Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Everyone tends to embellish the bad qualities of the prequels, simply because they adore the series.

I can agree that episode 2 was awful (I actually hated it), but I quite enjoyed Episode 1 and 3. In reality, the art direction was much better than the originals, I felt the music was better, the special effects were certainly better, and I quite liked the overall storyline of the prequels (even if the writing or acting was sometimes pretty bad, especially in the case of Hayden Christiansen).

I liked the focus on the Jedi and the Sith, as this is irrefutably the most interesting aspect of the Star Wars series (without Jedi, Star Wars would just be generic sci-fi nonsense). Some people might have thought it was overdone, but I didn't. I'll take as much as I can get concerning Jedi. The coreography was absolutely wonderful; probably some of the best coreography ever done. It puts the original lightsaber duels to absolute shame.

If you honestly think that the Star Wars prequels are an example of awful filmmaking, you really need to open your eyes a bit. Go watch Street Trash or something.

Chrysaor686 wrote:Everyone tends to embellish the bad qualities of the prequels, simply because they adore the series.

Yeah, only a person infused with nostalgia could find issue with these films. Of course it could be only people who are steeped in fanboy love would make excuses for poor film making.

The only Star Wars I really adore is Empire, and that wasn't till I got older. I enjoy the original three and appreciate their impact on the cinematic landscape, but I wouldn't go as far as to believe that that would make me unable to recognize poor pacing, dialogue, plotting, characterization, and a myriad of other issues. Liking a thing doesn't make it good anymore than not liking something doesn't make it bad either. Balls of Fury makes me laugh and it is a terrible film. One can enjoy the films and is reasonable to do so, but taken into context of the larger cinematic landscape, or even against Lucas's oeuvre, they are fairly bad.

the art direction was much better than the originals

I disagree with this so much it hurts.

Wolfun wrote:Lucas is just generally a bad director.
His first films were great - the last stuff? Not so much.

TBH, the original trilogy, the true star wars frnachise was an accidental masterpiece when it is compared to the crud that followed.

+1, cos this thread needs to die

Lucas only directed Star Wars, Empire and Return had different directors. It wasn't accidental so much that, unlike the prequels, it was a much more collaborative effort from all involved.

I'm hoping after this thread dies someone will start a Star Wars vs Star Trek thread. I don't care if it is a general thread or something specific like Star Destroyer vs. Constitution Class or Pikard Vs. Kirk. So many other old nerd argument chestnuts we haven't polished in awhile.

I never got in to Star Wars, but orginals tend to be better than sequels or prequels.

This guy does a great job of breaking down each of the prequel films and explaining why they were so horrible.

Be warned that these videos are not probably not safe for work.

Episode 1:

http://redlettermedia.com/plinkett/star-wars/star-wars-episode-1-the-phantom-menace/

Episode 2:

http://redlettermedia.com/plinkett/star-wars/star-wars-episode-ii-attack-of-the-clones/

Episode 3:

http://redlettermedia.com/plinkett/star-wars/star-wars-episode-iii-revenge-of-the-sith/

OrangePine wrote:This guy does a great job of breaking down each of the prequel films and explaining why they were so horrible.

Be warned that these videos are not probably not safe for work.

Episode 1:

http://redlettermedia.com/plinkett/star-wars/star-wars-episode-1-the-phantom-menace/

Episode 2:

http://redlettermedia.com/plinkett/star-wars/star-wars-episode-ii-attack-of-the-clones/

Episode 3:

http://redlettermedia.com/plinkett/star-wars/star-wars-episode-iii-revenge-of-the-sith/

if you enjoy those... google darthsanddroids comic

Star Wars is cool.

@AvatarForm

I'm not as much a fan of his humor as I am a fan of his critical eye.

His Avatar review is pretty spot on too.

@rubiksnoob
Thanks for that pic! i've had the worst day, and that pic made me lose it.

I thought the only good thing about the prequels was the Obi wan v. Darth maul fight
and the Obi wan V. Anni.

to those who love the prequels. they have alot of cool things like the Droid armies and
the origin of the Stormtroopers. but,imho, it wasn't worth what they brought due to the
damage that was done to the story and putting up with the Pre-Vader.

