ForeverNight Posted January 9, 2009 Share Posted January 9, 2009 Yes, OT was waaaayyyyy better than the PT could ever hope to be. Is it time for George to retire? I dunno, I agree with TA, just lock him in a room and have him write some story lines and go from there... But, I was trying to watch RotS a month ago when I stayed home from school due to sickness... and I realized something... Revenge of the Sith was a comedy set in the Star Wars Universe. There is no other explanation for the droids who had only communicated in expressionless beeps and boops -with the occasional voice synthesis- to suddenly speak with comically digitized voices that show expression. That along with the one-liners and science problems... I mean, come on! How can a metal arm that has been connected to your flesh suddenly hold your weight plus two others. (Call it 600#'s or so) Shouldn't it rip out some flesh on your arm as it gets the shock load??? Then we have the ship diving, in space, and the elevator shaft moving... common sense tells us that with artificial gravity -which is there considering that they didn't just float in the shaft but fell- that "down" would never change... but it did!!! I mean, OT was good, TPM and AotC were Okay, and RotS sucked. Yeah, George, just get yourself locked in a room and write stories. -- Oh, and that list was poorly compiled. Only 1 of them (Greedo shooting first and Hayden Christensen put in RotJ) I really could agree with... come on, who cares what he wears??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Giant Graffiti Posted January 9, 2009 Share Posted January 9, 2009 I'm going to have to quote one of the comments, there really isn't another way to put it. Obviously written by an idiot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Endorenna Posted January 9, 2009 Share Posted January 9, 2009 No. There's a reason why this scene is visually iconic: No background, just blackness. Steam pumped in from all sides and backlit to look blue. Light the floor red. Position the two combatants against the light so that they appear as two black silhouettes but for their lightsabers which match the colour of the floor and the steam. The scene is so abstract, like a hellish nightmare and a far better way of representing an ideological battle than "Lololol, FIRE PLANET!!!" and "I have the [moral] high-ground!". I beg to differ. Cloud City never struck me as hellish in any way. It was just another set. Also, with that fight...well, example. When I see the picture below, I think, "Allow me to introduce myself." And, when Luke whips out his lightsaber, I think of him continuing, "I'm Luke Skywalker, everybody's favorite farm boy!" Sorry, but that's how it struck me the first time, and that's how it'll strike me forever (probably). However, when I see the picture below this, I think, "Obi-wan!!!!! Noooooooooooooooo!!!!!!! ANAKIN, YOU (censored)!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" Show spoiler (hidden content - requires Javascript to show) And the music during Battle of the Heroes simply has no equal, IMO. Ah, well. Another situation where we must agree to disagree, I'm afraid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Astor Posted January 9, 2009 Share Posted January 9, 2009 I beg to differ. Cloud City never struck me as hellish in any way. It was just another set. But at least it was a set - there were barely any sets for RoTS - it was all blue. I like both trilogies, but for sheer technical brilliance, the OT must win even over the CGI and polish of the the PT. It set the standard, and it still hasn't really been beaten. That's one of Lucas' biggest achievements. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Doctor Posted January 9, 2009 Share Posted January 9, 2009 Article was utter 'whiny' schlock... QFT. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pavlos Posted January 9, 2009 Share Posted January 9, 2009 Cloud City never struck me as hellish in any way. I'm not talking about Cloud City, I'm talking about that particular scene. It was just another set I don't understand what you're saying; are you saying that the set looked fake? Because I don't think the carbonite chamber was supposed to look realistic: it had no walls but those of the studio. Edit: Anyway, I shouldn't have said one is better than the other; value judgements of this sort are dangerous things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Endorenna Posted January 9, 2009 Share Posted January 9, 2009 I'm not talking about Cloud City, I'm talking about that particular scene. I don't understand what you're saying; are you saying that the set looked fake? Because I don't think the carbonite chamber was supposed to look realistic: it had no walls but those of the studio. I'm sorry, I should have specified. I meant the carbon freezing chamber, not the rest of the city. It did look real, but still...there just wasn't anything special about it, in my mind. @Astor Kaine: I pretty much agree with you there. The OT changed movies forever--without it, we might still be watching things like Logan's Run, and the later series of Star Trek couldn't have been nearly as awesome as a couple of 'em are! I personally prefer the CGI look, though--I'm of the video game