Attack of the Clones is a great Star Wars movie!

Joined
Feb 11, 2010
Messages
4,128
Reaction score
3
Can't watch it without Rifftrax. Just a dull, poorly made slog of a movie.
 
Joined
May 9, 2005
Messages
30,723
Reaction score
34
I always hated Yoda with a lightsaber. I really feel like it brought him down to a pedestrian level. Yoda is above physicality, portraying him (at that age) as physical opposition undermines the wisdom of his force mantras. Seeing him ignite his saber just comes across shallow, then having him suddenly have this spurt of cartoonish bodily energy, jumping off walls and flipping and kicking around, just (for me) really deteriorates the established character. In my mind’s eye, I always imagined a force battle. Giving a character that powerful a lightsaber is like strapping a machine gun to a nuclear warhead. It’s tacky and misses the point…
Maybe it's just your narrow dogmatic view of things? I can totally understand your opinion towards how you feel Yoda should be, and I feel the same for the most part. But once you bring out the Emperor to to fight him, what would you have him do? There's only so much someone can not do in a physical altercation with an opponent. Lightning versus lightning, Lightsaber versus Lightsaber, etc. The right tool for the right job.
You might as well just portray him as a nonviolent Monk who would simply lay down and die before lifting a sword.
 
Joined
May 10, 2018
Messages
1,229
Reaction score
25
Maybe it's just your narrow dogmatic view of things? I can totally understand your opinion towards how you feel Yoda should be, and I feel the same for the most part. But once you bring out the Emperor to to fight him, what would you have him do? There's only so much someone can not do in a physical altercation with an opponent. Lightning versus lightning, Lightsaber versus Lightsaber, etc. The right tool for the right job.
You might as well just portray him as a nonviolent Monk who would simply lay down and die before lifting a sword.
The above sounds more "dogmatic" to me, to be honest. Not every Jedi has to be proficient with a saber.

Instead, why not have Yoda use his environment as his defence against Palpatine? He's clearly powerful in that respect, he can lift X-Wings out of Dagobah swamps. Or, better yet, write the story so that he doesn't get into a silly looking lightsaber fight at all?
 
Joined
May 9, 2005
Messages
30,723
Reaction score
34
That's really the point of it all though isn't it. Not how we see a character's failing, it's the writer's failings.

It has already been stated the a Lightsaber is a Jedi's life, by Obi-wan himself. It can also be used as a tool in many ways, more than just killing or maiming. So why would anyone abandon it altogether? Sure Yoda could have opted not to use the Saber, but Palatine's would have cut through anything he used as a defensive block.
Yes, in the EU there were Jedi who were not proficient in Saber tactics. I think they were called Healers or Librarians. But that doesn't make for very good screen candy, which is what GL was looking for. Otherwise we would have gotten 2000 Lightsaber battles.

It really just goes to show how much finesse was truly need to make those movies more than just superficial fluff.
 
Joined
May 10, 2018
Messages
1,229
Reaction score
25
It has already been stated the a Lightsaber is a Jedi's life, by Obi-wan himself.
Was it? I can't remember.

It can also be used as a tool in many ways, more than just killing or maiming. So why would anyone abandon it altogether? Sure Yoda could have opted not to use the Saber, but Palatine's would have cut through anything he used as a defensive block.
Why do all Jedi have to have one though? That's makes no sense to me and I find it rather limiting too. Believe it or not, most knights in feudal times weren't sword wielders or proficient with a blade when they were. It would have been wise to extend that to something like the Jedi order, especially when "wars do not make one great".

Yes, in the EU there were Jedi who were not proficient in Saber tactics. I think they were called Healers or Librarians. But that doesn't make for very good screen candy, which is what GL was looking for. Otherwise we would have gotten 2000 Lightsaber battles.
Don't really know that much EU stuff, but that would make a lot of sense. No, it wouldn't make for "good screen candy", but neither did Yoda's lipstick lightsaber and his ridiculous looking fight. People were laughing in the cinema. It was a farce.

It really just goes to show how much finesse was truly need to make those movies more than just superficial fluff.
Absolutely.

It also goes to show that, in many cases, CGI allows too much stupid to shine through, where practical effects can do an awful lot to restrain it.
 
Last edited:
Joined
May 9, 2005
Messages
30,723
Reaction score
34
I actually meant "wouldn't" make good screen candy, but I type too fast.
 
