Prequel Squandered Possibilities

Klingon Hamlet

Terence Stamp:

Legend of an actor. Great screen presence. Makes even the most dreary of dialogue sound Shakespearean. Striking appearance. Had less than five minutes screen time. Why wasn’t he Dooku? Or, sticking to the use a similar name to that which he is most famous for, Zade? Why didn’t he become another father-like figure to Anakin, only to turn out to be working for Palpatine. Make him a likeable Sith, and that makes the series more interesting, the Dark Side more seductive, and the Jedi’s black-and-white thinking more questionable.




Palpatine:


Only came into his own at the opera house, with the gothic lighting and the bass-heavy music he became the shadowy manipulator...finally...after 2 and half films of drab blahblah...and then turns into a walking onion? All bloated and crackly?? Nothing like the ROTJ Palpatine.


Worse: Lucas admitted his prequels took plot elements from the books. But to use the name Palpatine is to give the game away, sure the books called him Emperor Palpatine, so no suspense there. Plus, the multi-warrior battle went down a dud.




Skywalker:


Not likeable. Luke is a pain but he’s honest, earnest, despite great difficulty. Anakin is a whinge and a hypocrite, and it wasn’t that he Fell so much as Ended Up evil.




Sith:


Complete let down. Palpatine has been explained: a clown.


Dooku: spent much of the film saying exposition, looking awkward, or looking CG.


Maul: bad-a$$, should’ve been the evil ninja laying waste to the Republic, justifying the creation of tighter security, tougher space-navy and more power to the emperor. Instead, killed off quickly. Wasted.


Vader: Nooooooo! All the previous pap could’ve gone unnoticed. But that moment killed it for me.




Yoda:


Distracting CG. Kept changing in every film. Awkward and puppetlike in the first. Bouncy and whimsical in the second. Almost believable in the third.




Clone Troopers:


Boring. Fake. Dodgy looking. All same voices...so what happened with all the different voices in the old trilogy. And why’d they become ridiculously bad at battle.




Clone Wars:


Nice one George. Taratanamankanaovsky made an excellent cartoon about the Clone Wars, because you barely showed it. Now you have CG show about it. Why not actually frame the films around the Clone Wars eh?




Jar-Jar:


No.




CG everythingness:


Gave the film a flimsy, blurry boring look. Very little real-world interaction. Real sets always do a better job. Just look at Star Trek.




Tech:


Everything looked newer than the old trilogy. War advances tech, it doesn’t regress it.




Talking:

Too much! Short quips. Dramatic showdowns. Twists. Fairytales. Make it sweeping, not plodding.

irishthump

Not a fan then?

evil-monkey

I must admit, I found a lot of this rant a tad fragmented.

But anyway, here's my two cents...

Klingon Hamlet wrote: »

Terence Stamp:

Legend of an actor. Great screen presence. Makes even the most dreary of dialogue sound Shakespearean. Striking appearance. Had less than five minutes screen time. Why wasn’t he Dooku?

I don't know would I class Terence Stamp as a legend of an actor, in fact, I think he tends to overplay things a tad. Christopher Lee did well in this role if you ask me. In fact, as far as casting goes in the movies, I think all of the parts were well cast.

Klingon Hamlet wrote: »

Worse: Lucas admitted his prequels took plot elements from the books.

Who ever heard of a film taking a plot from a book?? :eek:

Klingon Hamlet wrote: »

Not likeable.

I think that was the plan. He is, after all, supposed to end up as the most feared tyrant in the Galaxy. And not everything has to be a Shakespearean tragedy; it's ok for the downfall to happen to an a**hole nobody likes sometimes...

Klingon Hamlet wrote: »

Dooku: spent much of the film saying exposition, looking awkward, or looking CG.

Looking CG?? You mean the actor Christopher Lee looked CG?? In what way exactly?? Cos I'm fairly sure he's real...

Klingon Hamlet wrote: »

Maul: bad-a$$, should’ve been the evil ninja laying waste to the Republic, justifying the creation of tighter security, tougher space-navy and more power to the emperor. Instead, killed off quickly. Wasted.

They were making three movies, not six. Doing all of the above would require another flick in itself...

Klingon Hamlet wrote: »

Distracting CG. Kept changing in every film. Awkward and puppetlike in the first. Bouncy and whimsical in the second. Almost believable in the third.

That's called technological innovation.

