I was reading through the Indy thread, and there were many references to Star Wars I-III vs. IV-VI. Now, I'm old enough to have seen the originals in the theater when they first came out. I was a kid, so I liked them the way a kid should. I wasn't a huge fan but I had the toys and all. They were fun. I saw them again when they were re-released in the theaters. It was nostalgic. Then I saw the prequels. And to me, they were every bit the same as the others. I do not understand this hatred of them. These are average movies, all of them, the things that plague the prequels, plagued the originals. They all have overly cheesy moments, they all have silly dialog. Essentially, they all fit together just fine. Why the hatred of the prequels, but not the originals?
Other that Jar-Jar being a bit over-the-top (although I thought he was hilarious myself) I agree. I really enjoyed all 6 movies. The critics hated them, but that is expected. Nothing about the acting or the script was award winning. (Though special effects and music was quite the opposite! ) The only thing I can think of as far as the fans of the series not liking the 'prequels' was that they were somehow expecting them to be better than the originals, not the same, so they were disappointed.
He wasn't anymore over-the-top than the Ewoks. Maybe you're right about the "better than" theory, but most sequels do well to be at least as good as the originals. Which they were.
My biggest problem with the prequels was the quality of acting. In the first three films(IV-VI), even with the cheesy dialogue, the actors sold it. Other than Ewan McGregor's constant Obi-Wan, almost none of the other main actors sold me on their performances, ESPECIALLY Mr. Christiansen. Also, it was as if LucasArts said, "Hey! We can finally put all the cool stuff into the movies that we've been wanting to!", and then they proceeded to put it all into one movie (Epi I), where it ended up overcrowding the story. Then they tried to top themselves technologically with Episode II, and they reached. (It's probably a good thing they did, b/c the acting in that movie was BY FAR the worst of the series. ) That's why, IMO, most people hold the prequels in lower esteem than the originals. Not that the originals weren't hammy or over-the-top, but the acting in those could carry the story and the special effects didn't get in the way of the narrative. Just my 2 cents.
Because people tend to reserve a certain fondness for the things they held dear when they were young. I disagree on your basic premise, however. I have never been a huge Star Wars fan but the originals were entertaining fun and most of the cast (with the notable exception of Mark Hamill who Lucas' wisely never let deliver any line of importance) did an amiable job. The fact that people didn't laugh at the crap the screenplay forced poor ol Alec Guinnes to say shows you how great an actor he was. The prequels, however, broke with that golden rule of cheesy movies: You can get away with utterly terrible dialoge, but you can't get away with utterly terrible dialoge and imcompetent actors. That Anakin boy was a tragedy. So was Hayden Christensen. And if they had Jar Jar Binks shut the hell up instead of giving him stupid line after stupid line after stupid line (they never did that with the Ewoks), people might have been more forgiving. Essentially, the originals did a good job in letting the actors carry the script. The prequels are a complete waste of great talent like Neeson or McGregor because they never get to actually act.
Guys, I'm sorry Hayden is every bit the bad actor that Hamill is. McGregor, Neeson, & Portman are twice the actors that Ford, Fisher, & Billy Dee Williams are. I know, we all love Harrison Ford, but a great actor he is not. He's charismatic as hell, and perfect for his iconic roles, but he is not a great actor. C3PO is just as annoying as Jar-Jar, when it comes to lines. The dialog AND delivery were exact to the originals. Go back and really watch the originals, Luke screaming, "Father!" in VI is just as ridiculous as a Vader screaming, "No!" in III. I mean listen to the ridiculousness that the Emperor speaks at the end of VI. He says the same thing 80 times with slightly different sentence structure. None of the movies, deserve the praise they get, but the prequels are just as cheesy as the originals. I swear if the prequels came out first, you'd hear the same complaints as for the originals.
Yes. But all Hamill had to do was basically looking as utterly dumbfounded as possible which was as far as his acting talents went (he's the male version of Mila Jovovich as far as I'm concerned). Hayden's role was a lot more complex and he was given a lot more lines that required some sort of acting talent and he was every bit as bad as Hamill was. That's the fundamental problem. Hamill didn't have to carry the movies. Hayden did and he simply couldn't do it. Yes. But Ford was given something to work with. McGregor, Neeson and Portman are just plainly wasted there. There roles require next to nothing in terms of acting. Their characters are shallow, two-dimensional figures. They were the ones who should have carried the movies. Unfortunately, that task went to Hayden.
