Timon/Pumba fan wrote:I still don't see why people keep insulting Attack of the Clones. Though it's not as good as the original trilogy or ROTS, I still think the movie was actually pretty good.
Reasons why Attack of the Clones is a "snooze-fest".
1. As with The Phantom Menace, Lucas assumed that the effects would wow the audience and didn't even bother to write any character moments or even try to get his actors to act. I find it incredible that such talented actors as McGregor, Portman and Lee go through the whole movie looking like they simply said the lines without caring about the substance.
Just like too much sugar can make you sick, to many effects set-pieces can make you bored. Give us films of substance, not glitz.
(And this is not unique to the Star Wars prequels. Most "blockbusters" today suffer from the same problem. See craptacular films like Van Helsing).
2. We knew - more or less - everything that was going to happen. We knew Anakin wouldn't die. We knew Obi-Wan wouldn't die. We knew that Princess Amidala wouldn't die. So all the big action set peices such as the robot factory battle and the gladitorial ring fight were as exciting as watching paint dry (and again, spoilt by too many special effects). The great bearded one didn't even create any new characters we cared about and place them in danger which would have given us some true suspense, being as their fate would be unknown.
As for Anakin's Mother's fate and the slaughter of the Sandpeople. Well, most people predicted something along those lines way before the film actually opened. Again, a problem of making a film with the backstory is already known.
I'm constantly amazed how people who are anti-Disney-sequel (and often use such phrases as "is a sequel necessary?" seem to support these pointless Star Wars prequels. Enough of the backstory was presented in the original trilogy to not only make the original trilogy comprehensible, but to render the prequels "unnecessary". Ultimately, if the prequels were never made, nobody would miss them as the key points are known.
3. Stuff like Jango Fett and the origin of the stormtroopers. Well, yes, they're cool. I can totally understand the appeal of such "continuity" to the Star Wars fans.
But not everyone is a Star Wars fan. Being a huge Marvel Comic fan, and a huge Doctor Who fan, I can understand 100% the appeal of such "rewards" to the faithful. But I'm also old enough now to know that such "rewards" are missed by the majority of the audience, or if done badly actually alienate the audience. Even the much discussed "Clone Wars" would mean very little to the casual Star Wars viewing audience (who basically will just remember character names and due to all the hype know that Anakin will become Darth Vader).
In short, Attack of the Clones didn't offer anything to a casual movie viewer. The plot was poor, the dialogue was weak, the acting mechanical, the effects overwhelming and the suspense non-existant. (Of course that's just my opinion). I do think Attack of the Clones was worse than The Phantom Menace.
I think the whole idea of a prequel trilogy is a huge mistake. How can you add much of interest to a story where the key points are already known and part of the series' mythology? Also, why does everything have to be known? There seems to be a trend in entertainment recently for everything having to be explained in minute detail, or else its a "plot hole". Well, I don't know if any of you actually live in the real world or not, but it's full of "plot holes", but functions just fine.
I think, if Lucas wanted to tell such a story, it would be better done in prose. A book or series of books for those who wanted to know about Anakin's fall to choose to read. The new films should have been sequels. A trilogy of sequels would be much more rewarding narratively, given that they would be exploring the great unknown rather than the "partly known". Oh but I forgot. Sequels suck.