Oh, don't blame poor Mannequin Skywalker. It's really hard to work with only one facial expression y'know.

Imagine you are describing characters from Star Wars to a person who has never seen the movies.
Without describing appearance, or job, describe:
Princess Leia
Princess Amidala

Han Solo
Qui Gon Jinn


Problem with the first 3 movies is that, as it says in the DVD 'extras' Lucas had complete control and no one was permitted input.

Midichlorians = Lame. Anyone can see that. No one was allowed to tell Lucas.
makes me a sad panda.

Medium of Death wrote:The prequels ruined Darth Vader. Anakin does a lot of stupid things, but the thing that pissed me off the most is the killing of the children.

This is not the Dark Lord we know and love fear.

Anakin should have been just and fair, he was just a whiny gakker throughout Clones and Revenge.

The red letter media videos make excellent points about the prequels.

All 6 movies need to remade to undo the damage Lucas has done.

Actually I think ESB is the best out of all six. It had the right blend of elements and left you hanging for me, albeit this was ruined with RotJ and ewoks (granted they were cool when i was a kid, but now...meh). Lawrence Kasdan and Irvin Kirschner really made this film shine. I bet if resurrected, even in zombie form, if would win an AA nomination and force Lucas to commit sepukku.

I've made my peace with the prequels. I like them for parts they contain but not as a whole. ... Plus its great white noise for when I'm painting or making lists.

Ahtman wrote:Yeah, only a person infused with nostalgia could find issue with these films. Of course it could be only people who are steeped in fanboy love would make excuses for poor film making.

I hold no fanboy love for Star Wars. It is a decent series. I enjoy it more than most other science fiction (because pure science fiction tends to make me cringe).

There are far, far worse movies than Episode 1-3. I find them to be distinctly average, if aided by a ludicrously high budget. Most people find the prequels to be some of the worst movies of all time, and this is absolutely ridiculous. If you honestly think this, then you have not been exposed to nearly enough cinema in your lifetime. Intense hatred of the prequels is obviously due to disappointment and a love of the original series.

The only Star Wars I really adore is Empire, and that wasn't till I got older. I enjoy the original three and appreciate their impact on the cinematic landscape, but I wouldn't go as far as to believe that that would make me unable to recognize poor pacing, dialogue, plotting, characterization, and a myriad of other issues. Liking a thing doesn't make it good anymore than not liking something doesn't make it bad either. Balls of Fury makes me laugh and it is a terrible film. One can enjoy the films and is reasonable to do so, but taken into context of the larger cinematic landscape, or even against Lucas's oeuvre, they are fairly bad.

Again, not fairly bad, but distinctly average. Nothing stands out as awful except for a few of the casting decisions and the occasionally wooden acting (which is probably due to the liberal use of green screens in the production of the movie; perfectly understandable). Balls of Fury makes an active attempt to be terrible, that's part of the charm of the movie. When held up to some honestly bad movies, the Star Wars prequels blow them out of the water (even the second movie, which sunk so far below the common standard that it was somewhat painful to watch).

I disagree with this so much it hurts.

Yet you don't explain why.

The art design of the original Star Wars movies was, for the most part, horrible (except for some of the character and ship design). The majority of it looked like it was thrown together with gak I could find in my garage. If you find that endearing somehow, then I can understand that, but you have to at least admit this is true. Also, every piece of architecture or machinery was incredibly...grey. I found this to be mind-numbingly boring from an artistic perspective. It may have been intentional, but by no means was it visually exciting or worthy of praise.

The prequels have much more artistic merit. Attention was actually paid to color and contrast, symmetry, and consistency. Not everything looked like junk, and the stuff that did existed for a reason. You can tell that a whole lot more work went into the preliminary design of the prequels, even if it doesn't cater to your personal tastes.

