Actually, yeah, obviously you watch the old ones first. We all know that...🙂 but the acting in Return of the Jedi is easily some of the worst in all of Star Wars. It basically kills the movie. Then you've got those dumb Ewoks right next to the Gungans and that idiot Jar Jar Binks. The acting in The Phantom Menace is ten times better than in Return of the Jedi. Just a reminder: Ian McDiarmid, Ewan McGregor, Natalie Portman, Liam Neeson, Sofia Coppola...🙂 whereas in Return of the Jedi, Mark Hamill and Carrie Fisher were totally off, and even Harrison Ford didn't seem like himself. Honestly, the only thing saving that whole movie is Ian McDiarmid being great as Emperor Palpatine and that final showdown between Darth Vader and Luke Skywalker. Why? Because Mark Hamill barely says a word... Obviously, the plot is better in Return of the Jedi...
I don't even need to explain why Attack of the Clones beats Return of the Jedi, let alone Revenge of the Sith...
And if you're going to go looking for a fight in a completely different thread instead of staying here, only to run into someone who hasn't even seen a single one of these movies yet—ivtau, seriously, I expected more from you🙂 🙂
Setting the acting and the production aside, I still think Star Wars: Return of the Jedi is a better film than A New Hope, at least when it comes to the actual plot.
casualraven said:George Lucas himself actually suggested watching them in the order of 4-5-6 then 1-2-3. I’m totally on board with that.
Honestly, the biggest reason to watch them this way is because of this one narrative gap. It’s not even a bad thing—it’s actually the opposite. Those "holes" and spaces between the movies just push you to dive deeper into the whole saga... At the very least, you’ll find yourself hopping on Wikipedia to figure out how the Clone Wars went down, or how they actually built the Death Star and stuff (none of which is explicitly laid out in the films, but the structure of the movies basically forces you to go hunt for those answers yourself). If you really get hooked, you'll end up hunting down old comic books, animated series, and all that good stuff where they actually explain everything. 😁
Another huge point is that this order avoids that cliché "happy ending" vibe. Instead, it leaves you with more of a... hmm... bitter aftertaste, I guess. You might walk away thinking maybe Vader was right and falling to the dark side was justified, or maybe you just plain dislike certain heroes and want to see them suffer a little... 🙂 Either way, the 4-5-6-1-2-3 route leaves plenty of room for different interpretations and moods, so it's definitely the best way to go.
I mean, why bother ordering anything when everything is just sitting there on the internet anyway? 😎 Though, I suppose if you've had a few drinks, you'll probably end up doing it regardless. 😳
Jerry Martin19 said:Honestly, just ignore coastalcrane76. You’re better off watching Star Wars: A New Hope, then Star Wars: The Empire Strikes Back, followed by Star Wars: Return of the Jedi, before you even touch the prequels like The Phantom Menace or Attack of the Clones.
.
I’m actually on the same page here, so I’ll back that suggestion up. And honestly, don't listen to anyone claiming any specific part is "bad"—they're all good in their own way, it's really just a matter of which ones hit a little harder for you personally. 😉
ps Jerry Martin19:you might want to rethink that signature; it doesn't quite match that friendly avatar of yours.
He’s honestly just so ridiculous that you can't help but stare and lose it laughing and when it comes to that signature Zoolander look, they really should have cast him instead :
Hey, Megan Ruiz13, sorry to go off on a bit of a tangent here, but I was just sitting here wondering—if you had to pick a winner in a fight, who do you think would actually come out on top, Jean-Claude Van Damme or Chuck Norris?
Honestly, just shoot him already; you’d probably be 340 years old by the time you finished staring at him 😁, though, if I'm being real, I actually thought the movie was one of the better ones out there.
She’s kind of adorable, I guess, but she just isn't anything special when it comes to her acting performances. There are definitely much better actresses out there than her.
I ended up voting for Joan of Arc because, honestly, I just really enjoyed the movie. The way they handled the story was beautiful, and I loved how they left things ambiguous at the end—you’re left wondering if she was actually experiencing schizophrenia or if she truly was touched by God. It was such a smart way to adapt her story to the screen. I’m honestly not sure why you’d say the film wasn't any good, Jerry Martin19? What exactly didn't work for you?
In my view, the whole Fantasy genre really grew out of those old legends and epic sagas. Honestly, it doesn't matter whose specific rules they decide to follow; the real issue is that if they were going to go ahead and change them, they really ought to have done a much better job of it.
Austin Roberts8 said:Look, I get that they don't *have* to follow them, but if you aren't capable of building your own entire universe from scratch, you should probably respect the d/d rules. Not everyone can just whip up a decent fantasy world out of thin air... that's all I was getting at.
Well, he actually had a pretty solid concept regarding how magic works in the book, which was slightly more fleshed out than most: the idea that every spell requires a certain amount of physical energy, making the process much slower and more taxing—I think that’s one of his stronger ideas, anyway. But overall, I'm inclined to agree with you, though I still find the book to be decent (honestly, it's much better than the movie version), and considering how young he was when he started—maybe fifteen or sixteen—and the fact that the second book actually outshines the first, I'd say the guy definitely has potential as a writer.
I’ll say it: I don’t care if a movie doesn't stick strictly to the rules of Dungeons & Dragons, because at the end of the day, that doesn't stop it from being a damn good fantasy flick.
@Austin Roberts8, I’m right there with you—the movie was pretty rough, and honestly, everything you laid out hits the mark, but I have to wonder... what does the rulebook for Dungeons & Dragons actually have to do with the fantasy genre as a whole?
Austin Roberts8 said:My buddy is a total fantasy fanatic (into D&D and all that). To him, true fantasy means massive, brilliant dragons, elves, dwarves, orcs, humans, and the whole bit. He thinks you don't find that kind of stuff in Potter. Honestly, just head over to some forum or check Reddit and see what everyone else thinks about it.
Look, I’m a huge fantasy nerd myself, and if you ask me, Harry Potter definitely fits the bill. You’ve got this entire parallel world operating under its own set of rules that just don't apply to our reality, plus there’s a whole crowd of creatures that simply don't exist in the real world. And let's be honest—the level of technology isn't anywhere near where we are today. To my mind (and I think most people would agree), that is basically the textbook definition of fantasy. What you were describing earlier sounds more like a classic D&D setup to me.🧐
