Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
EldritchFire

Simon Peg Ranks the Star Wars Movies

Recommended Posts

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w-HFv6Ms1lw

 

 

About a minute twenty in.

 

In episode 6, yeah... which is the last movie you watch... after episode 2 and 3.

So you already know that Anakin IS Vader.

What was the confusion here?

I feel like there was a confusion.

 

I was talking about watching them in release order, as in Originals then Prequels.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w-HFv6Ms1lw

 

 

About a minute twenty in.

 

In episode 6, yeah... which is the last movie you watch... after episode 2 and 3.

So you already know that Anakin IS Vader.

What was the confusion here?

I feel like there was a confusion.

 

I was talking about watching them in release order, as in Originals then Prequels.

 

 

Ah, but he also goes into that in the link (I really recommend reading it, it's very well written).

In short, it makes better sense to insert the "flashbacks" in the middle, instead of after the entire OT.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I disagree! Phantom Menace and the Transformers Movies are worse than all of those in my mind. They have no excuse! They are high production value(like off the scale) and still they produce crap.

 

 

I've been down the road that art is subjective just recently, so I'm not getting into that - but in my opinion, anyone who thinks that the plywood walls, cardboard tombstones, barely competent acting, shameless continuity errors, effects that makes seventies Doctor Who look good and a script that was written in crayon that is Plan 9 From Outer Space is better than Phantom Menace (which had a coherent and logical story, reasonably well done effects, at least a handful of good actors) is just looking for an excuse to be angry at Lucas.

 

Jake Loyd/Hayden Christensen is a terrible actor? He has nothing on Criswell:

 

 

Remember friends, we are all interested in the future, for that is where you and I are going to spend the rest of our lives.

 

For the record, I love the hell out of Plan 9. I make no pretense that it's a good movie, but it is an entertaining as hell one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For me, the question of what order you watch these movies in is pretty easy. First off, there's no question of breaking them up. Both of the trilogies are clearly two distinct but loosely connected stories in their own right, so it seems a waste to split them up. From there it's jut a question of whether you watch the PT or the OT first. So I ask, what does each add to the other?

 

I grew up on the original trilogy. We'd watch it (or at least pieces of it) every Thanksgiving when it would be played all day as a marathon. Whenever the movies were over, I was never haunted with questions of how Vader became who he was or how the Empire came to be. It strikes me that this is because there's something intensely allegorical about the original three movies. It's about scrappy heroes conquering a faceless  and insurmountable evil. It's about a hero overcoming a dark legacy and the temptation of evil. It never really struck me that explaining the context for these stories would lend anything of value to them. And watching the prequels, I don't feel as if they did. The PT doesn't, for me at least, make the original trilogy any more satisfying. It doesn't provide more gravity to the struggle of Luke and Vader, nor does it provide a more enriching understanding of the conflict between the Empire and the Alliance. At best, it's a negligible addition. At worst, it's harmful in that it reveals the twist that Vader is Luke's father.

 

That's not to say the prequel trilogy is bad. I thought the new three movies were perfectly fine, though I've never felt compelled to rewatch them. In a world filled with great movies, Ep 1-3 don't stick out as movies I have a desire to rewatch. This isn't a knock against them. I'm perfectly aware that nostalgia may play a strong part in this understanding and that kids who grew up at the time those movies came out may hold them with the same amount of reverence I hold the OT. But I think of them more as supplemental material to the original trilogy than as an essential lead-in to the movies. First is that understanding Anakin's fall doesn't, to me, add a whole lot to the OT, but it seems to be incredibly enriching in the opposite direction. The prequels were created in an environment where Lucas recognized the audience knew the stakes and the outcome. It's built like a Greek Tragedy (in terms of structure, not necessarily quality), in that the destination is inevitable. We know that Oedipus is going to end up miserable and blind. The story is about how he gets there. Similarly, the PT is most effective when you see what Anakin becomes, when the series becomes about unfurling the chain of events and the fatal flaw that led him there. Someone stated elsewhere (in this forum, but I can't recall exactly whom or where) that the PT was more about world-building than characterization, and I believe that. The OT was great because it wore Joseph Campbell's influence on its sleeve. This was a series that used mystique as an advantage, where we sympathized with the characters and the struggles because they were archetypal, because they weren't overexplained, because there was room for our minds to fill in the blanks. The PT seems designed more for people of the OT, for people who want to know more about the stories, for people who care to understand how the Empire came to be and to receive a pseudo-scientific explanation for the Force. It's about contextualizing things that are already there. And that's why it's a side story. It enriches the original trilogy in that it adds context, but it's not the kind of context that adds layers of meaningful understanding to the OT, because one of the OT's advantages is how archetypal and mythically abstracted it is.

