Search Results: turn on episode

The original trilogy is better, but "Revenge of the Sith" is my favorite "Star Wars" movie that was released since "The Empire Strikes Back", though "Attack of the Clones" is the one that I don't find great: I *like* it, but the scenes with the most development for Anakin and Padme were cut out of the theatrical version. Why?

Among the reasons people hate them is Jar-Jar, who I too find lackluster despite not hating him (especially when we could've had a prequel version of Chewbacca), but plenty of people found 3PO & the Ewoks annoying - and 3PO was in ALL the movies, versus Jar-Jar who was only in ONE.

People also bash the CGI, but isn't it logical that the trilogy that began in 1999 has more special effects than the one that ranged from the late 70s to early 80s? "The Lord of the Rings" and the first two "Jurassic Park" sequels were also released within the late 90s to mid 00s period, but why don't "The Hobbit" and "Jurassic World" get as much criticism for their CGI substitute for the animatronics of their predecesors? That's my main criticism for both, and I actually prefer "The Hobbit" to the "Star Wars" prequels and "Jurassic World" to Episodes I and II.

Then there's the acting that's commonly scorned, but the acting in the originals isn't Oscar-worthy itself; in fact, I think that the acting of Mark Hamill and Carrie Fisher in the first one is the most wooden in the saga: Luke's reaction isn't strong to his aunt and uncle being killed, and neither is Leia's to her home planet being destroyed.

As for story, with people saying that the prequels were written blandly, I think "Return of the Jedi" has the thinnest writing second to Episode II, honestly. Rescue Han? Done. Defeat the Empire? Victory. Turn your father good again because you can't just kill him? Trilogy goals complete. Not saying that it wasn't well-written, and I rank it above Episode I, but that's how I see it.

There's no more room, but I updated this post for one more point of mine.

Let's say the guy you're dating was previously in a shitty relationship about a year before you two met. His ex was manipulative and abusive, she would guilt him and threaten to inflict self harm whenever he had tried breaking up with her, and even threatened to commit suicide the final time he attempted breaking up with her. He didn't let her threats get to him that time, and went through with the break up. Of course, his ex's threats were bullshit and she never tried anything. She would go on to try to explain that it "wasn't her, but her depression and anxiety" that caused her to treat him the way she did. Several months later, after he had cut off all contact with her, she messages him and begs him to come back into her life. But just as friends, because she knows he would never take her back. She asks for this because she's depressed, suicidal, etc. and feels like he is the only person who still kinda cares. So, begrudgedly, he decides to be "friends" with her ("friends" meaning he just talks her out of suicide every time she has one of her episodes) because he would feel guilty if he didn't.

NOW, let's say that the guy you're talking to is trying to find a way to cut his ex off completely without causing her to do something stupid and possibly fatal. How would you feel if he were to open up to you about everything and told you this? Would you see him differently? Would you still want to date him, or would you break up with him? Would you help him drop her?

I ask this because that guy in all of that I just typed up is me, and that's the situation I'm in right now. I've been talking to this girl for about 5 months now, and it's starting to get serious. Should it turn into an actual relationship, I do not want this baggage to ruin it for me. So I'm trying to get rid of it before it gets to that.