Joined
Oct 17, 2018
Messages
47
Reaction score
0
The above sounds more "dogmatic" to me, to be honest. Not every Jedi has to be proficient with a saber.

Instead, why not have Yoda use his environment as his defence against Palpatine? He's clearly powerful in that respect, he can lift X-Wings out of Dagobah swamps. Or, better yet, write the story so that he doesn't get into a silly looking lightsaber fight at all?
At the beginning of Yoda’s fight with Palpatine both Of them caught each other off guard with powerful force attacks. First Palpatine blasted Yoda with double “ultimate power” dark side lightening hands. Then Yoda recouped and knocked Palpatine across his room with a large Force push. I always thought once they did that to each other, each would be on guard against another force attack like that, which is why they didn’t attempt it again right away.
Palpatine then tried to run, realizing that he was at a disadvantage against Yoda’s lightsaber skills, so he led Yoda in to the Senate chair where the close combat would make it more difficult for Yoda to leap around him.

You suggested, why wouldn’t Yoda use the force against Palpatine in their fight? The answer is that Yoda believes he and Palpatine are both equal in force attacks and defense. So Yoda realizes he has an advantage with his blade, and decides to take on Siddeous in a lightsaber duel. Palpatine presses his advantage with his force skills and starts throwing the Senate at him. Yoda then realizes he’s outclassed against this True Master of the Dark Side and after force spinning and throwing a Senate platform back at Siddeous to catch him off guard and close the gap again with his blade, he goes in for the kill. That’s when Yoda jumps back to The Supreme Chancoller’s Risen platform. Shortly after Palpatine unleashes another powerful double lightening attack against Yoda, and despite his best effort to defend against it, he’s knocked back, injured after his long fall and forced to retreat. It’s at that moment that Yoda realizes he’s not strong enough to beat a true Master of the Dark Side. Maybe when Yoda was younger, perhaps he could. But, not now. Fast forward to Return of the Jedi when Yoda tells Luke to not underestimate the powers of the Emperor, or suffer your fathers fate, you will.

So, to me it’s pretty obvious that Yoda was outclassed the whole time. Sure Palpatine was at a slight disadvantage with his blade, and that’s why Yoda switched to his lightsaber attack. But, Palpatine was clearly more powerful with the Dark Side, then Yoda was with the Force. I think the battle made perfect sense, and was one of the highlights in all of the prequels.
 
Joined
May 10, 2018
Messages
1,229
Reaction score
25
Whatever lad. We can waffle on about for the next week. It won't change anything.
 
Joined
Jul 15, 2000
Messages
1,589
Reaction score
4
At the beginning of Yoda’s fight with Palpatine both Of them caught each other off guard with powerful force attacks. First Palpatine blasted Yoda with double “ultimate power” dark side lightening hands. Then Yoda recouped and knocked Palpatine across his room with a large Force push. I always thought once they did that to each other, each would be on guard against another force attack like that, which is why they didn’t attempt it again right away.
Palpatine then tried to run, realizing that he was at a disadvantage against Yoda’s lightsaber skills, so he led Yoda in to the Senate chair where the close combat would make it more difficult for Yoda to leap around him.

You suggested, why wouldn’t Yoda use the force against Palpatine in their fight? The answer is that Yoda believes he and Palpatine are both equal in force attacks and defense. So Yoda realizes he has an advantage with his blade, and decides to take on Siddeous in a lightsaber duel. Palpatine presses his advantage with his force skills and starts throwing the Senate at him. Yoda then realizes he’s outclassed against this True Master of the Dark Side and after force spinning and throwing a Senate platform back at Siddeous to catch him off guard and close the gap again with his blade, he goes in for the kill. That’s when Yoda jumps back to The Supreme Chancoller’s Risen platform. Shortly after Palpatine unleashes another powerful double lightening attack against Yoda, and despite his best effort to defend against it, he’s knocked back, injured after his long fall and forced to retreat. It’s at that moment that Yoda realizes he’s not strong enough to beat a true Master of the Dark Side. Maybe when Yoda was younger, perhaps he could. But, not now. Fast forward to Return of the Jedi when Yoda tells Luke to not underestimate the powers of the Emperor, or suffer your fathers fate, you will.

So, to me it’s pretty obvious that Yoda was outclassed the whole time. Sure Palpatine was at a slight disadvantage with his blade, and that’s why Yoda switched to his lightsaber attack. But, Palpatine was clearly more powerful with the Dark Side, then Yoda was with the Force. I think the battle made perfect sense, and was one of the highlights in all of the prequels.
Right on brother! Awesome post!
It amazes me how people just jump on bandwagons even when they don't understand what they are talking about. Everything was there in the movie and people's blind hatred don't allow them to see it.
 