 

At least that's my opinion.

Edited by dxanders

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For the same reason, I wouldn't suggest people watch Hannibal Rising before Silence of the Lambs or play Knights of the Old Republic before watching the movies. These are reflexive stories, stories that by their very nature live in the shadows of what preceded with them. They're subservient to the raw charisma of the stories that preceded them insofar as they exist as supplementary expansion of those stories.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That said, Pegg's ranking of the movies is pretty much in step with mine. I'd maybe fudge around the order of the prequels, but generally that order is too close to call.

Edited by dxanders

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

I disagree! Phantom Menace and the Transformers Movies are worse than all of those in my mind. They have no excuse! They are high production value(like off the scale) and still they produce crap.

 

 

I've been down the road that art is subjective just recently, so I'm not getting into that - but in my opinion, anyone who thinks that the plywood walls, cardboard tombstones, barely competent acting, shameless continuity errors, effects that makes seventies Doctor Who look good and a script that was written in crayon that is Plan 9 From Outer Space is better than Phantom Menace (which had a coherent and logical story, reasonably well done effects, at least a handful of good actors) is just looking for an excuse to be angry at Lucas.

 

 

 

I`m not angry at Lucas! I just don`t think the PT are very good movies. They have a lot of good in them, but they are not good movies. Of course Ed Wood Movies are bad, and a lot of other b-movies. There are good and bad b-movies and there are good and bad studio-backed, high budget movies. Production value and genre has to be taken into consideration, what type of a movie it is changes the expectations we have to them. The Rambo movies are great for what they are, in their genre, the Evil Dead movies, Brain Dead and Bad Taste are great B-movies with supercool homemade effects. Phantom Menace on the other hand is a bad High Budget Hollywood movie with cool effects. Apples and Oranges... No, Ed Wood movies are not good movies, they are so bad, they are good, coming around and biting us all in the ass from the other side of the scale, like Santa Concours the Martians and The Room. The Transformers on the other hand had all the means to make a good series of movies, but didn`t care enough to make it happen, and that bothers me more than some failed b-movies with no budget and homemade props and effects.

 

Don`t hate Lucas at all, he is an idea-machine like no other and has a crazy good imagination(he just shouldn`t write and direct alone), don`t hate the PT movies, I like a lot of stuff in them.

Edited by RodianClone

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

I disagree! Phantom Menace and the Transformers Movies are worse than all of those in my mind. They have no excuse! They are high production value(like off the scale) and still they produce crap.

 

 

I've been down the road that art is subjective just recently, so I'm not getting into that - but in my opinion, anyone who thinks that the plywood walls, cardboard tombstones, barely competent acting, shameless continuity errors, effects that makes seventies Doctor Who look good and a script that was written in crayon that is Plan 9 From Outer Space is better than Phantom Menace (which had a coherent and logical story, reasonably well done effects, at least a handful of good actors) is just looking for an excuse to be angry at Lucas.

 

 

 

I`m not angry at Lucas! I just don`t think the PT are very good movies. They have a lot of good in them, but they are not good movies. Of course Ed Wood Movies are bad, and a lot of other b-movies. There are good and bad b-movies and there are good and bad studio-backed, high budget movies. Production value and genre has to be taken into consideration, what type of a movie it is changes the expectations we have to them. The Rambo movies are great for what they are, in their genre, the Evil Dead movies, Brain Dead and Bad Taste are great B-movies supercool homemade effects. Phantom Menace on te other hand is a bad High Budget Hollywood movie with cool effects. Apples and Oranges... No, Ed Wood movies are not good movies, they are som bad, they are good, coming around and biting us all in the ass from the other side of the scale, like Santa Concours the Martians and The Room. The Transformers on the other hand had all the means to make a good series of movies, but didn`t care enough to make it happen, and that bothers me more than some failed b-movies with no budget and homemade props and effects.

 

Don`t hate Lucas at all, he is an idea-machine like no other and has a crazy good imagination(he just shouldn`t write and direct alone), don`t hate the PT movies, I like a lot of stuff in them.

 

Just a purely semantic quibble. First Blood and the rest of the Rambo movies are COMPLETELY different beasts. One is a reflection on the effect war has on the psyche of its soldiers and features only one death. The rest glorify mass murder. 