I was still pretty young when they came out, so I was enamoured with the whole thing anyway. Looking back I can appreciate how god-awful some of the work was, but there were also good bits/

Personally I liked the Clones, giving them personality as soldiers rather than droids (who should never have been given any sort of personality at all, even as a kid the dialouge in No.3 made me cringe), was what made the final betrayal on their part really a betrayal.
I also didn't like how Anakin's fall came about. So you betray your beliefs, your order, your old master, destroy the temple and kill children for love? I would have bought any other reason for him to turn to the Dark side.

Chrysaor686 wrote:

Ahtman wrote:Yeah, only a person infused with nostalgia could find issue with these films. Of course it could be only people who are steeped in fanboy love would make excuses for poor film making.

I hold no fanboy love for Star Wars. It is a decent series. I enjoy it more than most other science fiction (because pure science fiction tends to make me cringe).

I didn't say you were a fanboy (though by the end of your post I have no doubt you are either deluded as to your fanboy nature or just trolling us), just pointing out that the argument cuts both ways and really niether of them are very good.

Chrysaor686 wrote:There are far, far worse movies than Episode 1-3.

Of course there are, but that doesn't keep them from being fairly poor movies. Or to quote Jason Nesmith "It doesn't take a great actor to recognize a bad one". A movie doesn't need to be Troll 2 or Manos levels of bad to stuck hard.

Chrysaor686 wrote:Most people find the prequels to be some of the worst movies of all time

I don't think I have seen anyone make that claim here.

Chrysaor686 wrote:Again, not fairly bad, but distinctly average.

If the prequels are average and Empire Strikes Back is average, i have no idea what kind of crazy scale you are working with. Everything about ESB blows the prequels out of the water. It isn't The Seventh Seal, but is is a solidly crafted film.

I disagree with this so much it hurts.

Yet you don't explain why.

Chrysaor686 wrote:The art design of the original Star Wars movies was, for the most part, horrible

At this point you have to be trolling, I can't think of anyone who seriously believes that. I could buy that it is overrated but competent, or workmanlike, but horrible?

Chrysaor686 wrote:You can tell that a whole lot more work went into the preliminary design of the prequels

No, you can't. You might choose to believe that, but that doesn't make it true. You are reminding me of Abatap at this point.

I am no troll. Everything I have stated is my genuine opinion, especially my dislike of the art direction of the original Star Wars Trilogy. How you can possibly be enamored by grey utilitarian masses of shapeless crap is beyond me. I found the prequels to be much more esoteric and flavorful in their design of...well....everything. I've made this point fairly clear; you've still made no attempt to explain why the art direction for the original trilogy isn't awful in most respects. Character design and wardrobe choices were fairly good, most everything else was deplorable.

I find it funny that you can disagree with me on the subject 'so much it hurts', yet when I state my honest opinion I'm being a troll. The art design seriously bothers me, to the point that it detracts from my enjoyment of the films. How is that not valid?

I never said that The Empire Strikes Back is average in the least; it is far superior to any of the prequels, yet there are certain elements of the prequels which manage to surpass it in some way (Art design and fight scene coreography are the things I'm looking at here, nothing else even comes close to touching ESB).

I also don't see how stating that the prequels are average is being a fanboy. If people didn't often think that they were terrible, there would not be nearly so much discussion about it, hence my argument.

The prequels came out when I was a pre-teen, so I used to think Anakin was such a badass.

It was only when I rewatched them i realized how bad they were (damn you Jar-Jar!). McDiarmids role as Palpatine was pretty good, though

I've been saddened and disappointed with Star Wars ever since the CGI Dance Mix was added to Return of the Jedi Special Addition.

The series, including the prequels, has never sunk lower.

I will say that Republic Commando was one of the best Star Wars games ever though, so it's not all bad.

djphranq wrote:I've made my peace with the prequels. I like them for parts they contain but not as a whole. ... Plus its great white noise for when I'm painting or making lists.

Thats how I look at them. Episode 1 I loved the pod races, they looked super cool, all those droids were badass looking, if you ignored the Gungans. And the super duel with Maul was the tits. I still say he could of gone toe to toe with Mace Windu personally.