Joined
Oct 17, 2018
Messages
47
Reaction score
0
Right on brother! Awesome post!
It amazes me how people just jump on bandwagons even when they don't understand what they are talking about. Everything was there in the movie and people's blind hatred don't allow them to see it.
Thanks man! I love Revenge of The Sith. It’s really a brilliant movie. It’s over taken Empire as my favorite Star Wars Film. Sadly, many old school fans think it’s cooler to crap all over the prequels, than to see their true beauty. Despite their flaws, Lucas added so much brialliance to the Star Wars mythos. They may not be what every fan’s want, but that doesn’t mean they’re not good.

Which is why I’ve found a whole new enjoyment out of Attack of The Clones actually. Look at it this way. You get the beginning of The Clone Wars, and the fall of the Jedi that culminates in Revenge of The Sith. I look at it as one really long movie with 3 parts.
 
Joined
May 10, 2018
Messages
1,229
Reaction score
25
Right on brother! Awesome post!
It amazes me how people just jump on bandwagons even when they don't understand what they are talking about. Everything was there in the movie and people's blind hatred don't allow them to see it.
It's not about "bandwagons", an ability to "understand", or "blind hatred".

It's about the aesthetic of a given scene and a character within, plus decisions in writing and where they lead.

When people are laughing at a supposed dramatic interlude, there is something very wrong. All the excuses in the world can be conjured up for Yoda's crazy frog antics. But, it still looks absolutely RIDICULOUS.
 
Joined
Oct 17, 2018
Messages
47
Reaction score
0
It's not about "bandwagons", an ability to "understand", or "blind hatred".

It's about the aesthetic of a given scene and a character within, plus decisions in writing and where they lead.

When people are laughing at a supposed dramatic interlude, there is something very wrong. All the excuses in the world can be conjured up for Yoda's crazy frog antics. But, it still looks absolutely RIDICULOUS.
Again. Still just your negative opinion.

However, what is intersting is last week I scoured through pages and pages of your posts to find ANY positive comments about anything in Star Wars. Sadly, I found only one which wasn’t even that positive. It was a mention of buying more Star Wars Black figures which you collect. I think somebody just needs to give you a hug man.
 
Joined
May 10, 2018
Messages
1,229
Reaction score
25
Again. Still just your negative opinion.
That doesn't cancel anything out.

However, what is intersting is last week I scoured through pages and pages of your posts to find ANY positive comments about anything in Star Wars. Sadly, I found only one which wasn’t even that positive. It was a mention of buying more Star Wars Black figures which you collect. I think somebody just needs to give you a hug man.
I'm delighted you have so much free time to waste. :grin: Good for you.
 
Joined
Oct 17, 2018
Messages
47
Reaction score
0
That doesn't cancel anything out.
I’m just clarifying that it’s your opinion, and not a fact.


I'm delighted you have so much free time to waste. :grin: Good for you.
I find it very hard to believe that something could “delight” you. Clearly your a droid posing as a human. Somebody needs to remove that negative droid restraining bolt. Come on, you know you want to remove it.
 
Last edited:
Joined
May 10, 2018
Messages
1,229
Reaction score
25
I’m just clarifying that it’s your opinion, and not a fact.
Saying "it's your opinion" is the most redundant thing someone could say in any discussion. Discussions are the exchange of ideas and positions. Stating that someone is proffering an opinion is utterly useless, when every position in a discussion is stemmed from one's opinion. It doesn't nullify what's being said. It doesn't strengthen an argument. It doesn't do anything. It's like saying the sun is hot.

I'll qualify the statement, especially for you as you're having such a problem with it...the fact is, to me, it looks ridiculous.

I find it very hard to believe that something could “delight” you.
I couldn't care less.
 
Joined
Nov 25, 2018
Messages
60
Reaction score
0
Thanks man! I love Revenge of The Sith. It’s really a brilliant movie. It’s over taken Empire as my favorite Star Wars Film.
I hate to admit it, Man, but I am a sucker for the OT. Being a true Star Wars fan, I have gained an appreciation however for the new ones. ESB is still my favorite, but I still enjoy ROTS.

