Clone wars (not a popular choice clearly but I actually like it best of the prequels for the full on Jedi action at the end)
TPM (has its flaws but love the end sequence)
TLJ (might improve on rewatch)
Sith - really just bloody awful
You mean Attack of the Clones? It certainly is the best of the prequels.; I saw it twice in cinema (the second time mainly out of boredom).
I’m biased by having seen Rogue One most recently - I loved that film. It’s just as enjoyable as much of the OT for me. It doesn’t really let up or get bogged down in anything boring. The designs are beautiful and although we didn’t know much about the characters, I wanted to so was saddened by their deaths.
Just that it’s a mess, and perhaps due to studio interference. I think it’s a pretty solid movie for a bit and starting with the sniper scene it becomes legitimately muddled and bad in a way that no other Star Wars film does. Even though most Star Wars films are kind of bad, none of the other ones go off the rails like that. Suicide Squad is the movie it reminds me the most of.
It has nothing to do with being “edgy”, although I guess there is a bit of that and I don’t think a Star Wars movie needed to be so grim (Sith is my least favorite).
The anthology movies should experiment with tone and genre or else there’s no point in making them. The grimness was fine with me as it made sense for the war story they were telling. As for being muddled, it’s no more muddled message-wise than Luke wanting to redeem Vader but being A-OK with slaughtering Stormtroopers and Jabba’s bodyguards. Rogue One’s ideas came through fine, same way the OT’s themes of hope and redemption came through. (Now that I think of it, I’d say the same’s true of TLJ.)
The edgy comment was solely about what I didn’t like about Suicide Squad. I don’t think Rogue One was trying to be edgy (it’s too melancholy for that) and didn’t think that’s why you compared the two.
I get that, but he didn’t go to nearly as much effort to avoid killing his other enemies. Saving his dad was as much personal as it was philosophical for him. If ROTJ came out today that would totally be picked apart as an inconsistency. I don’t think it matters, though–like I said, the OT’s themes are clear.
Luke knew he couldn’t defeat the Emperor without his fathers help, and he knew the Emperor would tear the galaxy and the Rebellion apart to find him.
In surrendering himself he gives himself up to be killed unless he can convince his father to turn. It’s a huge gamble and self sacrifice on Luke’s part. Redeeming Vader was neither political or philosophical, it was his only strategy.
This is an interesting take. As movie lines are becoming brands, and many different movies set in the same universe look to becoming commonplace (Potter, Star Wars, Marvel, DC and maybe we’ll see the same with Game of Thrones), the question is should these sister movies all be similar in tone or quite different. Can they appeal to different audiences, and is that a smart move or does it weaken the line?
I feel they should be the same, a dependable brand like we saw with animated movie lines for decades (Disney classics, Dreamworks, Pixar).
I think if they’re the same, then audiences will tire of them. There should be a recognizable Star Wars core to all the films; I’m not saying the movies need to be experimental to the point of being Star Wars in name only. But for this “one Star Wars movie a year” strategy to work, they’ve got to diversify their offerings. That’s what Marvel does, although I’d like Star Wars to take it even further as there’s more room in Star Wars for all sorts of genre fare. I’d love to see a Star Wars noir film. Ideally, that’s what an Obi-Wan solo movie would be–the Obi-Wan scenes from AOTC but with a better story.
These are good points, but I’m talking more about a character inconsistency than a tactical one. It was strategically sound to turn Vader as that’s what got rid of the Emperor, but there’s never the sense that Luke looks for the good in his other enemies. And his dad’s a genocidal despot, whereas the other people he kills are just grunts.
Now, I love the Vader/Luke scenes in ROTJ. Emotionally, they’re the high point of the entire series, new movies included. I think it’s clear what the OT was going for thematically and inconsistencies in how Luke sees his dad vs. how he sees other bad guys don’t add up to anything major. Which is how I see inconsistencies in Rogue One and TLJ.
There’s not many scenes to work with, but when he confronts Jabba he offers to pay for Solo and the Wookie first, rather than going in lightsaber blazing. He offers Jabba one last chance for peace when standing over the Sarlacc pit. And when he’s in Endor captured by the Ewoks and about to be put on a fire he uses his mind powers to subdue them rather than making Ewok shish kabob. Post Empire Strikes Back his strategy is typically peace first, war second.