Search Results: if you had a clone

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.