How come Game of Thrones or Star Trek can have basic shots of people just talking to tell the story and then casually throw in some action here and there, but when the Star Wars prequels do it, no one likes it? Is it because they are movies and not TV shows?
Would the prequels work better as a television series?
>>63099930
>Is it because they are movies and not TV shows?
Yes.
>>63099930
Because Star Wars wasn't meant to be a discourse on political ideologies. It was supposed to be dumb rescue the princess fun.
>>63099930
>Is it because they are movies and not TV shows?
Simply put: Yes!
And they're movies which put a clear emphasis on action at that.
If you want a prime example of how expository dialogue shpuld work in an action movie, just watch "Terminator".
And yes, I know that's exactly what RLM says.
That doesn't make it any less true though.
because star wars is a dumb entertaining action movie for kids that neckbeards like to spank over and over analyze.
>>63099930
also because star wars is a huge pile of shit. only the action scenes are halfway decent
The difference is there was some flow to those exposition scenes with other things happening and wasn't just two characters sitting rigidly still or walking and constantly cutting from Wide - 2 Shot - OS MCU - Reverse OS MCU
RotJ isn't exempt from it either, the most blatant being the Obi-Wan monologue.
>>63099930
That's a legitimately good scene from a terrible film though.
>>63100829
/thread
Question. My gf has never seen star wars and I want to watch them with her. Should I start with the OT or the prequels.
Taxes and trade agreements and embargoes or whatever were not only boring, but they had nothing to do with the downfall of Anakin and his relationship with Obi Wan, which is basically the core of the prequel trilogy (and I guess Padme).
Not only that, but politics is a weird intangible thing to be talking about. You hardly get to SEE it or its effects in the movies.
>>63101974
Production order is never not the answer to anything you have to ask this question for. Why would you even think otherwise
>>63101974
Google machete order
4, 5, 2, 3, 6
>>63101974
Well, here's the thing.
Do you think she's more likely to like a movie with dated CGI and a crappy story. Or a movie with dated practical effects and a decent story?
>>63102102
stop suggesting retarded orders you fucking retard god this makes me so mad just watch OT and then the prequels.
>>63102046
/thread
This guy puts it as eloquently as possible. Dialogue upon dialogue that added not only added nothing to the themes or narrative, but it's so ambiguous you can edit all of that out and be left with a perfectly watchable movie.
ST and GoT aren't like SW in that regard because it has good writing and acting. More importantly the writers, actors, and directors understand their characters and are on the same level.
It also doesn't help the dialogues were written by an autist.
>>63101974
>tfw I just watched all the star wars movies in chronological order with my gf, who had never seen them
>tfw she liked phantom menace
>tfw she "genuinely" laughed at jar jar binks
>>63102282
That's pretty common with kids I know.
...
You sick pedo fuck.
>>63102282
end it
>>63102046
>politics is a weird intangible thing to be talking about.
SAY THAT TO MY FACE FUCKER AND NOT ONLINE
>>63102282
Phantom is the best of the prequels.
Not shitposting.
It's an awful movie, but next to ep 2 and 3, it's watchable.
>>63102539
>not shitposting
>>63102539
>Phantom is the best of the prequels
I kinda agree, they atleast used sets and props in this movie and the hype was kinda exciting. The other two prequels were just totally forgettable. I can't remember a single thing that happend in ep II
BECAUSE OP
Well for one GOT have real sets with real set pieces, which in turn allows actors to explore the set and actually interact with it, giving greater context to their actions.
I haven't see star trek so i don't know if they do it differently.
>>63099930
Because Lucas writes painfully obvious expository dialogue. All his characters are Basil Exposition.
"Anakin, I will now explain the plot to you, including the really obvious stuff that does not need to be explained."
>>63102794
as for the action sequences between GOT and the prequels:
Not only does GOT do a good job at making action sequences meaningful through competent character development, but it hardly ever feels choreographed. In the Star Wars prequels the action isn't really gripping because it somehow manages to look both sterile and convoluted.
>>63101974
IV, I, V, II, VI, III
that's the patrician way to watch them
>>63103027
you're a faggot
>>63099930
HE COULD EVEN
SAVE PREGNANT WOMEN NAMED PADME FROM DEATH BY CHILDBIRTH
>>63102102
>Google machete order
>4, 5, 2, 3, 6
I thought this was a joke, but it makes more sense than I'd like it to.
>>63099930
why did you pick tv shows to compare this to rather than other movies with characters talking to each other?
>>63102046
But it is a key part to the whole galaxy wide clone wars thing and the forming of the imperial army.
kek @ the people who skip episode 1 entirely, it's technically the best of the prequels and its terribleness is in of itself a cultural phenomenon. you might as well just not watch star wars in the first place
