Ever notice that finales to movie trilogies generally suck?

True, this trend is being bucked, as evidenced by Jackson's "Return of the King" and Lucas's "Revenge of the Sith," but I can't recall any other successes.

Romero's "Day of the Dead" paled to his first two zombie flicks.
"Return of the Jedi" was a damn muppet show.
"Alien 3" was a disaster.

Any exceptions?

it won best picture!

It had to be published in three volumes for economic reasons. And it was made into 3 movies for other practical reasons. Although all three movies were filmed more or less simultaneously.

Even the Academy of Motion Pictures realized the fact. The first two movies didn't get as many Oscars as they deserved. But ROTK got every award it was up for!

I tried so hard to like it. I really did.

I too tried to like GF3 but could only watch it all the way through once.

:scared:

Blech.

The last of the Indiana Jones trilogy.

And "Excorcist III" was a hell of a lot better than "Excorcist II"

which was god-awful

However, I really liked Return of the Jedi.

Lucas's best editing was during the last 45 minutes of that work.

Couldn't agree with you more, seems' like the second Lucas took control of making the movies, (Episode I-V) the show really deteriorated, and if you compare the first four to the last 2 (ESB, and ROJ) you'll notice a large difference in the overall atmosphere and the seriousness that the characters emitted was really startling. You watch I-III and it makes you really mad that Lucas made them, the casting I thought was horrible, of course it was full of BS humor and childish good guy bad guy junk, they really were only driven by the glorious soundtracks by John Williams. Jedi was good, it closed the trilogy, and it really explained a lot of the holes in the story, just the darkness and the attitude that Luke and Palpatine displayed, it made the movie real. Then they went in, about 1996 maybe brightened the movies, put nothing but extra junk, made it look cool and charged us 50$ for the Special Edition.

Enough of my editorials, Jedi and Empire Strikes Back are the best movies out of the saga, and thats because Lucas didn't direct them, and for some reason, the acting and the script seemed more professional in both films. Now, do we have to go into ROS or AOC, man the acting was just bad, Natalie, go away, young man with mullet, your not darth vader, you can't act, you can't fake a cry, you can't act frustrated without making the audience choke. I feel sorry for the actors and the crew that made that last film (Revenge of the Sith) because Lucas ruined it, if you listen to the DVD commentary (I only rented it through netflix, wouldn't waste my money on any of the newer 3 films) you hear the lighting, animation and other specialists snickering about the extra silly stuff they thought was doing an injustice to the serious fan. Good for them, maybe you should of shot Lucas.

End of story.

The resolutions were too tidy, the performances were wretched (Ford was obviously bored; Fisher was drugged up...and was honest enough to admit it); the plot was derivative (another Death Star?); and the humour was juvenile.

"Revenge of the Sith," on the other hand, was labyrinthine, operatic, and boasted the best ensemble effort since "Empire."

The years have not been kind to Episode VI; but "Sith" is already being heralded the second best of the series.

And Hayden Christiansen is a future Hollywood Walk of Famer....that'd be the day.

The only two good actors that came through and performed well throughout the saga were:
-Sir Alec Guinness
-Ian McDiarmid

They made star wars what it is....and Anthony Daniels and Frank Oz along with Peter Mayhew and Kenny Baker, the latter being the guy's who never got the fame they deserved, poor Kenny stuck in that original R2-D2 tin can, and Peter in that walking carpet costume. You got to hand it to the originals, the guys who made star wars a cult and not an artifact.

If your old enough to appreciate good music, you'd choose John's Jedi Score over the Sith score. Sith was so dramatic, and oh we have to try and make it seem so ooy gooy loud and scary. Jedi, it was dark, mysterious and we had the good ole fashion jedi undertheme going throuhout the score. Sith, well they just tried so hard to fill every gap in the diolouge with music that it became sad and depressing, and I'd almost rather take natilie and anikan love lines over repititive music.

However bad that may be, Anikan/Natile love lines, and i love you and i won't leave you, and hold me like you did on the lake on our honeymoon, AHHHHH! I CAN'T STAND EVEN TYPING IT! JAR JAR IS FAR LESS ANNOYING!

Four points:

1. I listen to the sextet religiously, and save for "The Emperor's Theme," and the eerie chorus that accompanies Luke's assault on his father, I've heard nothing from the "Jedi" soundtrack that compares to the subdued work found in "Padme's Ruminations," "Anakin's Dream," and "Anakin's Immolation."

2. The Jedi theme you refer to echoes in several junctures of this prequel film.

3. Considering the subject matter (Faustian bargains; ascending dictatorships), bravado is entirely apropos...and you can't do better than Williams's brilliant intercutting of "Duel of the Fates" with "Battle of the Heroes."

4. Lucas is certainly no master wordsmith, but this is space opera, so there is nothing offensive about a line like "Anakin, you're breaking my heart" if delivered with conviction. And Portman, for the most part, does (unlike her pitiful work in "Clones"). If you're looking for a more textured love story, I suggest "The Unbearable Lightness of Being" or "Wings of Desire."