He wasn't asked to do anymore than Hamill. Hamill had to transform from redneck to an all powerful Jedi, while Hayden had to transform from teenager to evil. (He had the way easier of the two.) Hamill absolutely had to carry the movies. First of all, he played the main character in all 3 movies while Hayden only had 2. The only advantage Hamill had was no expectations. But they both sucked equally bad. No he wasn't. What was he given? A bleating big-foot? Seriously, what did he have to work with that McGregor didn't? Portman and Fisher's parts were almost identical, except Portman went from child to woman. They both had equally disturbing sexual scenarios, Fisher frenching her brother and Portman banging a guy who was a Kindergartener when they met. Samuel L. is way cooler than Billy Dee. Yeah there was Jar-Jar and his race, but there was also an entire fleet of Zoidberg's in Return of the Jedi. I'm sorry, but again, if the release dates were flip-flopped, we'd be having the same discussion.
the difference is that George Lucas directed the prequels, but someone else directed at least the last two of the original ones... and Lucas sucks. So....
I don't get the bashing either. I didn't even mind Jar-Jar all that much. I'd take Jar-Jar all day over Jake Lloyd or the Ewoks. I loved all 6 of the movies, with Episode 3 as my fav and Empire Strikes back #2.
wow, I think you're the first person I've seen who likes the prequels more than the originals. My friend who's a Star Wars fanatic would be very sad.
I put #3 up there with the originals and I love the originals. I and II I could take or leave, they were fun to watch though. I think all the time and hype made people forget that the first 3 weren't the best written/directed movies of all time. They were fun and very revolutionary in terms of special effects. They came at a time before everyone had vhs or dvds and people went to the movies over and over. I do think people get silly, especially the ridiculous over the top fans that believe the first three were religion. They acted like Lucas was making sequels (prequels) to the bible instead of campy fun movies with amazing special effects. The actors could have been chosen better, particularly Anakin but I enjoyed all 3 of the prequels. And the 3rd movie I really like, Ive seen it a bunch of times and I enjoy that one very much.
I'll admit it, I was a Star Wars junky. I waited in line for 12 hours, in the pissing rain, a week before "Phantom Menace" was released. I waited in line overnight to get into Toy R Us to buy the "Menace" toys, I bought EVERYTHING that got released by Mattel for that movie. When the "originals" were re-released I went to "Empire Strikes Back" 10 times in 2 weeks. I saw the re-releases a combined total of 25 times for all the films. I've probably seen "Empire" 200 times. I think I can offer some credible analysis to this debate. The prequels were plagued with issues. - Lucas tried to fit WAY too much into 3 films and keep them within the 2 hour limit. You can not tell a story about Anakin's childhood and discovery,the hierarchy of the Jedi, the rise of the Sith, how Palpatine became the Emperor, how the Clone Wars began, the beginning of Anakin's journey to the Dark Side, Anakin's marriage, Obi-Wan becoming a top Jedi, the Jedi being wiped out and Anakin's eventual transformation into Darth Vader in 6 hours and do it ANY justice. - Lucas tried to do too much. He should have had writers who know how to WRITE give his story a working over. He has GREAT material to work with but he screwed it up 80% of the time. He should have also had directors come in. He wielded too much power. What is the best movie of the 6? 90% of people will say "Empire". That also happens to be the film he was LEAST involved in. - He got too cute. He took what the die hard fans HATED about "Return of the Jedi" (the Ewoks) and expanded on it. The Phantom Menace was a TERRIBLE movie. The dialog was awful and he wasted the talents of some great actors. He made a kids movie knowing damn well that no matter what crap he put up there the "old school" fans had waited 20 years and would go and see it regardless. He had to rope in a new generation of fans (kids) so he could break box office records instead of giving the story the treatment it should have received. - He relied FAR too much on special effects. Yes, Episodes 4-6 were "special effects" films BUT they had a solid story and decent, although campy, dialog. You REALLY cared about Han Solo and Chewie. You were frightened of Darth Vader. It all worked. The prequels were all about effects with the story being scenery. Here, in my opinion, is what SHOULD have been done. Episode I (renamed because "The Phontom Menace" was a terrible title): It begins with war already underway between the Trade Federation and factions of the Republic. Said war brings Obi-Wan and Qui-Gon to Tatoiine where they meet a gifted TEENAGER named Anakin. This would have the rid us of