 

Other than that, you're right. You can't hold a piece of Ed Wood schlock to the same standards you hold the prequel to one of the most well-known and well-respected trilogies in the world's collective psyche.

 

I feel the same way about the prequels. I don't have any beef towards them, but they don't hold anything close to the same sense of magic and wonder I got when I first saw the originals.

Edited by dxanders

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For me, the question of what order you watch these movies in is pretty easy. First off, there's no question of breaking them up. Both of the trilogies are clearly two distinct but loosely connected stories in their own right, so it seems a waste to split them up. From there it's jut a question of whether you watch the PT or the OT first. So I ask, what does each add to the other?

 

I grew up on the original trilogy. We'd watch it (or at least pieces of it) every Thanksgiving when it would be played all day as a marathon. Whenever the movies were over, I was never haunted with questions of how Vader became who he was or how the Empire came to be. It strikes me that this is because there's something intensely allegorical about the original three movies. It's about scrappy heroes conquering a faceless  and insurmountable evil. It's about a hero overcoming a dark legacy and the temptation of evil. It never really struck me that explaining the context for these stories would lend anything of value to them. And watching the prequels, I don't feel as if they did. The PT doesn't, for me at least, make the original trilogy any more satisfying. It doesn't provide more gravity to the struggle of Luke and Vader, nor does it provide a more enriching understanding of the conflict between the Empire and the Alliance. At best, it's a negligible addition. At worst, it's harmful in that it reveals the twist that Vader is Luke's father.

 

That's not to say the prequel trilogy is bad. I thought the new three movies were perfectly fine, though I've never felt compelled to rewatch them. In a world filled with great movies, Ep 1-3 don't stick out as movies I have a desire to rewatch. This isn't a knock against them. I'm perfectly aware that nostalgia may play a strong part in this understanding and that kids who grew up at the time those movies came out may hold them with the same amount of reverence I hold the OT. But I think of them more as supplemental material to the original trilogy than as an essential lead-in to the movies. First is that understanding Anakin's fall doesn't, to me, add a whole lot to the OT, but it seems to be incredibly enriching in the opposite direction. The prequels were created in an environment where Lucas recognized the audience knew the stakes and the outcome. It's built like a Greek Tragedy (in terms of structure, not necessarily quality), in that the destination is inevitable. We know that Oedipus is going to end up miserable and blind. The story is about how he gets there. Similarly, the PT is most effective when you see what Anakin becomes, when the series becomes about unfurling the chain of events and the fatal flaw that led him there. Someone stated elsewhere (in this forum, but I can't recall exactly whom or where) that the PT was more about world-building than characterization, and I believe that. The OT was great because it wore Joseph Campbell's influence on its sleeve. This was a series that used mystique as an advantage, where we sympathized with the characters and the struggles because they were archetypal, because they weren't overexplained, because there was room for our minds to fill in the blanks. The OT seems designed more for people of the OT, for people who want to know more about the stories, for people who care to understand how the Empire came to be and to receive a pseudo-scientific explanation for the Force. It's about contextualizing things that are already there. And that's why it's a side story. It enriches the original trilogy in that it adds context, but it's not the kind of context that adds layers of meaningful understanding to the OT, because one of the OT's advantages is how archetypal and mythically abstracted it is.

 

At least that's my opinion.

 

Bloody well-said, sir. Keep an eye out for the FFG waiter, because he's on his way to you with a beer from me.  :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

For me, the question of what order you watch these movies in is pretty easy. First off, there's no question of breaking them up. Both of the trilogies are clearly two distinct but loosely connected stories in their own right, so it seems a waste to split them up. From there it's jut a question of whether you watch the PT or the OT first. So I ask, what does each add to the other?

 

I grew up on the original trilogy. We'd watch it (or at least pieces of it) every Thanksgiving when it would be played all day as a marathon. Whenever the movies were over, I was never haunted with questions of how Vader became who he was or how the Empire came to be. It strikes me that this is because there's something intensely allegorical about the original three movies. It's about scrappy heroes conquering a faceless  and insurmountable evil. It's about a hero overcoming a dark legacy and the temptation of evil. It never really struck me that explaining the context for these stories would lend anything of value to them. And watching the prequels, I don't feel as if they did. The PT doesn't, for me at least, make the original trilogy any more satisfying. It doesn't provide more gravity to the struggle of Luke and Vader, nor does it provide a more enriching understanding of the conflict between the Empire and the Alliance. At best, it's a negligible addition. At worst, it's harmful in that it reveals the twist that Vader is Luke's father.