Your literally breaking my heart here, the only men who made the movies what they were, and I'll back track because I thought you'd agree were: Sir Alec Guinness and Ian McDermind, accompanied by Peter,Kenny,Anthony and frank oz, the men that stuck it out in all 6 (really 3 movies, the latter 4 were basically stripped of their roles thanks to "The Great Invention of Digital Film".

Somehow, leia evolved from Padma`, I don't buy it, Padma` is about as smooth and girlie as they come (with exception to the AOTC in the gladiator setting that was a joke), and then flash forward 30 years ahead and you have a tough, exceptionally gruff princess leia who just seemed like a leader. And what's with cutting Mon Motha out of the story? How are we ever going to see the rise of the rebellion without Mon Motha? Maybe I didn't see her, I was asleep half of the 3 films I drug myself to patronize.

the plots of 4-6 were cheesy, but they had enough of a sense of fun that we could forgive them that.

the plot in Sith tried to be operatic and tragic, but instead it was just like "WTF?" The acting was terrible and the plot was incomprehensible (he went over to the dark side in order to save her? HUH???). 1-3 were all about special effects. I thought Sith was better than 1 and 2, but not by much. Like, a fight inside an erupting volcano? LOTR much????

I though "Sith" was pretty good. I really disliked Episodes 1 and 2 and was was surprised at how much I liked Episode 3. I agree with DerekG that the only SW movie that's better is "Empire Strikes Back". Also, the fight wasn't in a volcano but on a volcanic planet and that's what the story had been since day one. In the print version of the original star wars book (1976), It has Darth Vader remembering the hot lava and pain he experienced at the volcano.

In Episode I, he lost his surrogate father; in Episode II, he watched the prophecy of his mother's death materialize. Naturally, after enduring several premonitions, he would do anything to ensure that his family escaped the same fate. Since his Jedi abilities were insufficient, he took Palpatine's advice--to explore the Force in all its facets. Not a hard choice, since he had no love for the corrupt Jedi Order, and harbored utopian desires analogous to Palpatine's. Sad to say, this bargain cost him his soul.

but it seemed like he was just a total sucker going against all his friends and family to pursue the dark side.

His embracing the dark side seemed really random.

come on, put aside the story and the movie, I'd like to see the two go at it in the studio (in real life), Lucas added all the hokey moves and crap in the newer movies, I noticed though no one tried to just stab or poke, they let up their guard so much, I'd just run up to Hayden do a couple corner cuts, then go for his naval in one thrust and he wouldn't know what hit him! Hamill could of kicked his ass.

So could Leia, Han Solo, R2D2, C3PO, and any random Ewok.

He was that pathetic.

Christianson was a joke, he's a kid, and whats with Ewan Mcgregor trying to get the british accent, he can't do it, you can't play alec guinness, he was the best, the best in River Kwai, Lawrence of Arabia and Star wars, there. Now derek you stay away from my man, he's a better actor than any star wars actor EVER! He had a working career, he was KNIGHTED!

converteeeeeeeerrrrrs.

LOL at the Luke Skywalker whine.

But I hear you though, they really did fuck up that Darth Vader mystique a little didn't they? I mean come on, the guy is gonna grow up to be the biggest meanest baddest mo-fo in the galaxy, and everyone calls him "Annie"

:spray:

There's some connections to be made, and Lucas made it that way so he could make "Annie" seem young and impatient just like his son would be. Remember in the aboninible movie The Phantom Menace? "Annie" was a little testy, he wanted it his way, all the time, it was all about playing with his pals....well there's that same kinship and freindlieness with Luke too, except in the original trilogy it seemed like Luke was much better of a pilot and he certainly was more of a people person, he flew with ordinary guys, he was an ordinary character, its so much more easier to feel guilty or shaken by an ordinary kid than some smart-ass Sith wannabee like "Annie" man, I'm not usually this way moderators don't punish me, but I've really severed my love of the Lucas brand, and more of a renegade, kids these days are growing up to like and favor Jar Jar binks over Han Solo, and young boys are doing what young boys over a poor actress named Natilie! Come on,


Like how hamill could beat his father (hayden) in a lightsaber fight, Leia could kick natilies but in a blaster fight too, or even a mud wrestling if your really looking for some proof. The thing is, Portmans' character is a wannabee rebel, wannabee SENATOR, well she's a queen, I hate to tell ya lucas, but even after the third installment I still thought of her dressed in that drag costume from Phantom Menace, leia, she's got the character, she's tough, and look, I'm calling her leia not Carrie, you know why? Because carrie did such a good job, I didn't even know her name until it was over and I was waiting for a 4th movie after Jedi! Or actually when I saw her in Blues Brothers.

I actually liked it, but not enough to go see it twice.

Nope. Not so much the exception, but the glaring example.

Not to say that Smokey I and Smokey II were worthy of tiny, shiny statues.

I know many would disagree with me but I thought it was a fine ending to one of the greatest trilogies ever.

I might say Star Trek III, but a) it's not really a trilogy, and b) it's not that much of an exception, but it is probably as good as #2.

...Listen up you primates, this is my BOOM stick!!

this movie kills me everytime.