the "kid movie" element of the movie. Getting Anakin to come with them to join the Jedi should have been more difficult (conflict from Anakin about leaving his Mother alone). This could have planted Anakin's initial feelings of anger, leading him eventually to the Dark Side. The underway war between the Trade Federation and factions of the Republic eventually leads to the start of the Clone Wars and the Clone Wars are underway as the first film ends, with Palpatine pulling the strings behind the scenes AND the Sith being very prominent in the starting of the war. You also see Anakin's anger beginning to show at this point. Anakin also meets his future bride on Coruscant. This would allow the relationship to actually have a rational starting point. It also rids us of the "royalty" angle which was never believable. Episode II (renamed "The Clone Wars" because "Attack of the Clones was a garbage title): The Clone War is in full swing. Anakin is a Padawan but on the verge of being a Jedi. At the same time, his illicit affair with his soon to be bride is well established, this way we don't have to deal with the awkward crap that Lucas passed off on us in the second film. This affair is creating major conflicts between Anakin and Obi-Wan, pushing Anakin towards Palpatine. At this time, Palpatine starts to make his power play for control. At some point in the film, Palpatine starts to hunt the Jedi but realizes his current "Sith" is too weak to do the job and he needs a new Padawan. This would let the "hunt" begin because Lucas' biggest crime was giving the killing of the entire Jedi order a 2 minute passing mention. He spent more time explaining JarJar's background then he did explaining one of the most important parts of the entire Star Wars mythos. The film ends with Anakin killing Palpatine's Sith lord and beginning his shift to the Dark Side. BTW, the side track of Obi-Wan going and fighting Boba Fett's fathers was the biggest joke in the history of film. Episode III: Rise of the Empire. The Empire is rising and the Repulic is slowly getting beaten down. The MAIN storyline of the film SHOULD have been Anakin (know known as Darth Vader) hunting down the Jedi and Obi-Wan's desperate hunt to destroy him before the Jedi are all wiped out. By the time the film is 20 minutes old we should see that Anakin is now a Sith and everyone knows he is a Sith. Obi-Wan and Vader should fight twice. The first time being a saw off and the 2nd time with Obi-Wan having him burn up. Anakin should be the Darth Vader we came to know and love for more then 2 minutes. There should have been Stormtroopers in the movie as well. /rant
BINGO!!!!! I always said Star Wars would be better off if George handled the screenplay overview to keep it within his overall view. But dialog and direction should have been handled by someone else. Hell, I bet Joss Whedon could have done a hell of a job on the screenplay and direction. And I'm not big on Joss as a director, but I do like his writing. There's a reason why "Empire" is usually considered the favorite and it's because George was more hands off on that film than any of the others.
I'm a big Whedon fan and I agree. His direction has never wowed me but he sure as hell knows dialogue, which as everyone has acknowledged Lucas is terrible with. With someone like Whedon handling the dialogue the movies would be significantly better. Whedon loves exposition but at least it wouldn't be pointless, annoying dribble. Empire is considered the best because its heavy on Luke training and fighting. In the rest of the movies he is just running around shooting a laser every once in a while. And in the first two prequels he stops and does a lot of whining, which is why those are so despised (plus the aforementioned Jar Jar and I would add an overdone pod race). The other reason is obviously the relationship with him and Vader.
If anyone was lucky enough to get their hands on "The Phantom Edit", which is just the Phantom Menace minus Jar Jar and other scenes, you'll find it's actually pretty good. Too bad Lucas didn't hire that person to edit the real thing. Revenge was a step in the right direction but a little too late. ANH and ESB are still the top 2 in this trilogy. And you can't really count Clone Wars in that group. Though if it's anything like the Cartoon Network series, should still be worth a ticket. The sneak peak they gave us at SW Con here in LA looked pretty good and Filoni knew his stuff. Show of hands on how many people actually used Anakin's sand pick-up line while at the beach? *sheepishly raises hand*
The biggest problem was simply that the three later movies were prequels. If you're going to ask an audience to sit through three films KNOWING WHERE THE STORY IS GOING, well ... let's face it, they probably could have gotten the job done with Revenge of the Sith alone. Far better would have been to make the next three films in what was originally conceived as a nine-part series.
