A New Hope vs Empire Strikes Back

[Riedquat]

Question: George Lucas is both writing and directing the movies, so what combination I ask is rendering Phantom Menace a redeemed film?

I've honestly always liked Phantom Menace. Even back in the day I thought that some of the criticism was overly harsh, and having rewatched all three of the prequels I stand by that.

It's such a wildly inconsistent film. There's a lot of it that's straight 1* material, and then there's stuff like Duel of the Fates and the wonderful sounds that pod racers make as they corner that's legit excellent 5*, and on the whole it averages out to a film that I like more than I dislike.

Attack of the Clones though is just utterly wretched.

I like the Attack of the Clones soundtrack, if that helps. The burst of the Imperial March at the end was pretty awesome (possibly the best rendition of it in Star Wars). Overall it wasn't great but I don't particularly hate it. My worst by a country mile is The Last Jedi.

Back to the actual question Empire is more polished than ANH, which I think works in its favour. It's biggest weakness is that its story doesn't stand alone, like ANH's does. It's arguably not so much a trilogy as one film on its own followed by a pair, despite almost everyone rating Empire over RoTJ. Personally RotJ has one big advantage in that it was the first Star Wars film I saw at the cinema.

[Winter]

Question: George Lucas is both writing and directing the movies, so what combination I ask is rendering Phantom Menace a redeemed film?

I've honestly always liked Phantom Menace. Even back in the day I thought that some of the criticism was overly harsh, and having rewatched all three of the prequels I stand by that.

It's such a wildly inconsistent film. There's a lot of it that's straight 1* material, and then there's stuff like Duel of the Fates and the wonderful sounds that pod racers make as they corner that's legit excellent 5*, and on the whole it averages out to a film that I like more than I dislike.

Attack of the Clones though is just utterly wretched.

I like the Attack of the Clones soundtrack, if that helps. The burst of the Imperial March at the end was pretty awesome (possibly the best rendition of it in Star Wars). Overall it wasn't great but I don't particularly hate it. My worst by a country mile is The Last Jedi.

Back to the actual question Empire is more polished than ANH, which I think works in its favour. It's biggest weakness is that its story doesn't stand alone, like ANH's does. It's arguably not so much a trilogy as one film on its own followed by a pair, despite almost everyone rating Empire over RoTJ. Personally RotJ has one big advantage in that it was the first Star Wars film I saw at the cinema.

Honestly it's a tossup as to which SW film I dislike the least, The Last Jedi or Rise of Skywalker.

But have to agree with you on that, Return of the Jedi was the first SW film I ever saw (though it was on VHS and not in Theaters) and I had no real issue following the story. I got the gist of it and most of the carry over from Empire was given a quick explanation in a way that felt natural and dramatic.

[McAvoy]

Likewise when the prequels came out, I didn't like Phantom of the Menace and thought Attack of the Clones was better. Now, Phantom of the Menace is better than Attack of the Clones IMO. Revenge of the Sith is the best of the three.

Question: George Lucas is both writing and directing the movies, so what combination I ask is rendering Phantom Menace a redeemed film?

Originally I didn't like Phantom because of Jar Jar, kid Anakin acting (not the actor's fault) and the general plot.

Now, Attack of the Clones has similar issues as well. But overall, the script is not as good as Phantom, logically makes zero sense for Padma to fall in love and marry Anakin considering how he was in that movie. Lightsaber duel is less than the Duel of Fates one. Comedy elements like the use of R2 and C3PO was cringe during the Genosis battle.

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

Likewise when the prequels came out, I didn't like Phantom of the Menace and thought Attack of the Clones was better. Now, Phantom of the Menace is better than Attack of the Clones IMO. Revenge of the Sith is the best of the three.

Question: George Lucas is both writing and directing the movies, so what combination I ask is rendering Phantom Menace a redeemed film?

Originally I didn't like Phantom because of Jar Jar, kid Anakin acting (not the actor's fault) and the general plot.

Now, Attack of the Clones has similar issues as well. But overall, the script is not as good as Phantom, logically makes zero sense for Padma to fall in love and marry Anakin considering how he was in that movie. Lightsaber duel is less than the Duel of Fates one. Comedy elements like the use of R2 and C3PO was cringe during the Genosis battle.

I'm pretty forgiving of Jar Jar but I would take the two stooges over Jar Jar becoming a military commander any day of the day.