Klingon Hamlet wrote: »

Boring. Fake. Dodgy looking. All same voices...so what happened with all the different voices in the old trilogy.

Well now you've just made a schoolboy error. The reason they all had the same voice was because they were all clones of the same person; Jango Fett. They all looked like him, and sounded like him. You did watch Attack of the Clones ya??

Klingon Hamlet wrote: »

Nice one George. Taratanamankanaovsky made an excellent cartoon about the Clone Wars, because you barely showed it. Now you have CG show about it. Why not actually frame the films around the Clone Wars eh?

I don't get what your point here is?? Personally I think the Clone Wars CG series isn't half bad, and is filling in a large gap in an important part of the saga. Is your issue with the quality of the series, or the fact that George Lucas is making more Star Wars stuff??

Klingon Hamlet wrote: »

Jar-Jar:
No.

Ok, here's the thing with Jar Jar. Without profit, no Star Wars. Without merchandise, no profit. Without characters that appeal to kids and make for good toys and teddies (such as Jar Jar and Ewoks) no saleable merchandise. Lucas isn't just a movie maker, he's a toy maker. And it's characters like Jar Jar that have funded the continuation of the franchise. We don't like him. But kids do. And kids is big business...yub yub...

Klingon Hamlet wrote: »

CG everythingness:

Gave the film a flimsy, blurry boring look. Very little real-world interaction. Real sets always do a better job. Just look at Star Trek.

I thought it looked pretty good. And Star Trek is a recent film. Even five or so years can make a BIG difference in the visuals in film.

Klingon Hamlet wrote: »

Tech:

Everything looked newer than the old trilogy. War advances tech, it doesn’t regress it.

DEATH STAR!! Surely you'd class that as an advance in tech. It could blow up planets man!!

Klingon Hamlet

evil-monkey wrote: »

I must admit, I found a lot of this rant a tad fragmented.

But anyway, here's my two cents...



I don't know would I class Terence Stamp as a legend of an actor, in fact, I think he tends to overplay things a tad. Christopher Lee did well in this role if you ask me. In fact, as far as casting goes in the movies, I think all of the parts were well cast.

Check out The Limey. No-one else could have played that guy, and he's a difficult character to portray. Stamp played him perfectly. Everyone thinks of Zod when they hear his name; I think he's underappreciated and underused.

Who ever heard of a film taking a plot from a book?? :eek:

I wasn't attacking it for lack of originality. I was simply stating that the slow, inevitable reveal of palpatine as puppeteer and future Sith Emperor was ruined for anyone who read the books, and I felt the actor gave a great performance but only when there was decent scenery to chew, as in the aforementioned Opera House scene (something I imagine a script doctor implanted to great effect.)

I think that was the plan. He is, after all, supposed to end up as the most feared tyrant in the Galaxy. And not everything has to be a Shakespearean tragedy; it's ok for the downfall to happen to an a**hole nobody likes sometimes...

I disagree. Lucas consistently mirrored scenes, actions and statements. Luke decapitating the spectre of Vader in ESB was Lucas' way of saying, guess what, someone very like you went all evil. Turned out he was very like him down to the genetic level, being his daddy and all. (Forget midichlorians...do not get me started on midichlorians).

But I could not have found Anakin and Luke any more different. One was aching to reach the stars, to see the galaxy, and to fight the evil empire. The other was a spoilt arrogant snot with nothing better to do than mope, demand attention and mope some more. Yes he was a troubled character with a tough upbringing, but I think Lucas gave him that to try justify his Turning to the Dark Side, his yearning for a better life...instead it made him sound like a defeatest, someone who felt beset upon by the inconsiderate and foolish elders, someone who deserved all the glory but was criminally overlooked.

His ultimate redemption in Ep 6 was to reveal his true inner kindness...something we didn't even get a taste of in the prequels, due to the bad writing and poor acting. There was no-one to redeem. He was a sod.

Looking CG?? You mean the actor Christopher Lee looked CG?? In what way exactly?? Cos I'm fairly sure he's real...

Watch the fight scenes again, especially his forward somesault onto the main platform on the Republic Star Destroyer in Ep3. Ludicrous and off-putting.

They were making three movies, not six. Doing all of the above would require another flick in itself...