This is essentially the problem. Fans basically wrote their own versions of the prequels and went into them expecting to see their vision instead of Lucas's. I agree that this time line for the movies would have been better, I think meeting him very young was a huge mistake. I think the problem is the creation of Darth Vader is a very dark theme, a very dark story that couldn't be done for kids. I don't like that, I would have liked to have seen the story fleshed out more, I agree that it was too important to gloss over, but the movies had to be kept light. Not pleasing to older fans like me. From what he has said I think the TV series are going to lead more into areas like this, I hope so. I have to laugh at all the dumping on Lucas here, he's made movies that will be around for our grandchildren and longer. Yea he could have written better episodes for 1-3 (I like 3 though) but he's been a pioneering film maker on so many levels to dumb his career down to 'he sucks' is amazingly short sighted and silly. I seriously doubt you get people like Steven Spielberg to work with you when you 'suck' at what you do.
also he created the freaking midiclorians thing... or whatever they are called. The coolness of the force was that it was this mystical thing that was only controlled by some people. To have it be a scientific group of bugs crawling in your blood was just stupid. He should have realized that stealing stuff from Frank Herbert is great if you don't destroy the misticism of it.
I think you sort of hit the point. Knowing the ultimate ending can be a hurdle, but not a road block. I think, knowing the end, people came up with their own ideas about how the story got there. Of course, it will never measure up to that. However, blasting the prequels for the same "technical things" that originals had is a bit ridiculous. Acting: Was absolutely equal between the two. This cannot be truly argued without the use of bias. Hayden was horrible, but not worse than Hamill. It is simply a wash. Pacing: There was a lot more story to cover in the prequels, but watch the original again, that is one sloooooooow movie. Not Peter Jackson slow, but still pretty damn slow. Again, the nature of the story dictated the ground needed to be covered. Dialog: Drop the nostalgia and listen to the crap from the originals. Its not very good. Certainly on negative par with the sequels. Cheese: For every mitochondrial explanation for the force, there's Luke buying into the notion that saving his friends and defeating the dark side, um...brings him closer to the dark side. Please. In the end, like the movies or don't. I just don't see where the justification comes in for bashing the prequels, unless you bash the originals.
Didn't read through everything, but the thing that made the prequels far worse than the originals is the attempt to appeal to small children. The garbage with Jar-Jar and "Annie" were just over the top.
Lucas has clearly lost his touch. He gets the Spielbergs still because he's friends with them and name alone means his movies will make a lot of money. Not to mention he can pay a lot of money, and he still has a lot of power. But the guy clearly isnt what he used to be.
You really think Spielberg needs cash? I don't. He loves Indiana Jones, George Lucas has created or has been heavily involved in the creation of two of the most endearing franchises in movie history. Yes I do think the stories in the last prequels weren't that great but to sum him up as 'he sucks' is just ridiculous. Honestly if you think someone sucks then why pay to see his movies? I don't get it. People have weird expectations of movies. My friends think I'm one of the harshest critics of movies and I am but these movies have always been campy special effects fests that fans somehow turned into a religion of sorts and the expectations got absurd. I went to the first prequel expecting to have fun and see eye candy thats what I got. I'm not going to go over the movie like it was the Godfather or Gone with the Wind, Star Wars is pure eye candy entertainment. Yes they could have been better but really they weren't much different than I expected going in.
The directing was horrible. You can say that the acting wasn't as good in the first few Star Wars movies, however you can give them some slack because they were lower budgeted films with even the first one running out of money before it was done. Now they were able to get top listed talent, got the talent to fill the roles and then directed them to have the dialog of robots. Plus the first movie was in fact pointless. The second movie was very poorly edited The third movie was pretty decent despite its many flaws, such as horrible acting by good actors and some of the worst dialog in movie history.
What are you? a communist? I can think of nothing more un-american than questioning the legitamacy of the Star Wars saga.