Sadly, many old school fans think it’s cooler to crap all over the prequels, than to see their true beauty. Despite their flaws, Lucas added so much brialliance to the Star Wars mythos. They may not be what every fan’s want, but that doesn’t mean they’re not good.
I agree. I like the new ones too. Since I am a fan of the OT however, what I would do if I met someone who has never seen any Star Wars movies EVER, is I would still tell them to watch the OT first! That way the shock of Vader revealing to Luke that he is his father doesn’t lose its “surprise ending” luster! But I still wouldn’t talk them out of the prequel trilogy! I would tell them:

Watch 4, 5, and 6 1st, then watch 1, 2, and 3.
 
Joined
May 9, 2005
Messages
30,723
Reaction score
34
Some people simply didn't like anything silly in Star Wars, despite the fact the OT was rife with it...

When you manufacture a pedestal for something you like, nothing else will ever compare.
 
Joined
Aug 18, 2006
Messages
5,570
Reaction score
16
the OT was not rife with silliness -- only ROTJ.
I draw a line between "the OT" and "ROTJ" -- no matter what the "Boxed Set" fan says*
I don't consider ROTJ to be in the same film-making "category" as SW and ESB. (why? because:Kurtz).



[IMO] we need to stop stereotyping OG fans as "OT" fans.
those people, we refer to as "OT" fans .. they are really just victims of the Boxed Set mentality.
in light of the "Boxed Set", they can't see the movies as separate entities unto themselves. it's impossible.
they divide SW into "OT", "PT" and "ST" (and judge accordingly).

* they are "BS" fans. :p (boxed set) LOL
(they beLIEve the 'quantum of SW' is the "trilogy boxed set"; forgetting that these are individual films, unto themselves; with NO PLAN for an actual "trilogy" -- JJ, I'm looking at YOU).
they can't seem to separate ESB from ROTJ (despite the difference in tone; production quality; writing; directing; humor; everything; etc).



me? I adore SW and ESB but I can't stand ROTJ. I am not an "OT" fan (nor a "BS" fan) :p
I am a Star Wars fan. I see them all as separate movies.

^^ and in THAT light: ROTJ has very little in common with ESB at all -- except for the cast -- its a Gong Show. :rolleyes:
(it was very "silly" indeed -- but this should NOT reflect on the original SW&ESB, simply because they were all sold in the same "box"(!?)LOL)
(that's silly) LOL :p




in the end,
we can't say : "...the OT was rife with silliness" -- (it's just NOT true) -- this is a generalization based on stereotype.

but to say "...ROTJ was rife with silliness"(?) -- (now this IS a true statement) -- it's got nothing to do with "OT" generalizations.
it's a separate movie. (it's a Gong Show). Unto. Itself. :p LOL

cheers!
 
Last edited:
Joined
Aug 26, 2010
Messages
6,441
Reaction score
43
I tend to look at the trilogies at subsets without breaking out the individual films. Part of me has hard time putting any of the PT films above the significance of the OT films. For example as whole I'd say enjoyed AOTC more than ROTJ. But how in the world do I put AOTC above the "moments" of ROTJ. Weird, I know.

The easy answer for me when I asked "list the movies in order of preference" I just say OT, PT, Rogue One, Solo.

If I really broke it down:
ESB
ANH
Rogue One
ROTS
AOTC
Solo
ROTJ
TPM
(I'd say it's really a three way tie between Solo, TPM and ROTJ. I loved them all but there has to be a bottom of the list).

It's also difficult for me to say anything bad about TPM - the hype was so much fun, the trailer brought tears and it was just an amazing time.

I'd say my excitement for TFA was just as high or even more than TPM. Again the trailers were just amazing and I was so happy to have a Star Wars movie in the theater to share with my wife, children and brother. I adored TFA. "Luke Skywalker has vanished..." and the tears were creeping up in my eyes again lol. TLJ killed all of that. The Saga ended with that last beautiful and emotionally moving shot of TFA.
 
Joined
Aug 18, 2006
Messages
5,570
Reaction score
16
I agree it's much easier to separate the ST into individual films. by the end of it, RJ's movie will stick out like a sore thumb. LOL



when it comes to TPM, I found it hilarious that people were so shocked/annoyed/angry at the "silly" aspects of the film (which had already been established by ROTJ):

they didn't like the slapstick gungan battle (the slapstick "ewok" battle was worse);
they didn't like the "Yippee!" (but they accept the Tarzan Yell);
they didn't like the "blood disease" nature of the force (but they had no problem with "I have it; my father has it; my sister has it, and my great aunt tessie... on my mother's side...")