generation, I s'pose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quanon Posted January 9, 2009 Share Posted January 9, 2009 Well the PT is more colourfull, its one of the things that hit me later on, which IMO the PT felt disconnected a bit. In the PT you see lots of the normal social live in SW universe, the characters visit planets where there is actually somebody living his normal life. In the OT, there is only military constructions, just Cloud City shows a small glimpse, but it gets overrun by the Imperials... The OT is gritty, full of greys PT is full of flash. EDIT: This is more in general in regards to Sci-fi movies: I saw Total Recall recently and it hit me, that because the directors where more limited in their effects they had to be far more creative in how to show things; plus most good Sci-fi started out as B-movies, these have lower budgeds, so again it forces the directors to re-think, be more creative in how to capture certain scenes and actions. Reminds of how much I like Pitch Black with Riddick, great little movie, nothing to special, but still awesome. The second film was inferiour, because the creators got more money, they good do more and better CGI, but alas that made it a messy script... they rather wend for this would look cool and this aswell, uh how to connect those scenens, enter small plot here to get from A to B... I still liked the movie though Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adamqd Posted January 9, 2009 Share Posted January 9, 2009 The Carbon freezing chamber was intended to be abstract and not realistic to fit in with the motif that the characters are in Cloud city (Heaven), and Luke is Facing his demon in a hell of sorts, GL and IK decided to use steam and minimalistic backdrop instead of prop heavy sets to make it seem dreamlike, and I suppose to keep your attention on the pivotal scene Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Revan 411 Posted January 10, 2009 Share Posted January 10, 2009 ...and we give you 9 reasons to do it. What do you think about these points? I tend to agree with most of them. I don't really post much on this forum but I have to say my piece here... I disagree with mostly all of them. Well, I do agree on some of them, but mostly disagree. I think Episode IV is better then American Graffiti. Not that the movie was bad or anything, but I ''feel'' that Star Wars is... more unique. Still, American Graffiti was a good film... And about Greedo shoots first, I really don't care about who shoots first or what not. I don't get why its such a big deal. Its only a small change... But I do agree about the prequels. Phantom Menace was mediocre (Jar Jar, little Anakin, bad dialogue, bad acting.) Attack of the Clones was a tad better then Phantom Menace, but it suffers from editing issues and horrible love story. The only movie out of the prequels that I like is Revenge Of The Sith. But even that isn't really good. Compared to the originals at least... And I enjoyed Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull. It wasn't as good as Raiders Of The Lost Ark or Last Crusade, but I found it better then Temple Of Doom. Sure the plot wasn't that good, but it was fun. And the direction was also great. 6. Threatens to mount a live-action Star Wars TV show. I don't get why that's a bad thing. If they do it right, then this live action Star Wars show might be good. Last I heard, there trying to make it kinda like Battle Star Galatica and Firefly which I enjoyed. (In other words, there trying to make it as dark and mature as possible.) I do have a feeling that it will be decent, but I think it'll get a lot better once George stops writing it. But this is all just my opinion. And my speculation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shem Posted January 10, 2009 Share Posted January 10, 2009 Eh, I don't know. Everybody if you ask me acted like complete morons in the PT and when people in movies make stupid decisions and the script doesn't call it out like that, it really bugs me. I know Palpatine is supposed to be a master manipulator but everyone in the prequels seemed to make stupid decisions(Padme's acceptance of Anakin man slaughtering Sand people, I'm looking at you)Though I don't agree with you, I have to say something about this even though I could say something about everything you just said. Those with life experience with love and are willing to remember your own mistakes and learned from them without it being too personal when watching a film like Star Wars would really appreciate the Anakin and Padme love story and how real it was. The thing that movies do too often is make love perfect (and people end up comparing a movie's love story with their own personal love interest which is stupid because you'll screw it up if you're not careful). Anakin and Padme were not perfect for each other and it had to be that way. People wanted a perfect love story with Anakin and Padme which would have been bad story telling. Realistically wasn't possible to make it fit. Padme's acceptance of Anakin's flaws was an example of real life. How many people out there have been in love and overlooked red flags? I can tell you right now that I'm raising my own hand as should others be who