Also I do not think "It is made for kids" is a good excuse at all. There have been many great things that have been made for kids that were also very enjoyable for adults. I believe that the cartoon Gargoyles and the new Spider-Man cartoon both can show that a thing can be made for kids and not dumbed down to the lowest common denominator.
Its not a excuse for poor quality but it means that the movie can't be as dark as it should have been. The last movie or two where Anakin transforms into Darth Vader should have been very dark, violent and disturbing but that couldn't be done with kids in mind. If the final movie had been Vader butchering Jedi for 2 hours it would have been great to watch but I don't think parents would have been taking 5 year olds to see that. I don't agree as an older fan but this is Lucas's baby to do with as he wants. Honestly I just don't know what people expected, cheesy dialouge and cutesy characters are pretty much par for the course for Lucas, they were always there in the originals.
I believe people equate dark and good. A movie does not have to be dark to be good. It is Lucas' baby to do what he wants. Doesn't mean that people cannot complain for puking all over it. I think people expected good fun movies. What they were given were not good fun movies. Plus they had decent actors and they were very poorly acted. Plus they were poorly edited. I do have to admit the scores of the new movies rocked.
meh, I just don't have as big an issue as others do with the prequels. I like the 3rd movie a lot actually. I do think people's expectations were much higher than you've stated here. I think people expected the greatest movie ever. I went in expecting to have fun and see a good movie so I wasn't "puking all over" the first two, disappointed a bit? Sure but I do think the venom from fans is a little ridiculous. As is the hate on George Lucas.
Well Patton Oswalt was right, he deserves to be beaten to death with a shovel. Still he had a chance to make 3 decent movies. He made one decent movie, one pretty bad movie and one mostly boring not very good movie. I just cannot imagine saying, "I'm bored, lets watch the Phantom Menance or Attack of the Clones"
I can. I can easily pop either one of those movies in just to see some bad *** duals with light sabers. The Darth Maul/ Qui Gon - Obie Won battle in Phantom was awesome. Then in AOTC they topped that with 2 fight scenes. Can you remember everyone's reactions when they first saw Yoda kicking ***? I still get a little goosebumps when I see that little guy kicking butt.
I agree, I fast forward through the JarJar bits and the baby Anakin whine and skip to the fight scenes which are awesome. The fight scenes with Yoda are great, the scene at the end of the 2nd movie had everyone in the theater cheering when I saw it.
Even though I started this thread, I will say Yoda is the biggest ***** ever. He doesn't win a single fight. Not one. He kicks no one's ***, in fact loses every fight. Then when the poop really hits the Millenium Fan, he hauls ***. Sure he's cute, charming and wise, (although how wise can he be since he can't seem to grasp the the English language, "Sith come, left on oven I did, in Dagoba, outta here I go.") it doesn't change the fact that he is not a bad ***.
Dooku ran from that first fight and the fight with the Emperor was a draw, I'd say thats pretty bad ***. I actually thought the Yoda character was one of the few that were done very well.
When 900 years old you reach, look as good you will not. Yoda was and still is a bad ***. It's not his fault Lucas didn't exactly portray that in his movies but in other sources like the novels, etc, he's bad *** all right. I think his grammar actually adds to his sageness.
I am not watching a movie for 3 or 4 scenes. If the movie was nothing but light saber fights, then it would be a good movie. honestly if the first few star wars movies did not exist you wouldn't be defending them so much. It is like saying You Got Served is a good movie because the dancing was amazing and that if you fast forward to the dancing it is really fun to watch. I shouldn't have to fast forward through a bunch of crap to get to parts I enjoy. I wanted something like Die Hard with a Vengence. Heck I would of settled for the third Batman. Instead I got The One or any Jackie Chan film with worse acting and sometimes good and sometimes awful special effects.
Well I enjoyed all of the prequels more than Batman 3 or Die Hard with a Vengence. That last Die Hard was one of the worst movies I've seen in recent memory. And I love the original Die Hard. I would still like the 3rd prequel regardless of whether the originals existed or not, I geniunely like that movie.
I don't appreciate the knock on Jackie Chan there. I would take nearly any of his movies from before '98 over the 3rd Batman.