 

That's not to say the prequel trilogy is bad. I thought the new three movies were perfectly fine, though I've never felt compelled to rewatch them. In a world filled with great movies, Ep 1-3 don't stick out as movies I have a desire to rewatch. This isn't a knock against them. I'm perfectly aware that nostalgia may play a strong part in this understanding and that kids who grew up at the time those movies came out may hold them with the same amount of reverence I hold the OT. But I think of them more as supplemental material to the original trilogy than as an essential lead-in to the movies. First is that understanding Anakin's fall doesn't, to me, add a whole lot to the OT, but it seems to be incredibly enriching in the opposite direction. The prequels were created in an environment where Lucas recognized the audience knew the stakes and the outcome. It's built like a Greek Tragedy (in terms of structure, not necessarily quality), in that the destination is inevitable. We know that Oedipus is going to end up miserable and blind. The story is about how he gets there. Similarly, the PT is most effective when you see what Anakin becomes, when the series becomes about unfurling the chain of events and the fatal flaw that led him there. Someone stated elsewhere (in this forum, but I can't recall exactly whom or where) that the PT was more about world-building than characterization, and I believe that. The OT was great because it wore Joseph Campbell's influence on its sleeve. This was a series that used mystique as an advantage, where we sympathized with the characters and the struggles because they were archetypal, because they weren't overexplained, because there was room for our minds to fill in the blanks. The OT seems designed more for people of the OT, for people who want to know more about the stories, for people who care to understand how the Empire came to be and to receive a pseudo-scientific explanation for the Force. It's about contextualizing things that are already there. And that's why it's a side story. It enriches the original trilogy in that it adds context, but it's not the kind of context that adds layers of meaningful understanding to the OT, because one of the OT's advantages is how archetypal and mythically abstracted it is.

 

At least that's my opinion.

 

Bloody well-said, sir. Keep an eye out for the FFG waiter, because he's on his way to you with a beer from me.  :)

 

I wish.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dude, you really need to take a deep breath and stop. I'm reporting you and also asking this thread be closed.

How do you ask for a thread to be closed? I've never done it before, but it seems that the Rhino is intent on killing this one.

 

-EF

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd rank it V, VI, IV, II, III, I.

 

I just found TPM boring.  I think there is a *great* movie lurking in the material for the PT, perhaps by summarizing TPM in the crawl for that movie and combining II and III -- getting rid of some of the angsty stuff (and maybe even replace Hayden).  I rank II ahead of III because I loved the world-building in II with the clone factory, and even some of the Geonosis scenes.  I love the chase at the beginning.  I love the diner scene.  Good stuff.  III had a pretty great ending ("NooooOoooOOOOooo!" excepted), a decent beginning, but dragged a bit in the middle.  I thought Order 66 was over far too quickly.  Lee was a decent villain as well, as was Grevious.  I can't really think of much I enjoyed with TPM other than the pod race (though that was some neat world building with lots of new races).

 

As for the OT, ESB is just amazing start to finish.  VI has some great world building, especially for us Empire fans.  IV drags a bit, but...  it is the one that started it all. =)

Edited by BigWeather

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As for hating George Lucas, I have to admit that I do, at times.

But it's not for the prequels.
 

It's because of his stubborn refusal to re-release the originals in their unchanged versions.

It's fine for a director to mess about with his films. Tons of directors do that. It's usually called a "directors cut".

But it's not ok for a director to actively try to supress the original. 
As for anyone saying "it's his movies", I disagree. He was only the director on the first one. The second and third actually had other directors. 
It could be argued that the Prequels are "his", because he was much more involved in those, but even then that's not quite true.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hrm, I don't think I can actually rank the prequels with the originals. I have problems seeing them as the same continuity, because the way the characters are portrayed is at times schizophrenic. Vader, especially, seems like an entirely different character and that just jives completely wrong with me.

 

Also, don't get me started on the lightsaber combat in the prequels. It completely kills my suspension of disbelief, it makes me laugh rather than awe me and, for the sake of faux 'cool', destroys some of the gravitas around characters like Yoda.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This has been floating around for a while...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VgICnbC2-_YY

Makes some really good points about "what if..." And I remember thinking as I was watching the video, "Why is no one making this movie?!"

