JD10367 on 05-09-2007 at 09:37 AM said:It's actually a simple discussion. It boils down to this: the bigger the director, the less he listens to people. Who was going to tell Lucas that the Ewoks were a bad idea, or that Jar-Jar Binks should've been CTL-ALT-DEL? The same reason no one told the W Brothers to make the last two "Matrix" films without so much talking, or why no one told Tarantino that the half-hour of chick-conversation at the front of "Death Proof" wasn't necessary.
The last film was good only because it finished showing the genesis of Vader. But after "Empire" the three that followed were weak. The aforementioned Ewoks and Jar-Jar; too many goofy things (WTF was up with the two-headed announcer in the podrace in "Phantom Menace" doing the homey-girl side-to-side thing?); too many trips to the same well (e.g. the podrace = the speederbike chase in "Return Of The Jedi"); the incredibly pretentious and bad dialogue written for poor Natalie Portman.
You also have the inherent sequel dilemma. The first of anything is always the best because it's fresh and new. The ones that follow are usually just an attempt to cash in. If they're not, then usually they're just "more of the same" from the first film. There have been rare exceptions to this: "Empire" was excellent, and I'd put "Wrath Of Khan" in there as well. But, by and large, when it comes to sequels they're just not as 'fresh' as the original.
I would rank them:
1.) "Star Wars"
Bradys Bunch on 05-09-2007 at 10:41 AM said:I have to disagree, I just love Return of the Jedi the best. You get to see Luke as finally reaching his potential and it has the best lightsaber fights of the three originals. I just love seeing as the Emporer attempts to turn Luke to the Dark Side and Luke trying to turn Vader to the Light Side of the Force. To me, Luke has every reason to turn to the Dark side (his father, Obi wan and Yoda lieing to him) but Luke doesn't which has always made him my favorite Jedi. Oh god my geek sensors just go crazy thinking about it!