The difference is the pace, there's a sense of urgency and excitement in the OT which is lacking in the PT.And really in PM half the audience fell alsleep between the sequences in naboo up to the point of the first encounter with Darth Maul. moot point but it dragged in a lot of places which is something you cant say about the OT. Sith was the one that got the pacing a bit better but that's not really saying much.
Because there was a development with Luke from boy to hero/man.he didn't stay the same. With Anakin were meant to see from boy to hero to villian but he came across as being a whiney teenager in the second and third film although not so much. it was hard to sympahise with the character let alone feel sorry for him. And that was the most important thing for the character's arc that it was a tragedy but if one didn't care about the character then its ultimatly failed. just like Jar Jar Binks whose original storyline was supposed to end with his death but thanks to the moaning SW fans GL changed it because he didn't get the reaction to the character that he wanted and if he had used the original outline of that character's arc, the fans would have had the complete opposite response to his death then what was intended so he dropped it. unfortunatly GL screwed up Anakin's portrayal as well.
You've missed the point. method acting covers the style of acting that most actors use/trained in, in today's cinema. Half if not all the cast in SW has been trained using this idealogy or gone through the classical theatre route. So that type of acting wasn't around back in the 40s although the classic theatre training was. So the styles of acting you would see from films of the 40s and 50s would be different to the films of the 70s till now in the type of acting style you see.
The best example of the classically trained/shakespherian thespian actor would be in the form of Ian Mcdirmand as Papaltine or even Sir Christopher Lee. They become the characters that they are portraying. While Ewan mcgregor while gave a good and consistant performance never became the character he seemed like he was reading his lines. That goes for the girl who played Padme too and she's usually a strong actress in many of the films she's appeared in.
Im not attacking you for loving the prequels but the prequels have a LOT of flaws, many of the SW films do but its more obvious in the PT trilogy.
Okay, I believe you've missed the point. It's my opinion, as I've clearly stated. I don't agree with you, or your reasoning. The audiance I had seen Phantom Menace with hadn't fallen asleep, good sir. Instead, we gasped when Qui-Gon tried to cut through the blast door like a heat-seeking missile of justice, laughed when he insulted Jar-Jar, giggled with excitement like a bunch of children hopped up on Hi-C during the podrace sequence, not to mention the collective "holy shit" during the final battle....
That was a full house, almost three months after the movie had been released. Guess what? I saw the same damn thing when performing SIG checks at my day job (I work in a theatre) when we received Phantom Menace 3D.
I do apologize if I come off as rude, but I can say the original trilogy dragged. It did for me, at least.
I liked Anakin's outcome for the most part. It worked for me. Done.
I've made several short films and music videos, watched several documentaries, listened to countless audio commentaries, read many books all dealing with cinema and all that entails....I know what method acting is, okay? As I said, I don't agree. Again, how can you get "method" with Star Wars? When watching the documentaries for any one of the Star Wars films, prequel or original, no one's talking about "method" in these things, because the very notion is preposterous....
If you think their performances suck, fine. If you're trying to say that their performances sucked because they aren't classically trained actors, therefor unable to break away from their "method" backgrounds or whatever, fine. All I'm saying is I don't agree. That's all.