Video won't work for me... Had to copy the link (after quoting you here) to watch it :)

But yeah, I love his "what if" series. Looking forward to the one on Ep 3 that he's gonna do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Speaking of 'what ifs', a while back my significant other and I were discussing the prequels and what we would have done differently. Eventually, we settled on changing the main protagonist to Palpatine. The one character that could have used more screentime in the originals, the enigmatic emperor, could have used a proper build-up and characterisation from, at first, a sympathetic man with good intentions realising that the Republic is, ultimately, doomed to fail to, finally, a ruthless despot justifying for himself that his way, at least, the galaxy remains "civilised and orderly". There's still room for plenty of action in this, as well, given the clone wars provide ample opportunity for senator, and later chancellor and emperor Palpatine to experience the chaos of war firsthand and shy away from it to develope Sith-worthy extremism in terms of 'lawful evil'. it's also a storyline where you don't necessarily need to develope Anakin as a Skywalker. Instead, you can introduce him as Darth Vader, Obi Wan's former pupil and, initially, Palpatine and the jedi order's enemy. In the course of the movies, you can then have this shift, where the jedi shy away from Palpatine's growing extremism and Vader sees an opportunity to teach him the power of the dark side.

 

Alas, that's not how it happened :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My list.
From most liked to least liked.

 

1.A New Hope
Just good movie all around, and amazing it was done so long ago.

2.Return of a Jedi

Seeing Luke come back to Tattoine as a Jedi Knight was one of the most kick ass memories I had as a kid.

 

3.Empire Strikes Back
Has all of the Jedi training which i feel is one of the best ways of immersing into the star wars world.

 

4.Phantom Menace
Darth Maul was cool, Qui-gon was cool, and I did like the trade federation.

 

5.Attack of the Clones
Mediocre, nothing really stands out for me.

6.Revenge of the Sith
The fight between the Emperor and the 4 Jedi Masters makes me cringe too much.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would love to say my list is this:

1)  Empire Strikes Back

2)  Star Wars

3)  Return of the Jedi

4)  Revenge of the Sith

5)  Attack of the Clones

6)  Phantom Menace

 

But, in reality, it's this:

1)  Empire Strikes Back

2)  Star Wars

3)  Revenge of the Sith

4)  Return of the Jedi

5)  Attack of the Clones

6)  Phantom Menace

 

Maybe it's because Han Solo (my favorite character since I was, like, 5 or 6) really doesn't have a lot to do in ROTJ...  Or maybe it's because I've been forced to watch the Special Edition of ROTJ for so long...  Or maybe it's just that ROTS is actually a pretty great film...  But if given a choice?  I'd rather watch ROTS than ROTJ...  *sigh*

 

Anyway, other than leaving AOTC and TPM at the bottom of your list?  Ha.  I don't think there's any one, right way to rank these movies.

 

When I was a kid growing up in the late 70s and early-to-mid-80s?  I was literally the only person I knew who preferred ESB to ROTJ or the original SW.  I guess most everyone else needed a satisfying ending that involved blowing up a spherical space station...  Heh.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Also, don't get me started on the lightsaber combat in the prequels. It completely kills my suspension of disbelief, it makes me laugh rather than awe me and, for the sake of faux 'cool', destroys some of the gravitas around characters like Yoda.

 

Yes, the lightsaber battles are silly if not in the right mindset. In the OT they felt like in samurai movies, where cutting off arms also is a thing, with no rushing, every attack weighed and thought out(sometimes a bit reckless by the young learner Luke). In the PT it felt more like a superhero cartoon, and that can be cool enough if not taken too seriously or if the style fits. If you don`t expect the style and samurai theme of the OT, it can work and looks cool.

I agree that it feels weird to see Yoda with the sabre and he feels weaker and less cool somehow, not fitting his character. Still, kind of fun to watch...

I prefer the OT lightsaber fights, they are more classy and never threatens to kill my suspencion of disbelief. But I fully understand why some people like the PT fights better! It`s about style and preferences. Both are valid.

Sometimes I like to watch the PT sabre fights too if I am in that mindset.

Edited by RodianClone

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I labored over what order to show my daughter the films, but just ended up showing them in the order that I happened to want to watch them at the time (so Empire, Star Wars [THAT'S WHAT IT'S CALLED], Jedi, Phantom Menace, and I think Clones was on TV at some point). 

 

In the end, the big reveal is overrated. Instead of waiting for her to get to an age where she would be invested (and focused) enough for it to really impact her, she has a few more years of enjoying the whole series. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...