Anakin romance worst ever - now official

[Stormbringer]

This is the same George Lucas who wrote and directed American Grafitti, which had corny dialogue and was shot like a documentary.

So maybe he did think it was a good idea to do painfully bad dialogue in there? Maybe an earlier sucess gave him the idea that such dialogue was good?

But I don't think it was his intention to make it deliberately painful watching whatever he did, especially since as I said the very impossible to act material also bleeds over into other parts of the movie. The dialogue problems didn't end strictly at the romance, so whatever his intentions were there it wasn't an isolated problem.

And furthermore, he's acknowledged readily that dialogue is not one of his strong suits. Hell, he joked about it at awards time. And as I recall, didn't he get some help polishing the dialogue for Return of the Sith? Either way he seems to know darn well that dialogue is not considered one of his strong suits, so it's hard to imagine he thinks his dialogue will be universally praised.

[/quote]The hokey romance is also to offset the more serious parts of the movie. [/quote]

Except that it's supposedly to integral to the fall of Vader, at least according to some of Lucas' ramblings. It shouldn't be the B plot dumpings that it largely seems to have wound up with. Anakin's obsession with Padme is supposed to be a big part of why he plunges into such a reckless and seemingly hopeless course. So why should it be so hokey and goofy that people have such a hard time taking it seriously?

[Elfdart]

This is the same George Lucas who wrote and directed American Grafitti, which had corny dialogue and was shot like a documentary.

So maybe he did think it was a good idea to do painfully bad dialogue in there? Maybe an earlier sucess gave him the idea that such dialogue was good?

Believe it or not, there was a time when it wasn't fashionable to call George Lucas a bad director and a really bad writer. His peers thought enough of his directing and writing to nominate him for Oscars (two in each category) for ANH and American Grafitti.

I think he writes the dialogue for kids and teenagers in his movies to make them look goofy because kids and teenagers are goofy. You'll notice that the villains and older heroes (like Obi-Wan Kenobi) have sharper dialogue because they are sharper characters, not bratty kids and dopey teenagers.

[Stormbringer]

Believe it or not, there was a time when it wasn't fashionable to call George Lucas a bad director and a really bad writer. His peers thought enough of his directing and writing to nominate him for Oscars (two in each category) for ANH and American Grafitti.

I don't think Lucas is a bad director or bad writer or bad producer. I still really like the original trilogy, I still like the latter two prequels (TPM only manages a so-so these days) and I wouldn't be a charter poster on a SW message board if I didn't have a love of Star Wars. I'd also point out that I am still a huge fan of the Indiana Jones films too which are part Lucas too. So don't think I'm mindlessly bashing him out of some desire to be trendy. I think he's a good filmmaker and his works have stood the test of time. He's created classics and that speaks for itself.

But whatever Lucas is or was, and I think the George Lucas of the late 70s is a different filmmaker from that of 00s, he's never been a flawless filmmaker. Lucas has definite strengths and weaknesses. It doesn't diminish him or his accomplishments to suggest that he's not perfect. Even he has acknowledged that he's got his faults.

I think he writes the dialogue for kids and teenagers in his movies to make them look goofy because kids and teenagers are goofy. You'll notice that the villains and older heroes (like Obi-Wan Kenobi) have sharper dialogue because they are sharper characters, not bratty kids and dopey teenagers.

I would disagree with you in part because I find that peices of his dialogue in all the movies tend to have portions that are just clunky and awkward.

You can argue that some of that is a misguided attempt at naturalism. It may be so. However the fact is that it doesn't always work out well. Film making is ultimately about presenting a vision to the audience and if it's not coming across like he meant (however he meant) then it's not necessarily a good choice.