.

It's at least partially a generational issue. I was 9 when the first volume of the prequel was released, and I loved it, and so did everyone at school. I had seen the original trilogy before, but I was much more excited about the prequels - with their sharper visuals, ridiculously bombastic music, and overall great entertainment value.

Looking back now, I still think the prequel trilogy is a solid bunch of movies. I really don't mind the Midichlorian thing, and I never got the politics argument either - the prequels have to show the rise of the Empire, and I think they do it well. I like that they show plenty of new locations, how they expand on the universe, and the rise and fall of Anakin is actually pretty well written. I still get goosebumps when Anakin kills those raiders to get to his mother. Great scene.

The acting is nothing to write home about, but it does the job. The acting in 4-5-6 was far from being brilliant either honestly - but it didn't matter. McGregor is charismatic as all hell, Liam Neeson died waaaay to early, and Hayden's performance is really not that bad. He's got the right amount of teenage angst, and I found it hard not to feel at least a little bit of sympathy for him.

Yes, there is some heavy-handed character development, some annoying characters, and some plot threads that never really amount to much, but I think it's still safe to say that a combination of nostalgia blindness, bandwagoning and ridiculously high expectations lead many people to judge these movies unfairly. They are not perfect, they are not as revolutionary as the original trilogy was, but they are entertaining movies nonetheless.

Jar Jar can go die in a fire though.

It's just as long as the movies, but the Red Letter media reviews sum up the reasons the prequels are not well made movies. Seriously though, these reviews are well done, but each one is like an hour and a half.

http://redlettermedia.com/plinkett/star-...om-menace/
http://redlettermedia.com/plinkett/star-...he-clones/
http://redlettermedia.com/plinkett/star-...-the-sith/

i think you're wrong about this. majority of reviews for episode 2 and 3 were positive. my main problem with this trilogy is george lucas - he simply was never a good director like spielberg, scorsese or coppola(to name a few from his generation). his sense of framing and mise-en-scene was always boring and tired. some of the scenes from episode 3, like the death of mace windu, were simply tragicomically bad. i really think the new trilogy will benefit from some fresh blood in directing department.

Did you hear Patton Oswalt's take on this? It's pretty funny and captures part of the problem:

Anyway, I'm not a big Star Wars fan, but I think the original movies are pretty good. I just hate the script and overall plot of the prequels. They're too much of a lead up to Episode 4; it's too obvious that they were written to lead up to something that was already made. You know what I mean? It's hard to explain beyond that--think of it alongside what Oswalt says and maybe you'll understand what I'm trying to say.

Also, he shouldn't have directed them--he's a bad film maker. The only good directing that guy ever did was American Graffiti. He shouldn't even have directed Episode IV.

.

Arupan Wrote:I don't think Mace Windu's death scene was bad. People don't really choose when or how they die.

i was talking about the staging - bad acting and cheesy lightning-out-of-my-fingers effects. it made me laugh and i'm pretty sure that wasn't director's intention.

As much as I love this scene, Vader's tirade before they cross swords sounds like he's ordering lunch from a McDonald's

The original trilogy was not exactly void of cheese. Granted, it *is* the founding myth, so people either remember it fondly or appreciate what iit created, but the acting and the delivery was far from stellar either.

It's understandable that many people don't like the prequels because they are not as important as the original trilogy, and frankly, not as good, but I still think that much of the criticism targeted at the prequels could equally be applied to the originals.

For point of reference: I saw the original Star Wars (Ep IV) in the theater around age 6 or 7 back in the first run, grew up on the original trilogy. While I do feel the original trilogy is better than the prequels, I also think the prequels got a lot of undeserved hate. Part of the problem is that people had pumped Episode I up so much prior to release and had built up such huge expectations that nothing could ever have stood up to it. Then it became popular to complain about bits of the movie, which snowballed into being popular to hate the movie in general. There was a whole bandwagon of extra hate piled on that added to the effect. Not that that explains ALL of the complaints about the prequels- no movie is perfect and they do have some flaws- but it certainly amplified the hate to the point you would be embarrassed to say you liked them.

I think another part of the hate also had to do with the fact that people like me, who grew up with the originals, just weren't aged 6-12 anymore, like we were for the first ones. Yes, I think Jar Jar is annoying, but 1)He's supposed to be annoying- everyone else in the movie finds him annoying at first, even Qui-gon. And 2) my friend's kids who were in that age range? They liked Jar Jar. That was his target audience, and on that level it worked. Maybe if I'd seen it when I was 12... but impossible to say until I perfect that flux capacitor.