I disagree. I didn't mean plant Maul's serial attacks upon the layers of other tales half-told. i meant put him front and centre as the bad guy, put Stamp as the iffy former Jedi turned independent leader, put palpatine as the seemingly gentile aristocrat, who, because of Maul and his ferocious attacks, has to do the tough thing and turn the Republic into a stricter, almost Big Brother type state.

Have Tattooine attacked and invaded asa rmeote outpost, so that Shri is killed (all part of palp's plan to alienate and Turn Anakin). So when he finally kills Maul, then Stamp, he feels what Sith feel: anger at the peaceful,ambivalent, oblivious Republic, and desire to show it what real power means.

That's called technological innovation.

It's called constantly rebooting the look of your character across a six year scale. Imagine Gandalf recast three times; remember dumbledore being startlingly different when poor Harris passed; imagine Chewbacca being rebooted 3 times. Nah. It's inconsistent and distracting.

Well now you've just made a schoolboy error. The reason they all had the same voice was because they were all clones of the same person; Jango Fett. They all looked like him, and sounded like him. You did watch Attack of the Clones ya??

I did. All those Cg clones with the one voice,e xciting stuff. So why stop clone production? Why then recruit normals? Wy have a seemingly perfct Warrior Gene, and then dispense with it and revert to normal chaotic individuals?

I don't get what your point here is?? Personally I think the Clone Wars CG series isn't half bad, and is filling in a large gap in an important part of the saga. Is your issue with the quality of the series, or the fact that George Lucas is making more Star Wars stuff??

Neither. I enjoyed both the CG and animated shows for what they were: offical fan-fic. What I meant is: why sideline an awesomely epic galactic war with clones and bots when you could use it as the very stage upon which to set the characters in motion.

Ok, here's the thing with Jar Jar. Without profit, no Star Wars. Without merchandise, no profit. Without characters that appeal to kids and make for good toys and teddies (such as Jar Jar and Ewoks) no saleable merchandise. Lucas isn't just a movie maker, he's a toy maker. And it's characters like Jar Jar that have funded the continuation of the franchise. We don't like him. But kids do. And kids is big business...yub yub...

I understand merchandising dude. I don't understand producing a frankly racist and unlikeable character pandering to children when kids love jedis, spaceships and the rest. He got greedy, wanted the next Tamagotchi, and instead insulted and annoyed a lot of people.

I thought it looked pretty good. And Star Trek is a recent film. Even five or so years can make a BIG difference in the visuals in film.

My point was Star Trek lft the green screens to mostly background, and stuckwith primarily real, tangible sets. I loved how organic the OT looked, the stains and age of everything. The Prequels were supposed to gleam, be the bright past before the downfall of freedom, but the overuse of CG bored my eyes and brain. And rushing a retrofied bit of tech in at the end of Ep3 to fit in with Ep4 made no narrative or aesthetic or technological sense, other than to say, hey, this is the way tech is going, blocky and strangely backward.

DEATH STAR!! Surely you'd class that as an advance in tech. It could blow up planets man!!

See above. i don't mean the actual technology, but the tools used. Compare Eps 1 2 and 3 to Eps 4 5 and 6 and there's a clear drop in style. I'd have rathera more stampunk 1 2 and 3, with organic and grungy but exciting tech. But never mind

By the way, I'm not Star Wars nut, I love the visuals and the way imaginary worlds work,and I just felt that all the hard work was put to the wrong uses in the prequels. It's all lighthearted discussion just s's you know:)

evil-monkey

Klingon Hamlet wrote: »

Check out The Limey. No-one else could have played that guy, and he's a difficult character to portray. Stamp played him perfectly. Everyone thinks of Zod when they hear his name; I think he's underappreciated and underused.

Doesn't mean he would have been a better Dooku than Christopher Lee. He's a tad too flambouyant for the role imho.

Klingon Hamlet wrote: »

I was simply stating that the slow, inevitable reveal of palpatine as puppeteer and future Sith Emperor was ruined for anyone who read the books

Yes but not everyone who went to see the movie was a hardcore fan who had read the books. Sure I knew what was coming, and you knew it was coming, but the people I went to see it with didn't. The majority of people who have seen the movies have not read the books. Everyone has seen Star Wars, I don't personally know anyone that has read many of the books apart from myself...