Episode 2, that takes some real thinking on my part. Uhm.... I liked that Jango Fett was in it. The rescue at the end was cool, minus that REALLY oddly placed kiss on the cheek from Padmae...that one still makes me scratch my head. Yes we get it, they are in love, that weird ass, poorly timed kiss wasnt needed.

Episode 3, yeesh. Even less parts I cared for. And honestly, the ending fight was just WAY to fething long. Did they really have to fight on an entire planet to show how good a match those two were? And THEN Vader decides, Oh Ill super flip OVER Obi Wan, even though he has the high ground. Tactical genius my ass!

Well they both knew it was a gamble.

Obi-Wan told him not to try it. Anakin probably just thought he was so much more awesome than Obi-Wan that he could pull it off.

He was wrong, of course.

Chrysaor686 wrote:(Art design and fight scene coreography are the things I'm looking at here, nothing else even comes close to touching ESB).

It's a shame nice art design and awesome fight coreography don't fix crappy acting, weak story and character structure, bad cinematography (in the first two prequel films), or make genuinely bad movies any better.

Star Wars' originally Trilogy is a fairly simple and straight forward story. That's why it was so good. They kept it to the basics and they went with it and it created a film that was wonderfully crafted (and one that heralded so many cultural classic tropes and themes and carried them so well it's hard not to call the films effective in their message). The prequels are much more like a Michael Bay film. They're special effects shows. That's all they did well.

Monster Rain wrote:Well they both knew it was a gamble.

Obi-Wan told him not to try it. Anakin probably just thought he was so much more awesome than Obi-Wan that he could pull it off.

He was wrong, of course.

Ok benefit of the doubt, it was a gamble for both of them. But you cannot argue that the fight lasted FAR to long. Personally I think it would be way more dynamic if it only lasted like 2 minutes tops. If 2 guys with as much skill as they have, went at it, it would either be over REALLY fast, as one would make a small mistake and the other would capitalize on it, or it would last a few minutes and end the same way. Not 10 minutes of insanity all over the damn planet. I mean....swinging like monkies? Riding a weird.....Tau drone thing?

While in the original film I understand the fight Choreography between Alec Guinnes and some guy in a huge suit wasn't that amazing, but the fight scene in ESB was quite good, and had far more emotional tension then any of the prequels. They only way it is viewed as bad is if you only think overly choreographed kung fu choreography is the only good way to do a fight scene. While the prequels were half-assed wuxia whereas ESB was more based on the samurai genre, specifically Kurosawa.

Agreed. When Luke FINALLY has it out with his father, that is frigging intense. No one is flipping around, and doing those awkward wire landings that look very unnatural, and no one is suddenly a kung fu master. It was just pure emotion on every strike. AND they didnt fight on an entire planet and take 10 minutes to get to it.

Chrysaor686 wrote:
The art design of the original Star Wars movies was, for the most part, horrible (except for some of the character and ship design). The majority of it looked like it was thrown together with gak I could find in my garage. If you find that endearing somehow, then I can understand that, but you have to at least admit this is true. Also, every piece of architecture or machinery was incredibly...grey. I found this to be mind-numbingly boring from an artistic perspective. It may have been intentional, but by no means was it visually exciting or worthy of praise.

I beg to differ there's a lot more colours than just grey in original trilogy. Also the art direction was amazing for the technology they had.

Chrysaor686 wrote:...especially my dislike of the art direction of the original Star Wars Trilogy.

There's a difference between saying you dislike something, and that it is bad. Dislike tends to feed qualitative appraisals, but it isn't tacit to them.

I dislike, for example, religion, but I wouldn't say religion is bad. I also dislike Frazzled, but I wouldn't say Frazzled is bad (that's probably a lie).

What you're talking about are the aesthetics of the original trilogy, not the actual art design. Aesthetics are things which you can like or dislike (unless you're a philosopher), art design however has technical merit which extends beyond the knowledge of laymen.

I liked all the Star Wars movies, I think people are too picky.