^^the force was ALREADY a blood disease, starting with ROTJ!! LOL!! but, for some reason, nobody noticed (or cared).
it was almost as if, somehow, ROTj got a "free pass", JUST for being in the same "boxed set" as the original SW!!> LOL :wtf:

(read: the "generalizations" go BOTH ways!!) :awesome: (it somehow gets "lumped" into a category, with the 2 greatest movies of all time...
....when it ACTUALLY has MORE in common, with the Much-Maligned TPM!!) LOL [/irony]
 
Last edited:
Joined
Nov 25, 2018
Messages
60
Reaction score
0
I just decided to watch all of the prequels again, and I can’t stop thinking about how they don’t get enough respect from Star Wars fans. I remember watching Attack of the Clones in the theater, and hearing the cheers from fans when Yoda confronted Count Dooku.

There were so many great moments in the film including seeing Mace Windu in action, Obi Wan Kenobi hunting down Jango Fett, the Battle of Geonosis and the Clones, the start of Anakin Skywalker’s turn toward the dark side, the start of The Clone Wars, and watching Ewan Mcgregor show the development of Obi Wan Kenobi in to a Jedi Master.

I think it’s a vastly underrated film, and it leads to one of my favorite Star Wara films, Revenge of The Sith.

Are there any other fans of Attack of The Clones?
I am partial to the original trilogy myself, but I am not a “hater” of the prequels either. The OT was better, but the PT did have it’s good points.

One thing that I have always been curious about: what was the age difference between Padme and Anakin? I knew she was older, but by how much? Since Natalie Portman portrayed her in the whole PT, but a younger child portrayed Anakin originally in TPM before Hayden Christiansen, AND she was a queen and stuff in TPM, just what exactly was their age difference supposed to be? I’ve always wondered that.

You are right about AOTC! It was done pretty well.
 
Joined
May 9, 2005
Messages
30,723
Reaction score
34
And?
This wasn't an issue until somewhat recent in the current age of Humankind.
 
Joined
Aug 18, 2006
Messages
5,570
Reaction score
16
they never hooked up in TPM -- they hooked up in AOTC.
he was 19 and she was 24 -- I don't think that was ever an issue.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Sep 16, 2011
Messages
2,246
Reaction score
34
I wouldn't say ALL the OT is devoid of goofiness. I mean, let's be honest here, the Jawa sequence is fairly whimsical. Gonk's alone are just downright silly, but I adore them. Empire is certainly the least cartoonish, I can't really peg a moment of cartoonishness in that one, but I don't think it's JUST ROTJ that has some silly moments.
 
Joined
Aug 26, 2010
Messages
6,441
Reaction score
43
I guess I could see that. My wife is 4 years older than me. Age doesn’t make a difference. I am more curious how a 14 year old can become a queen. Hmmmmmm???????
Because it's a fictional movie. How can 9 year old pilot a starship?
 
Joined
Jan 31, 2011
Messages
1,036
Reaction score
7
I guess I could see that. My wife is 4 years older than me. Age doesn’t make a difference. I am more curious how a 14 year old can become a queen. Hmmmmmm???????
TPM was full of real-world references.

Amidala’s narrative in TPM was loosely based on a young teen Hawaiian princess who was manipulated, and forced to abdicate her throne by her ambitious councillors. (George should have kept Amidala as a child monarch. The whole concept of an elected teen girl is just an awful idea that someone should have told him "NO!". And these dumb Naboo people just keep on electing teen girls to rule over them... Yikes...) It’s these sorts of references that make TPM so much more sophisticated— at least in concept than any of the episodes after it. It’s as if the backlash against the film just had George give up on any semblance of rich culture and sophistication and just give the mob their bounty hunters, arena beasts and juvenile videogame-attired vixens.

I’ll always stan TPM above and beyond it’s much-maligned— and undeserved standing. Jar Jar is art next to Finn.
 
Joined
May 9, 2005
Messages
30,723
Reaction score
34
Wouldn't be the first time a Child King was just a puppet, while all the real power was held by those "supposedly" guiding him. We all already know that GL can take good ideas, and turn around to write like crap. Writing and Directing aren't really his strong suit at all, he's got 5 Movies to attest to that fact! if it weren't for the talent in the movies, it could have all ended very quickly.
 