Klingon Hamlet wrote: »

I disagree. Lucas consistently mirrored scenes, actions and statements. Luke decapitating the spectre of Vader in ESB was Lucas' way of saying, guess what, someone very like you went all evil. Turned out he was very like him down to the genetic level, being his daddy and all. (Forget midichlorians...do not get me started on midichlorians).

?? Just because Anakin Skywalker was an a**hole doesn't mean his son was automatically going to be an a**hole. Anakin was Luke's father alright, but they weren't necessarily hugely alike. We're not all the spit off our father.

Klingon Hamlet wrote: »

a spoilt arrogant snot with nothing better to do than mope, demand attention and mope some more. Yes he was a troubled character with a tough upbringing, but I think Lucas gave him that to try justify his Turning to the Dark Side, his yearning for a better life...instead it made him sound like a defeatest, someone who felt beset upon by the inconsiderate and foolish elders, someone who deserved all the glory but was criminally overlooked.

I don't see what the arguement here is. Everyone agrees with you that Anakin was a whiney bitch. That was his character. Move on.

Klingon Hamlet wrote: »

Watch the fight scenes again, especially his forward somesault onto the main platform on the Republic Star Destroyer in Ep3. Ludicrous and off-putting.

I didn't think it was so bad. The fight scene in Episode III with Sidious and Mace's possy was poor alright, but other than that I thought everything looked fine.

Klingon Hamlet wrote: »

I disagree. I didn't mean plant Maul's serial attacks upon the layers of other tales half-told. i meant put him front and centre as the bad guy, put Stamp as the iffy former Jedi turned independent leader, put palpatine as the seemingly gentile aristocrat, who, because of Maul and his ferocious attacks, has to do the tough thing and turn the Republic into a stricter, almost Big Brother type state.

The end result of the plot would be the same but without the political complexity that a lot of people enjoyed. But ya, I can see that your suggestion would have worked too. But there are a lot of suggestionst that would have worked here.

Klingon Hamlet wrote: »

Have Tattooine attacked and invaded asa rmeote outpost, so that Shri is killed (all part of palp's plan to alienate and Turn Anakin). So when he finally kills Maul, then Stamp, he feels what Sith feel: anger at the peaceful,ambivalent, oblivious Republic, and desire to show it what real power means.

Once again, this is just tinkering with the plot to reach the same end result, and are countless ways this could have been done.

Klingon Hamlet wrote: »

It's called constantly rebooting the look of your character across a six year scale. Imagine Gandalf recast three times; remember dumbledore being startlingly different when poor Harris passed; imagine Chewbacca being rebooted 3 times. Nah. It's inconsistent and distracting.

Gandalf and Dumbledore were played by real people. Who would you have cast as Yoda?? Kermit the frog...

Klingon Hamlet wrote: »

I did. All those Cg clones with the one voice,e xciting stuff.

Well if you knew they were clones why did you ask why they all sounded the same??

Klingon Hamlet wrote: »

So why stop clone production? Why then recruit normals?

Well now, that's a whole other thread. Why stop clone production?? Firstly, the war was over. The fight against the Rebellion didn't need half as many troops as were required during the Clone Wars. Real people are cheaper, and lethal Jango-type warriors weren't needed to fight a band of Rebels fighting guerilla warfare.

And, I don't know if you've read any of the Karen Travis Republic Commando series, but the same questions you raise have been brought up, and the plot seems to be going in the direction of answering these questions in a future release. I won't mention what has been revealed so far for fear of spoiling them if you haven't read them.

Klingon Hamlet wrote: »

Neither. I enjoyed both the CG and animated shows for what they were: offical fan-fic. What I meant is: why sideline an awesomely epic galactic war with clones and bots when you could use it as the very stage upon which to set the characters in motion.

Lucas obviously wants to play with new forms of media. At this stage I think he has a right to do so.

Klingon Hamlet wrote: »

I understand merchandising dude. I don't understand producing a frankly racist and unlikeable character pandering to children when kids love jedis, spaceships and the rest. He got greedy, wanted the next Tamagotchi, and instead insulted and annoyed a lot of people.

Racist? Lol. And next you'll tell me that Darth Vader's gear was offensive because it was black...

Klingon Hamlet wrote: »

My point was Star Trek lft the green screens to mostly background, and stuckwith primarily real, tangible sets. I loved how organic the OT looked, the stains and age of everything. The Prequels were supposed to gleam, be the bright past before the downfall of freedom, but the overuse of CG bored my eyes and brain. And rushing a retrofied bit of tech in at the end of Ep3 to fit in with Ep4 made no narrative or aesthetic or technological sense, other than to say, hey, this is the way tech is going, blocky and strangely backward.

