, so you’re not even being consistent with yourself.
You’re the only person in the world to use that definition for “hack.” Such a definition would eliminate almost all great artists, since they were almost all trying to get paid.
Of course. The last ditch accusation of the fanatic. “If you weren’t so nostalgic for the originals you would have liked it.”
No.
The biggest problem with the prequels is precisely that they are not fun. It has nothing to do with nostalgia.
They aren’t fun movies. As others have already explained, they combine the worst aspects of being both too childish and too serious.
We are treated to fart jokes and “meesa gungan dooku!” in the midst of a turgid tale of ponderous politics, embarrassing angst, and child murder.
There are no cool or fun or even relatable characters. Exactly where is the “fun” supposed to come in? Did you have fun, or are you jabbing pins into your arms blaming yourself for being too nostalgic and ruining it?
If so, I release you. The prequels sucked mightily. It isn’t your fault.
I find Revenge of the Sith improves immeasurably in entertainment if you skip all the scenes with dialogue. The action is great, if you don’t mind ignoring the story.
I’m a fanatic how?
First of all, I’m very nostalgic for the first trilogy. Did you not notice I used the word “we”?
I’m fairly so-so on the prequels. I obviously liked the droids, lightsabers, Yoda, couple other things, but I was not in love with them. I was an adult by the time they came out (well, legally, barely, for the first one) and didn’t feel the wonder I did for the trilogy I grew up with.
I saw The Phantom Menace in the theatre and liked it. Then saw it again later and hated it, then saw it a third time and felt somewhere in between.
I saw Attack of the Clones in the theatre and really, really hated it, but then I watched it again a couple years later and thought it was ok.
I’ve only seen Revenge of the Sith once, and it was in the theatre, and I enjoyed it quite a bit.
I just think it’s so ridiculous and dramatic when online people (I’ve never heard anyone do this in real life) wail and moan about how awful they were, and Lucas is a monster and a hack and shouldn’t be able to touch his own creation (:rolleyes:) and they were failed movies. You can’t convince me that that’s anything more than fanwank, geekcred one-uppiness, and nostalgia talking. Hating Lucas and the prequels more than the next guy has become a geek badge of honor.
Shakespeare wasn’t a hack, not even by wiki’s standard…he wrote amazing poetry to his mistress and friend as well.
Actually, by the Wikipedia definition, even Lucas doesn’t qualify as a hack.
You know, I kinda think you are. Particularly since your own link doesn’t support the definition you’re using. A hack is not merely a professional writer. That’s a ridiculous debasement of the term. Under that definition, the only way for a writer not to be a hack is to either be a member of the idle rich, or be unpublished.
Rather, a hack is someone who has no investment in their own work. Their writing is purely a product to them, on which they place no more emotional importance than a Starbucks employee places on the frappacino they just poured. George Lucas is manifestly not a hack. He may not be a good writer - hell, he could be the worst writer since they invented the alphabet. But he’s clearly deeply invested in the world he’s created, often enough, to the detriment of his films. Similarly, while Shakespeare often wrote on commission, with more interest in pleasing some lord’s ego than in creating a personal expression, it would be very difficult indeed to argue that, say, Hamlet does carry a tremendous emotional payment in its creation, being, as it is, named after his dead son. I’m less well versed in the history of E.A. Poe, but I’ve always had the sense from his works that he was somewhat desperate for approval, and his writing was the only way he say to achieve that. Again, he was often a commercial writer, and at times a popular writer, but I think he derived a great deal of his self-esteem from his ability to write, which differentiates him sharply from a hack.
As to the question you raised latterly, about why we forgive the suckiness of the original trilogy, and not the prequels, I’d say that the most obvious reason is that the original trilogy didn’t suck. Many of Lucas’s deficits as a writer are obvious in Star Wars, but the film works because the younger Lucas, perhaps being more aware of his own limitations, created a story that did not rely on strong characterization and emotional depth. It’s an entirely plot-driven story, populated by characters that are drawn in broad strokes, whose motivations do not require terribly subtle acting to convey. The prequels, to the contrary, are character driven, and that, more than anything else, is where Lucas steps in it, because he cannot do characterization. The central arc of the prequels is the internal conflict of Anakin Skywalker, and that sort of story requires a subtle character touch that Lucas has never possessed. He’s never able to create in Anakin a character that anyone can care about one way or the other, and so the entire story fails, because it’s central conflict is entirely uninvolving.
Yeah, one more thing I forgot… Phantom Menace? What is this, a Scooby Doo episode??