Once we get to Episodes 2 and 3, I agree that I find Hayden's acting rather wooden. I was wondering why they hired him... until I saw some clips of the casting audition with him and Natalie Portman doing a scene together, that's buried somewhere in the DVD extras. had they kept even 1/10th of that chemistry and his intensity from those auditions... but for whatever reason, they didn't.

Regarding the movie's lack of convincing fall to the Dark Side for Anakin, there were just a few small tweaks to the dialogue, and maybe a scene or two they could have added, that would have made everything work so much better. The novelization actually does a lot of this much better. It's like the elements are there in the film, but it falls just slightly short of giving you the full picture. I think it still works in the film, but could have been adjusted to be more convincing.

Tzadeck Wrote:Also, he shouldn't have directed them--he's a bad film maker. The only good directing that guy ever did was American Graffiti. He shouldn't even have directed Episode IV.

Lucas actually didn't really direct or write most of the original trilogy. The reason those movies were good is pretty much because he had really talented people working with him. For the prequel trilogy he decided to flex his muscle and try to do the entirety of the creative work himself. He surrounded himself with Yes-Men, and it turned out poorly.

The reason Lucas did the special editions and re-edits was because he never felt ownership of the Empire and Jedi. He felt that other people made a lot of decisions for him. The special editions were a way for him to make them his own, and it turned out poorly.

erlog Wrote:

Tzadeck Wrote:Also, he shouldn't have directed them--he's a bad film maker. The only good directing that guy ever did was American Graffiti. He shouldn't even have directed Episode IV.

Lucas actually didn't really direct or write most of the original trilogy. The reason those movies were good is pretty much because he had really talented people working with him. For the prequel trilogy he decided to flex his muscle and try to do the entirety of the creative work himself. He surrounded himself with Yes-Men, and it turned out poorly.

The reason Lucas did the special editions and re-edits was because he never felt ownership of the Empire and Jedi. He felt that other people made a lot of decisions for him. The special editions were a way for him to make them his own, and it turned out poorly.

That's a bit of an extreme way of stating things... I mean, the "special editions" were also used as a testing ground for CG prior to the prequels, and releasing them to the theater helped pay for some of that experiment. And in a lot of cases, he went back in to fix things he wasn't happy with the first time around because of budget and technology limitations, not all of which we, as fans, agreed needed "fixing". As for feeling "ownership"... go read the gigantic "Making of" books they've put out for the original trilogy, see how involved he was at every stage of production from concept up to the final edit, and see if you still think that (the books are an interesting treasure trove of behind-the-scenes photos and stories from many of the people involved. That being said, I found the first one more interesting than the Making of Empire and Jedi books).

I actually like quite a few of the changes in the special editions. Not all of them, but... c'mon, you can't deny that adding windows to the hallways on Cloud City wasn't a major improvement. Re-doing some of the space shots (like the scenes of the X-wings approaching the Death Star) did look more vibrant (with the downside of making the original model shots in the following scenes look a bit murky or dulled down in comparison). The extra wampa scenes were cool, but unnecessary story-wise. Replacing the song in Jabba's palace was, if I recall correctly, partly due to a bit of legal/copyright issue on the lyrics of the original song.

@RandomQuotes, I love that RedLetterMedia youtube review! It's hilarious, serious, and creepy all at once. He brings up some very good points.

I don't think the prequels are horrible. I'd give Episodes 1 and 2 a 6.5/10 and Episode 3 a 7.0/10 (this is on the IMDB scale so 7.5+ means "must watch" to me). But the originals are better for numerous reasons.

If the new movies are similar to the Star Trek reboots I'll be a happy camper. The new Star Trek movies don't make a ton of sense scientifically and have quite a few plot holes, but they are fun and entertaining.

RandomQuotes Wrote:It's just as long as the movies, but the Red Letter media reviews sum up the reasons the prequels are not well made movies. Seriously though, these reviews are well done, but each one is like an hour and a half.

http://redlettermedia.com/plinkett/star-...om-menace/
http://redlettermedia.com/plinkett/star-...he-clones/
http://redlettermedia.com/plinkett/star-...-the-sith/

Yep. I just re-watched these the other day. As good as I thought they were when I first watched them. Better maybe.