I think you're forgetting that Ep Iv - IV were made in the 70s, early 80s. Everything in cinema looked blocky and strangely backward back then!! Why? Because props and sets were built out of blocks and backward objects. Don't know if there were any Star Trek flicks made back then (not a fan) but I imagine they probably looked far worse than the new film.

Klingon Hamlet wrote: »

See above. i don't mean the actual technology, but the tools used. Compare Eps 1 2 and 3 to Eps 4 5 and 6 and there's a clear drop in style. I'd have rathera more stampunk 1 2 and 3, with organic and grungy but exciting tech. But never mind

In the shadow of the Empire, progress, innovation and creativity would be severely hindered. Technology evolved the way Sidious wanted it; practical and best suited to Imperial purposes.

Klingon Hamlet wrote: »

By the way, I'm not Star Wars nut, I love the visuals and the way imaginary worlds work,and I just felt that all the hard work was put to the wrong uses in the prequels. It's all lighthearted discussion just s's you know:)

Of course it's lighthearted discussion, no fear there.

I think the main issue I have with this whole argument is something I've raised here before. I enjoyed the prequels; thought they were well made. The reason I don't like people bashing them is because A New Hope gets off so lightly. Compared to A New Hope, even Attack of the Clones was a masterpiece. The destruction of Alderaan should have been harrowing for viewers and the character of Leia alike, but there wasn't even a take done of people on the planet, nor did Leia seem to even care. Another example of how poor the directing in Episode IV was; when Luke rescued Leia, not long after her dreadful torture at the hands of Vader himself, she was lying seductively on her side, robes in perfect order and her hair not even tossed!! Did Vader torture her or give her a foot rub with that probe??

glenjamin

Didn't Palpatine stop the clone production because he was afraid the clones may rebell and overthrow him nor something along those lines?

evil-monkey

glenjamin wrote: »

Didn't Palpatine stop the clone production because he was afraid the clones may rebell and overthrow him nor something along those lines?

Been a while now since I read those books but didn't

they hint at Palpatine having moved Clone production to another vendor? The reasons as to why having yet to be revealed...

dyl10

Klingon Hamlet wrote: »

Everything looked newer than the old trilogy. War advances tech, it doesn’t regress it.

I would agree with most of your points but I'd have to disagree with this.
The originals are set during what you could consider as the "Dark Ages", where as the prequels nearly seem like a golden age.

Everything looks more decorative in the new movies and that can be expected, I feel.

Klingon Hamlet

But take the bits Lucas added in with clearly CGI ships and environs and you see the stark diffeence betwee then and now. it's like a weird Cg sandwich, and the meat is the old films with the practical, weightier effects. (CG Flacon jumps out at you every time)

Personally I think they shoulda gone steampunk with the prequel films, have awesome retro-tech that still outclasses ours but feels classic.

dyl10

I found the creatures and ships in the originals, done with costumes and models much more convincing than stupid modern CGI.

evil-monkey

dyl10 wrote: »

I found the creatures and ships in the originals, done with costumes and models much more convincing than stupid modern CGI.

I dunno. I thought the stormtroopers looked like they were waering cheep halloween costumes. They were supposed to be wearing armor that can withstand blaster bolts - not cheap plastic cover alls...


@ Klingon Hamlet, there was a link post here a while back with some pretty cool Star Wars steampunk concepts. Move back a few pages and you should find it. Would probably be of interest to you. Some of it was pretty good imho.

Jako8

The only creature that I didn't like out of the originals was Max Rebo.

I really thought it looked pretty bad.


I didn't mind the Stormtroopers. Sometimes the suits look like cheap plastic but I just put that down to super space age plastic that's much better for armour than anything else.

dyl10

Jako8 wrote: »

The only creature that I didn't like out of the originals was Max Rebo.

Yeh 100% agreed, whatever about Ewoks, but he looked like a bright blue teddy bear!

That being said, he was counterbalanced by a frightening Rancor and a sexy Twi'lek!

Klingon Hamlet

dyl10 wrote: »

Yeh 100% agreed, whatever about Ewoks, but he looked like a bright blue teddy bear!