have had serious relationships. Anakin and Padme were a little cheezy at times, which is realistic. You do goofy things when you're in love and say and do things and have conversations that are just cheezy that really isn't who you are when you're not whipped. If you were to ever be in that position and actually watch yourself, but were put in a position where you didn't know it was you, you would be making the same judgments people were making about Anakin and Padme. If anybody out there making judgments about the love story who have never had a girlfriend or a wife for that matter (basically a serious long term relationship) where you both were really close, you really will never understand how real that love story was. Lucas really understands human nature to a point where he's going to offend others because it's so close to home. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rogue15 Posted January 10, 2009 Share Posted January 10, 2009 get the **** over it. jesus christ it's just a ****ing movie for ****'s sake. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andurilblade Posted January 10, 2009 Share Posted January 10, 2009 But, I was trying to watch RotS a month ago when I stayed home from school due to sickness... and I realized something... Revenge of the Sith was a comedy set in the Star Wars Universe.[/Quote] Yeah, I guess seeing a man burned alive after murdering his wife and attempting to murder his father-figure is one of the more amusing things I've ever seen. And the part where he was preparing to kill the roomful of toddlers? HILARIOUS!!! There is no other explanation for the droids who had only communicated in expressionless beeps and boops -with the occasional voice synthesis- to suddenly speak with comically digitized voices that show expression. That along with the one-liners and science problems... I mean, come on! How can a metal arm that has been connected to your flesh suddenly hold your weight plus two others. (Call it 600#'s or so) Shouldn't it rip out some flesh on your arm as it gets the shock load???[/Quote] Okay, as far as the droids go, I must admit that the talking B2s threw me when I first saw the movie. But then I got to thinking about it. Why shouldn't they talk? The new model of killer droid would be perfect for use as bodyguards for biggies, and as bodyguards, they would need to comunicate at times. And, we've only seen them in an all-out battle scene so far; we haven't been introduced to all of their fuctions yet. Science problems? Okay, a solar sailer takes you halfway across the galaxy, a laser stops at a certain point, and you can crush a man's throat by merely thinking about it. It's Star Wars Physics!!! Ani had the Force, as well as an extremely advanced appendage. If belief can be suspended enough to enjoy Heavy-Breathing Goth Dude marching around choking his admirals, there's no reason to not enjoy (and accept) said perilous predicament in an elevator shaft. Then we have the ship diving, in space, and the elevator shaft moving... common sense tells us that with artificial gravity -which is there considering that they didn't just float in the shaft but fell- that "down" would never change... but it did!!![/Quote] They weren't exactly in space. They were above a planet. They were also being shot at. What was it Scotty said? "The more you overtech the plumming, the easier it is to stop up the drain." One of those huge plasma charges blasting holes through the ship apparently fried something having to do with the gravity generators. "Reverse stabilizers" "Magnetize. MAGNETIZE!!!" The planet's gravity took over for a bit, but when they got the AG back online, 'down' became what it was before. Sorry for the bunny trail. The lady that wrote that article needs a nap and a hug. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SW01 Posted January 10, 2009 Share Posted January 10, 2009 I suppose some of the authors points could be arguable - at best, they are matters of opinion after all (i.e. the superiority of one story/film over another) - but I agree with a lot of the other posts here that the later points, particularly 7-9 smack of a desperate attempt to either be amusing, or are just petty. The plaid point - bah. For all the reasons already mentioned. 'Not enough women'...well, considering that most of the major characters that featured heavily were already set in the '77 movie, it would be absurd to suddenly re-introduce a ream of new characters - actually, it would probably be criticised as a transparent attempt to appeal to a broader demographic. Contrast the attitude in that point with the writer's criticism of the addition of Ahsoka...hmm... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yar-El Posted January 10, 2009 Share Posted January 10, 2009 No. There's a reason why this scene is visually iconic: No background, just blackness. Steam pumped in from all sides and backlit to look blue. Light the floor red. Position the two combatants against the light so that they appear as two black silhouettes but for their lightsabers which match the colour of the floor and the steam. The scene is so abstract, like a hellish nightmare and a far better way of representing an ideological battle than "Lololol, FIRE PLANET!!!" and "I have the [moral] high-ground!". The fight in The Empire Strikes Back may be slower than the battle of the heroes but the way it is shot and designed is far superior and far more powerful. For one thing: there's no music... only the sound of the two fighting; the low, threatening hum of the lightsabers dominate the scene, it's a constant reminder of how dangerous that fight is. And then look at how massive Vader appears and so very, very dangerous when he starts to beat Luke up in the scene where he pushes him down the corridor towards the camera. I love Irvin Kershner... There were more moments in the original trilogy where character psychology comes into play. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ForeverNight Posted January 10, 2009 Share Posted January 10, 2009 Yeah, I guess seeing a man burned alive after murdering his wife and attempting to murder his father-figure is one of the more amusing things I've ever seen. And the part where he was preparing to kill the roomful of toddlers? HILARIOUS!![/Quote] Har de Har Har. I never said it was a perfect comedy, but it was more of a comedy than a "serious" movie -if one can call Star Wars that. As for the examples you provided, of course they're not hilarious, if they were there would be more issues. Okay, as far as the droids go, I must admit that the talking B2s threw me when I first saw the movie. But then I got to thinking about it. Why shouldn't they talk? The new model of killer droid would be perfect for use as bodyguards for biggies, and as bodyguards, they would need to comunicate at times. And, we've only seen them in an all-out battle scene so far; we haven't been introduced to all of their fuctions yet. Science problems? Okay, a solar sailer takes you halfway across the galaxy, a laser stops at a certain point, and you can crush a man's throat by merely thinking about it. It's Star Wars Physics!!! Ani had the Force, as well as an extremely advanced appendage. If belief can be suspended enough to enjoy Heavy-Breathing Goth Dude marching around choking his admirals, there's no reason to not enjoy (and accept) said perilous predicament in an elevator shaft.[/Quote] Hey, it's still physics. I enjoy the movies as much or more than the next guy, but I really, really, really dislike RotS. As for the Solar Sailor, IIRC that giant thing was more a collection point than anything else... I'll have to look into that again... The talking droids, they shouldn't be talking in ENGLISH VOCALLY to each other if they have the technology to be controlled remotely, tight beam communication? Pure Data? The other, more sensible, ideas are boundless. They weren't exactly in space. They were above a planet. They were also being shot at. What was it Scotty said? "The more you overtech the plumming, the easier it is to stop up the drain." One of those huge plasma charges blasting holes through the ship apparently fried something having to do with the gravity generators. "Reverse stabilizers" "Magnetize. MAGNETIZE!!!" The planet's gravity took over for a bit, but when they got the AG back online, 'down' became what it was before.[/Quote] Okay, I'm guessing the acronym GEO doesn't mean a lot to you. Geosynchronous Earth Orbit, it is a point at which the friction of the athmosphere and the Earth's gravity have no effect on a satellite or anything else at that height. It's where Communication Satellites are launched to, since they stay in the same relative spot to the surface. The point of this, is that the Invisible Hand was at least in GEO (Or would that be GCO?) or further out. Ergo, there would be no effect on the ship due to Coruscant's gravitational field. Now, can you really say that it was Coruscant's Gravity doing that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andurilblade Posted January 11, 2009 Share Posted January 11, 2009 Hey, it's still physics. I enjoy the movies as much or more than the next guy, but I really, really, really dislike RotS. As for the Solar Sailor, IIRC that giant thing was more a collection point than anything else... I'll have to look into that again...[/Quote] Physics changes forever when you add the Force. If Luke can fall down a shaft on Bespin and come out unharmed, Why can't Anakin catch himself and two others without hurting himself? Okay, I'm guessing the acronym GEO doesn't mean a lot to you. Geosynchronous Earth Orbit, it is a point at which the friction of the athmosphere and the Earth's gravity have no effect on a satellite or anything else at that height. It's where Communication Satellites are launched to, since they stay in the same relative spot to the surface. The point of this, is that the Invisible Hand was at least in GEO (Or would that be GCO?) or further out. Ergo, there would be no effect on the ship due to Coruscant's gravitational field. Now, can you really say that it was Coruscant's Gravity doing that? If the Invisible Hand wasn't being affected by gravity, why did it plummet towards the planet when damaged? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rogue15 Posted January 11, 2009 Share Posted January 11, 2009 controls slashed? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robb Stark Posted January 11, 2009 Share Posted January 11, 2009 Okay, I'm guessing the acronym GEO doesn't mean a lot to you. Geosynchronous Earth Orbit, it is a point at which the friction of the athmosphere and the Earth's gravity have no effect on a satellite or anything else at that height. It's where Communication Satellites are launched to, since they stay in the same relative spot to the surface. The point of this, is that the Invisible Hand was at least in GEO (Or would that be GCO?) or further out. Ergo, there would be no effect on the ship due to Coruscant's gravitational field. Now, can you really say that it was Coruscant's Gravity doing that? Ugh...no. A geosynchronous orbit is one in which the orbital period of the satellite is exactly equal to one rotation of the planet. A geostationary orbit is a special case of a geosynchronous orbit in which the satellite remains at the same point above the planet's surface. A geostationary orbit represents a circular orbit, a geosynchronous orbit can also be a non-circular ellipse. By definition, circular orbits have the property of a constant orbital radius which is the relevant point of discussion. A constant orbital radius carries some important implications, the relevant one here being that a satellite in a circular orbit has a constant linear speed tanget to the pull of gravity. (Assumptions: two-point Earth-satellite system, atmospheric friction at the distances concerned is negligible) Because of the law of inertia, in order for an object to maintain a circular orbit about a point, it must be experiencing a constant acceleration toward that point. This acceleration is called "centripetal acceleration." A "centripetal force" is a force that causes centripetal acceleration. In the case of a satellite, the centripetal acceleration is provided by the force of gravity acting on the satellite. To an observor it appears as though "the Earth's gravity has no effect on a satellite" in circular orbit--it's not getting any closer to the planet after all--but that's not what is actually happening. What IS happening is that the inertia of the satellite would cause it to continue "straight off into space" but the the force of gravity acts as a centripetal force causing it to follow a curved path. In Newtonian physics, "centrifugal force" is the concept used to explain the balance of forces in a rotating reference frame. Centrifugal force in this case is exactly equal to the force of gravity acting on the satellite, and opposite in direction. Doing some annoying math that I won't show here, it can be shown that in this equilibrium, a constant radius implies a constant angular speed, and therefore a constant linear speed tangent to the orbit. For an Earth-satellite system, the geostationary orbit is located at approximately 26,200 miles (measured from the center of the planet) or at an altitude of about 22,200 miles (assuming the Earth's radius measured at its surface is about 4,000 miles). That corresponds to a (tangential) linear speed of about bout 6,878 miles per hour. That's the speed the satellite is traveling through space at any instant. It can also be shown that an object in orbit around a planet will drop to a lower orbit IF its (tangential) linear speed decreases (this decrease in orbital radius results in an increasing angular speed and a faster rotation around the planet). As its linear speed continues to decrease, at some point friction from the atmosphere will become non-negligible. Friction causes drag, which will further decrease the linear speed. In the absence of a force to increase its linear speed at that point, the satellite will eventually crash into the planet. In the case of the Invisible Hand, supposing it was traveling around Coruscant in a geostationary orbit, it has an initial linear velocity sufficient to keep it in that orbit. If its linear speed in orbit decreases--boosters are fired opposite the direction of its orbit, significant change in momentum from discharging weapons, being hit by weapons, etc.--then its orbital radius will decrease. Once atmospheric friction comes into play, the loss in linear speed (tangent to its orbit) may be sufficient for it to "plummet" to the planet's surface (of course in reality it follows a sort of "spiral" trajectory when viewed in cross-section, getting ever closer to the planet as it travels through the air--which is exactly what the movie depicts as the remains of the ship approach the planet's surface). A spaceship is an interesting case though, because in theory it has engines that could allow it to be geostationary at a lower orbit--provided the engines were providing an acceleration parallel to the gravitational pull of the planet (akin to, say, a helicopter or a Harrier jet). In this case, if the engines were cut, like, say, the controls were damaged, it would not have the linear speed to sustain its orbit and would fall toward the planet. SUMMARY If you are going to pick on the Star Wars prequels for being absurdly bad, there are plenty of things to go on about that have nothing to do with physics that even most fans who rant about it don't understand very well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mur'phon Posted January 11, 2009 Share Posted January 11, 2009 I don't particularly care what GL does. Avellone created the universe I love, not GL. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adamqd Posted January 11, 2009 Share Posted January 11, 2009 Avellone did his best to destroy Star Wars in TSL, thank god he didn't get a chance to do k3, and yes tOR is k3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Q Posted January 11, 2009 Share Posted January 11, 2009 Retire? He should have never been given much of a job in the first place. He should have been the producer, if not, at the most, a writer and then just handed his work to competent directors. He's an idea machine, and should have stayed as such. Agreed, except that he shouldn't even write screenplays because he can't write worth a damn. He can't direct worth a damn either, but he does have great ideas, and he should stick to handing these ideas off to people who can actually transform them into something worthwhile. And for the last time: fanboy rationalization and downright lame excuses aside, the PT was shallow, soul-less, flashy trash with bad dialogue and no character development due to bad writing, and bad acting due to bad direction. These two factors combined to produce characters that were both flat and unconvincing, with whom I couldn't identify nor could I care about in the least, and for whom all of the glitzy CGI in existence could not compensate. The PT was a slap in the face to anyone who appreciates quality film-making. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Emperor Devon Posted January 12, 2009 Share Posted January 12, 2009 Avellone did his best to destroy Star Wars in TSL, i know it was great Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Avlectus Posted January 12, 2009 Share Posted January 12, 2009 the only decent lightsaber fight in the original was ESB...luke vs vader in cloud city. duel of the fates was the best. darth maul was damn awesome. I think they were all good. BUT YEH-YEH! Amen about Ray Park. A guy who has dedicated himself to WuShu and knows some kendo. I'll admit that after seeing Maul, I sort of picked up that element of ferocity and began to adapt it to my own when I began choreographing sword/melee fights. Or competing. Largely inspired by maul. I could relate to it in the heat of the moment. He also did the perfect portrayal of what his character was meant to be. His expressions, the psychology, the cerebral element as well as brutality. One thing, I think, that made Ray so fit for the role was how he could integrate himself into it. Which is a thing I picked up from other parts of my own life out of necessity, not from Ray's performance. (I could not analyze that far into a performer's psyche at ~14 when I first saw him in SW:TPM.) I was unaware until recently that's something ray actually did. Without even saying/thinking a thing about SW or maul, when I would go and practice for a scene with melee/sword fighting, I would become the role I was playing. The ferocious bad guy. I use several villains for inspiration. However, 80% of people I worked with or who watched me said something about being like darth maul--and I wasn't even consciously trying! Ray probably was the best fit to his role and fighting style. As I try to be for mine. That blog was utter nonsense. The problem people have with hit films/stories is that once they have seen the original with no expectation, they they imagine what the other parts of the story that was untold and create their own expectations. Later subconsciously it becomes what it should be in their mind if they're going to like it. Basically it has to be their vision of it or it becomes utter crap. That is why sequels have a hard time being successful. Good point. I still can't understand why many people have freaked out about that because it was nothing to get freaked out about if you think about it correctly. Or think too hard about it. I don't understand for the life of me why people assumed that Anakin would be this well behaved Jedi and all of a sudden decided to go evil, but that is exactly what they wanted without really looking at it on the surface. It was a subconscious thing for whatever reason. I personally had no expectations. Funny you should say that, as I ran across a polar opposite: people expecting Anakin to be this devil child badboy his whole life and finally learned to be good by ROTS. Guess it just goes to show subconscious expectations vary quite a bit as per individual. Generally I wouldn't say it was all utter garbage so far as acting and plot. Maybe this is subjective but: In AOTC where Anakin is about to begin slaughtering sand people to avenge his mother who just died in his arms, personally it was a good point to take a good look at who I was inside. I was still quite angry and vengeful at that point. I saw myself raising that blade--albeit different reasons but sort of the same situation. That was going to be me if I did not change my ways--which probably would not have ended well since at that point I didn't like myself for who I was. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adamqd Posted January 12, 2009 Share Posted January 12, 2009 i know it was great "See's ED's post count in a Star Wars related forum and scratches head" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.