Joined
Oct 17, 2018
Messages
47
Reaction score
0
Wouldn't be the first time a Child King was just a puppet, while all the real power was held by those "supposedly" guiding him. We all already know that GL can take good ideas, and turn around to write like crap. Writing and Directing aren't really his strong suit at all, he's got 5 Movies to attest to that fact! if it weren't for the talent in the movies, it could have all ended very quickly.
I’m not sure your whole critique is fair. I think George Lucas is a great director. If I were to critique anything, it would be his writing. But, even that is debatable. He was going for a different feel in his dialogue to set his universe apart from the real world. So, it almost seemed like Padame was this regal monarch from the Victorian era. However, Film is art and people like to critique.....So More critisiscsm in 3...2....1
 

GNT

Moderator
Joined
May 18, 2000
Messages
70,319
Reaction score
18
I guess I could see that. My wife is 4 years older than me. Age doesn’t make a difference. I am more curious how a 14 year old can become a queen. Hmmmmmm???????
If it was similar to the British monarchy, where the parent dies and next in line takes over I could see that as a plausible reason. However thinking about it (and never given it much thought in 19 years) electing a 14 year old to rule a planet is pretty stupid sounding :\

I think George Lucas is a great director. If I were to critique anything, it would be his writing.
I would like to say George is a good director but his not really, he does ok and knows how to tell a story from start to end but I wouldn't say his the greatest. George is more of an ideas type of guy, he has a vision of what he wants and he was fortunate to be able to get it made.
 
Joined
Oct 17, 2018
Messages
47
Reaction score
0
If it was similar to the British monarchy, where the parent dies and next in line takes over I could see that as a plausible reason. However thinking about it (and never given it much thought in 19 years) electing a 14 year old to rule a planet is pretty stupid sounding :\



I would like to say George is a good director but his not really, he does ok and knows how to tell a story from start to end but I wouldn't say his the greatest. George is more of an ideas type of guy, he has a vision of what he wants and he was fortunate to be able to get it made.
Come to think of it, your right. He’s not great, but he’s pretty good. He knows how to pace a film, write a good story, and one of his strengths is his editing. His movies always flow well. But, he does have his faults. I think Great was a poor choice of words.
 
Joined
Aug 21, 2010
Messages
591
Reaction score
0
The only thing I dont like about the prequels is the switch from film to digital. It seems like the acting in Episode 1 was better then the second and third films. I wonder if it had to do with this change, or if George gave so little direction to his actors. George doesnt strike me as a people person.

Prequels are still really awesome in my opinion.
 
Joined
Sep 5, 2015
Messages
2,800
Reaction score
29
George is truly a visionary man, with a lot of great ideas, but he needs some around him that dare go against him and give him a bit of resistance, so to speak.
The prequels lack that and it shows, unfortunately.
However I will say they do have the Star Wars feel and I "blame" that on George :)
 
Joined
May 9, 2005
Messages
30,723
Reaction score
34
I feel that having so much CGI does affect the actors interactions, and thus why PT suffers. As well as other issues.
But it was so new back then that no one truly knew how to make it feel natural. Definitely a big difference from Star Wars 04ish, to now with Marvel.
 
Joined
Aug 18, 2006
Messages
5,570
Reaction score
16
^^ agreed. Charlie Chaplin was the best actor of his day , but as soon as technology progressed to include "sound", then he couldn't act his way out of a paper bag.

^^ by the same token , today's CGI movies require a different caliber of actor. Robert DiNero would have NO PLACE in a marvel movie, interacting with a giant talking tree. :p he would be HOPELESS at it. LOL

good point.





in the end the problem with the PT is not the CGI -- the problem is wooden actors who were absolutely clueless at how to approach this task -- it was like watching Charlie Chaplin in a "talkie" :p LOL

when "sound" was introduced into films, this required a whole different skillset on the part of the actors -- the actors needed to be effective at delivering their lines -- it's a different KIND of acting (which required a different KIND of actor).

when CGI was introduced, this required a whole different skillset on the part of the actors -- the actors whine endlessly about it, because NOBODY knows how to do it :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
Joined
Dec 15, 2017
Messages
1,462
Reaction score
3
Uh, yes, I’m assuming he meant, you know, Charles “Charlie” Chaplin.

When someone says “Jimmy Carter” or “Bill Clinton,” you don’t respond with “You mean ‘James Earl Carter’ or ‘William Jefferson Clinton’?” You say “yeah, those guys.”

Don’t be pretentious.
 
Top