That being said, he was counterbalanced by a frightening Rancor and a sexy Twi'lek!

Rebo wasn't in the originals. He was in the souped-up, maxed-out, sell-out, undercutting bastardised revision that Lucas released to milk the cow even more. The originals are in my opinion the ones with no CG-sour-aftertaste.

dyl10

Klingon Hamlet wrote: »

Rebo wasn't in the originals. He was in the souped-up, maxed-out, sell-out, undercutting bastardised revision that Lucas released to milk the cow even more. The originals are in my opinion the ones with no CG-sour-aftertaste.

I believe you're wrong about that...
Sadly my video player isn't setup any more so I can't check, but I'm pretty damn sure he is in it, along with the singer.

Klingon Hamlet

dyl10 wrote: »

I believe you're wrong about that...
Sadly my video player isn't setup any more so I can't check, but I'm pretty damn sure he is in it, along with the singer.

You're right sorry! I was thinking of the Cg versions, I didn't realise there were puppet mversions in the original. My bad.:)

dyl10

Klingon Hamlet wrote: »

You're right sorry! I was thinking of the Cg versions, I didn't realise there were puppet mversions in the original. My bad.:)

No bother, one was as bad as the other!

bonerm

One word : JOY.

There was no feeling of joy or adventure in the prequels. Everything everyone was doing in them was "a duty", an obligation. Who cares then? At least the heroes in the original movies had some clear personal motivation. Run or be killed. Escape or be killed. Save your friend or they'll die. Blow up the death star or we're all f-d.

In the prequels the overriding sequence of events appeared to be an endless barrage of "go here, do this, talk to that person" (sometimes even for no apparent reason). The only person in the entire saga who appeared to be having any fun or any say in their own outcome was Palpatine and he would only come on screen for a few mins and then disappear again. They'd have been as well off making 3 movies about his rise to power rather than what we were finally left with.

Klingon Hamlet

bonerm wrote: »

One word : JOY.

There was no feeling of joy or adventure in the prequels. Everything everyone was doing in them was "a duty", an obligation. Who cares then? At least the heroes in the original movies had some clear personal motivation. Run or be killed. Escape or be killed. Save your friend or they'll die. Blow up the death star or we're all f-d.

In the prequels the overriding sequence of events appeared to be an endless barrage of "go here, do this, talk to that person" (sometimes even for no apparent reason). The only person in the entire saga who appeared to be having any fun or any say in their own outcome was Palpatine and he would only come on screen for a few mins and then disappear again. They'd have been as well off making 3 movies about his rise to power rather than what we were finally left with.

You hit the nail on the head there. The old trilogy seemed alot spunkier. The adventures were thrilling and exciting. The pace fluctuated from steady to lightning-fast (for their time). The characters were memorable, fun and unpredictable, and funny. Even vader was humorous in his near serial killing of captains.

"Apology accepted, Captain Needa..."

But then those films had a lot of input from IMHO far more talented writers than Lucas. A New Hope kinda drags the most because it gets from A to B but its classic save a princess and save the kingdom/galaxy plot, along with its groundbreaking effects, saved it and keeps it golden even now. The other two had different directors and while Jedi is patchy, it still has r proper kick to its second half. Empire, IMHO, and many others', is the best sequel ever, popping along and unafraid to peel back the sparkly outer layer to reveal the true darkness beneath.

The new trilogy were simply filler...take the Starchetypes (see what I did), recast them, introduce some generic political meanderings, use constant irritating "mirroring" of previous events (as in they happened in the OT so Lucas is in fact foreshadowing and therefore spoiling the much-better-produced fare of the classic films), and using CGI as glue to hold the fragments together. Oh and dialogue? Brain-drying.

evil-monkey

But surely the Phantom Menace and Revenge of the Sith were better than "oh no you blew up my planet, woes me" Episode IV??

If the prequels were poor, then A New Hope was putrid...

Klingon Hamlet

evil-monkey wrote: »

But surely the Phantom Menace and Revenge of the Sith were better than "oh no you blew up my planet, woes me" Episode IV??

If the prequels were poor, then A New Hope was putrid...

Nah man no-one in Phantom Menace stood out bar Jar Jar, and he was an atrocity. A New Hope dragged in parts but look, it redefined the modern day blockbuster, and it successfully made sci-fi AND sci-fantasy cool again. Check this out and then see why...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FxKtZmQgxrI