How much money was spent on sets in Star Wars III anyway?

$10?

It's all one big-ass blue screen effect after another. :puke:

But a big surreal computer game nonetheless.

I wonder when they can replace people with computer animations... Getting rid of that gorgeous but incapable-of-acting cast would help a lot more too.

...

…this isn't one of them.

The heavy use of bluescreen is simply the introduction of a new tool. Tools can be used well or poorly. Lucas uses it to add hugely expensive "ooh ah" scenes to his movies that would be even more ludicrously expensive by any other means, while Robert Rodriguez uses the same tool to make the overall movie for far less money than any comparable Hollywood production.

In both cases, I would argue that digital sets were used quite well and effectively. What makes Episode III so bad is not the digital sets, but the script writing, the acting, the directing, etc., etc.

and the ancillary becomes far more prominent.

III was let down by the most atrocious acting I've seen. The basic plot isn't bad and despite some embarrassing dialogue, there's as much dialogue that sparkles... or would sparkle if somebody talented was presenting it...

Granted, the classic trilogy isn't Shakespeare in tone, but at least the characters come across as real - especially in 5 and 6. Yeah, that's Han Solo. Not Harrison Ford saying Han Solo's lines.

In 1 - 3, everyone seems like bored actors reading from cue cards as if they've got nothing better to do. Even Samuel Jackson is dragged down by his surrounding gaggle of inept "performers".

Let's be honest, we fanboys put the original trilogy on a pedestal. If you look at it with a critical eye, the dialog is just as atrocious. The reason we like the original trilogy better is (1) nostalgia, and (2) the story arc was heavily based on the work of some college professor who analyzed popular ancient myths and stories from around the world and found the common elements of all of them, thus the story appeals to all of us at a visceral level.

Again, I think your criticism of the digital sets is misplaced. Frankly, those "ooh ah" bluescreen moments are among the very few things I actually liked about the prequel trilogy.

Most of that is missing in the most recent trilogy.

"Return of the Jedi".

Han's rescue plus the way-cool fight between Vader and Luke at the end area real triumph; especially when you are otherwise on the planet of the wookies ewoks... (Lord knows what Lucas will try to do next to the original trilogy...)

I love Samuel L. Jackson, but I kept waiting for him to slice off an arm with his lightsaber and say, "Oh, did I break your concentration?" Or, "Say 'what' AGAIN, mothafucka!" They kept him chained to the soundstage and neutered his performance. :cry:

He seemed very wooden to me. Not like he usually is in most of his movies.

Please don't construe this to be acrimonious, I'm just curious as to why you've vested so much interest in a series (and creator) you clearly abhor. Certainly, I've posted a half dozen threads over the past year, but I'm keen on these films (honestly, I prefer any one of the prequels to Marquand's cloying, choppy "Return of the Jedi").

Why dwell on disappointments? I cast aside "Star Trek" and "The Simpsons" quite easily when I became dissatisfied with the artistic visions offered by their respective production and writing staffs. I haven't looked back since.

IV - VI are definitely better...

But I will admit I may have been better off making one big thread instead of six teeny-tiny ones.

To be sure, "A New Hope" is a beautifully rendered fairy tale, and "The Empire Strikes Back" is one of the greatest SF/fantasy films ever made, but "Return of the Jedi" is as pedestrian and toothless a windup as I could have imagined (on par with "Alien 3" and "Day of the Dead"). Between the insipidity of the bloated first and second acts, the too-tidy resolutions ("Leia's my sister!"), and the tired performances (Ford and Fisher giving the worst line readings of their careers), I find the production to be all but unwatchable.

At the very least, "Revenge of the Sith" took risks, offered ambiguities, and most important, had an air of lyrical sobriety.

Okay, apart from the spectacular Luke/Vader confrontation in VI (that felt infinitely more genuine than everything in I-III combined), I totally agree it was a quaint indolent write-off on Lucas' part. But that scene alone saves it, for nothing in I-III compares. Even Ian McDermid, the only one who seemed to give a damn (understandable, he's a big villain and they're more fun to play anyway) couldn't make up for the lack of - everything else - going on.

III basically minced words spoken by modern day politicians, using the usual trite means to make a bad guy bad or a confused guy worse. The Padme/Vader link which ultimately caused her death is one hell of a trite move - one of many. And if you want tired lines, should I count how many weren't in III? For Samuel Jackson to be as visibly bored in order to match Christensen incapabability with some really paltry dialogue... yuck!

I thought the Luke/Vader/Palpatine confrontation was as great a dramatic failure as the ancillary material. There is no evident power struggle between the two tyros (Vader has lost the imperial ambitions he harbored in ESB; turning servile); the outcome to the conflagration has no bearing on the fate of the Death Star; and worst of all, there is no foundation, no pathos, in Luke's desire to save his monstrous, Cronus-like father (we the viewer missed one whopper of an epiphany in the interim between V and VI).

There are a number of "Sith" scenes I found more affecting: the parable/temptation in the operahouse; the lovers' silent outreach from across Coruscant; Obi-Wan's departing words to Padme; Yoda's desperate assassination attempt; and finally, the deaths of husband and wife on the operating tables (the series' most elegiac moment--perfectly in keeping with the symbiosis motif introduced in Episode I).

And I liked Christensen.

But to each his/her own.

Episode III runs a very close second to Episode V for me. To each their own I guess. The movie was great.

was the only redeeming portion of III. Palpatine should have (IMHO) been in the running for an Oscar this year.

Unfortunately, the rest of the movie sucked around him.

Although there was some trite dialogue, I thought it was much more engaging than "Phantom Menace" and "Clones".

Also, I liked the hidden implication that Palpatine was Anakin's daddy.

I thought Ian McDiarmid did a hell of a job, and really stole the show. It seems like the actors that sort of change the dialogue around a little seem to do better in Lucas' movies. Harrison Ford was a good example in the original trilogy. They seem more real, and less wooden.

I thought Ian McDiarmid did a hell of a job, and really stole the show. It seems like the actors that sort of change the dialogue around a little seem to do better in Lucas' movies. Harrison Ford was a good example in the original trilogy. They seem more real, and less wooden.

He stole it big-time and we're all better off for it. :D

I.E. Philip Seymour Hoffman, David Strathairn, William H. Macy, who take on larger roles. I usually seem to be more impressed with their performances than those who are usually the leads.