It is a very thorough demolition. The third starts a bit slow, but hits its stride towards the end.

If you haven't seen these, do yourself a favor and watch them. Not just to learn about what was wrong with those films, but to better understand what worked with the original movies, and to learn about what makes a good film in general.

Also, "the best of the worst" series they do is bloody hilarious.

I think the new ones coming up are pretty much -guaranteed- to be better than the prequels. Why? Because Lucas is not writing/directing them out of some ego-maniacal power trip despite being unable to write or direct well (and knowing it). It is not very hard to do better than the prequels. They stunk.

.

Arupan Wrote:I saw the video, but I think his arguments sound very childish. He says it the very end - "I don't give a shit where the stuff comes from. I just love the stuff I love." Sure, OK, but what's war without its roots? If he just likes watching stuff blow up, then he should just go and see "Star Wars: Clone Wars The Animation"

I'm not sure it's childish to like that kind of thing so much as it's dorky--and this sci-fi fantasy series is going for that demographic.

I think what Oswalt says points to a deeper issue with the new trilogy. The problem is that all Lucas did to try to make the movies intriguing was to show the origin of things that people already found intriguing. There's very little in the new trilogy that have appeal on their own without the original movies--perhaps the only good counterexample being Darth Maul. The movies needed a mix of new intriguing things, as well as some history about characters we already knew, but it only offered the latter. They also needed some subtlety in presenting the history, which they lacked completely.

I mean, the best example of a prequel telling a back story as well as being interesting in its own right is the Godfarther Part II. That movie is simultaneously a sequel and a prequel, with the prequel half being about how Vito Corleone came to America and became a young crime boss. It basically explains Corleone's entire history, just as the Star Wars prequels, but all those scenes would have been great even if the original Godfather movie didn't even exist. Whereas, the Star Wars prequels border on unwatchable without the original trilogy behind them.

I'm on my phone so I'm just gonna keep this short. Red letter media is basicly film school/storytelling 101. The biggest offense is that the prequels constantly violate the show don't tell rule. They also are not internally consistent. The prequels are objectively poorly made films. It's OK to like bad films, i for one love Malibu's most wanted, but I still know it's bad.

Tzadeck Wrote:[I think what Oswalt says points to a deeper issue with the new trilogy. The problem is that all Lucas did to try to make the movies intriguing was to show the origin of things that people already found intriguing. There's very little in the new trilogy that have appeal on their own without the original movies--perhaps the only good counterexample being Darth Maul. The movies needed a mix of new intriguing things, as well as some history about characters we already knew, but it only offered the latter. They also needed some subtlety in presenting the history, which they lacked completely.

This is a very valid criticism ; in a sense, I believe the Star Wars prequels were (cinematography aside) almost too ambitious for their own good. The prequels made it so the whole series be basically about the rise and fall, and eventual redemption of Darth Vader - who indeed is the one to bring balance back to the force at the end of episode 6 by killing the Emperor. Obi & Qui Gon were right all along ; they just didn't predict the giant hiccup in the middle with the fall of the galactic senate. It makes for a very ambitious epic, in the original sense of the term. It's heroic, destiny is being a playful b*tch, and it changed the face of the galaxy.

And I think there is nothing inherently wrong with this approach - sticking with the back stories of known characters that is. The Extended Universe is already taking care of expanding on the Star Wars Universe, wouldn't there have been an even bigger outrage if the prequels had invalidated even bigger chunks of what fans of the series have built over the course of several decades ?

I'm dating myself here but I saw the original Star Wars (with my parents) in 1977 when I was a teenager. We went to the theater at the local shopping mall. [Aside: I remember all that fall they kept playing the disco version of the Star Wars theme by Meco on the radio and my sister hated it. She'd switch the radio dial whenever it came on].

At the time everyone thought the movie was the greatest thing they had ever seen, simply because there had never been anything like it before. I remember being blown away by it. That's what I remember most about seeing the original: I was thinking "wow, I've never been to a movie like this before, it was great".

I then saw the next two star wars movies as they were released, and I was less and less entertained each time. By the time of Return of the Jedi I was losing interest in the series.

I did go and see the Phantom Menace in 1999 but was bored to tears by it. I THINK I may have gone to the one after that. I walked out partway through because it was too boring. It was people sitting around yapping about intergalactic taxation or something.

After walking out of the last one, I decided I have no intention of seeing any more George Lucas movies, Star Wars related or not.