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

Question: George Lucas is both writing and directing the movies, so what combination I ask is rendering Phantom Menace a redeemed film?

I've honestly always liked Phantom Menace. Even back in the day I thought that some of the criticism was overly harsh, and having rewatched all three of the prequels I stand by that.

It's such a wildly inconsistent film. There's a lot of it that's straight 1* material, and then there's stuff like Duel of the Fates and the wonderful sounds that pod racers make as they corner that's legit excellent 5*, and on the whole it averages out to a film that I like more than I dislike.

Attack of the Clones though is just utterly wretched.

I appreciate Episode 1 more than Episode 3 because it puts a lot more substance into the story instead of hinging on the transition of Anakin to Vader. I feel like we learn much more about Vader from seeing Anakin in Episode 1 than Episode 3. Really though it's like the whole plot of Darth Maul hunting the squad is so bloated or pedestrian until the light saber fight -- and really that's the only consistent source of tension throughout the 2 hour movie.

[McAvoy]

Likewise when the prequels came out, I didn't like Phantom of the Menace and thought Attack of the Clones was better. Now, Phantom of the Menace is better than Attack of the Clones IMO. Revenge of the Sith is the best of the three.

Question: George Lucas is both writing and directing the movies, so what combination I ask is rendering Phantom Menace a redeemed film?

Originally I didn't like Phantom because of Jar Jar, kid Anakin acting (not the actor's fault) and the general plot.

Now, Attack of the Clones has similar issues as well. But overall, the script is not as good as Phantom, logically makes zero sense for Padma to fall in love and marry Anakin considering how he was in that movie. Lightsaber duel is less than the Duel of Fates one. Comedy elements like the use of R2 and C3PO was cringe during the Genosis battle.

I'm pretty forgiving of Jar Jar but I would take the two stooges over Jar Jar becoming a military commander any day of the day.

Actually I am not even though I favor Phantom over Attack of the Clones. His character and his antics were so out of left field. Slap stick comedy in a Star Wars movie.

There might be a day where a fan made edit could be made with a new CGI version of Jar Jar could be super imposed over him where he is far more serious. With new redubbed lines and I would all for it.

[hammerofglass]

To me Episodes 1 and 2 are bad but enjoyably bad. I can laugh at the cheesy dialog and the moon logic plots, and the actors are at least having fun with it.

I would put Episode 3 dead last for all the theatrical movies, including the one that's just three of the worst episodes of the Clone Wars cartoon stitched together. It's the only one where I'm so painfully bored I can't get through it in one sitting. Something about the execution just clunks and rubs me the wrong way, even though on paper it seems like I should love it.

[McAvoy]

Figured I should just rank it according to me.

Going by episode numbers: 5, 4, 6, 3, 1, 2.

As far as sequel trilogy I have to do a serious critique of how I would objectively feel about the movies in relation to the others. Like I would probably place 7 after 3. But 8 and 9 make it hard.

I don't like Last Jedi and Rise of Skywalker is just a mess. Objectively I would place 8 over 9 but where to place it between 1 and 2? I strongly detest both movies but I would watch Episode 1 and 2 over them even though objectively they are not good movies themselves. I also did not grow up with the Prequel Trilogy but the Original.

I would only rank 3 above 7 due to the culmination of Darth Vader and the Empire even if it's not that great either. 7 is just reread of 4 as we all know. Also 7 has its own issues as well.

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

To me Episodes 1 and 2 are bad but enjoyably bad. I can laugh at the cheesy dialog and the moon logic plots, and the actors are at least having fun with it.

I would put Episode 3 dead last for all the theatrical movies, including the one that's just three of the worst episodes of the Clone Wars cartoon stitched together. It's the only one where I'm so painfully bored I can't get through it in one sitting. Something about the execution just clunks and rubs me the wrong way, even though on paper it seems like I should love it.

I agree with your speculation oh so completely. Though I'm not a show fan, so I'm very satisfied with ep2. What i was going to tell Stryke (before you mentioned this), that I'm vaguely confident that the heaviest charges against the movie are the romance and (perhaps) the fact that it is what would be considered an episode movie of an otherwise show-based series (X-files or Star Trek). And really I like action in this movie more than either of the other two.

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

Really I'm watching the scene where Yoda pulls the X-wing out of the water, and I don't think it gets more concise than that.

"Not by a Jedi" is pretty good, ngl.