Since I thoroughly enjoy Sam Witwer's voice work, I enjoy hearing Maul speak.
Why Do People Hate the Star Wars Prequel Trilogy?
- Thread starter VulcanMindBlown
- Start date
I had asked this question some time ago, but I don't think anyone had bothered to answer.
When you ask why do "people" hate the Star Wars Prequel Trilogy, which people do you mean? Do you mean ALL people or just those who actually do dislike the trilogy? And if you only mean the latter, why phrase this question in such a vague and general manner?
When you ask why do "people" hate the Star Wars Prequel Trilogy, which people do you mean? Do you mean ALL people or just those who actually do dislike the trilogy? And if you only mean the latter, why phrase this question in such a vague and general manner?
People who hate the movie. Since I saw the PT in the theaters, it has been the subject of jokes, criticism, ridicule and constant ribbing, even years after the fact. The impression that I have walked away with is that the PT is largely unpopular, if not hated.
I suppose the question comes across as all people hate the PT, but that's largely been the exposure. I can't watch a random YouTube video or cruise a fan forum without hearing some joke about the PT, or it's a least rare.
It is pretty damn obvious. Why would they be asking someone who likes it why they hate it?
Stating what I'm sure is obvious, the prequels are more popular with younger millennials who were introduced to Star Wars with the prequels. Amongst those who saw the originals in the theaters and on vhs, there is more hatred. There was a shudder of horror amongst a good deal of older fans(but not all) when their 16 year old wait ended with The Phantom Menace.
Last edited:
I really disliked TPM (and it is still the worst Star Wars film for me), but even TPM had some good scenes, moments. I liked the other two films. I never got the hate for Clones. I saw it as a marked improvement over TPM.
I get the impression that the prequel hate has somewhat subsided over the years, with a lot of fan interest and angst shifting over to the sequel trilogy and other Disney-Lucasfilm works. For me, the Disney Star Wars films do make me appreciate the overall prequel trilogy even more. I think the prequels had more vision than the sequels, just the execution, including the direction, needed work. But I found the villains better in the prequels (including from Clone Wars), the stakes felt higher and better explained, and I thought it ended mostly on a satisfying if dark note.
I get the impression that the prequel hate has somewhat subsided over the years, with a lot of fan interest and angst shifting over to the sequel trilogy and other Disney-Lucasfilm works. For me, the Disney Star Wars films do make me appreciate the overall prequel trilogy even more. I think the prequels had more vision than the sequels, just the execution, including the direction, needed work. But I found the villains better in the prequels (including from Clone Wars), the stakes felt higher and better explained, and I thought it ended mostly on a satisfying if dark note.
I think the story of the prequels is better but told by far worse people while conversely the sequels have far worse stories told by far better people.
By story I mean the core idea, not the pacing or dialogue etc.
What do you mean by core idea?
I'm not sure. I think it's more that Star Wars fandom changed. Even the idea of a fandom is something new. Before the prequels, people seemed to love Star Wars in the same way they might love Back to the Future or Indiana Jones. Since the prequels and explosion of other Star Wars media, being a Star Wars fan seems to be more about loving the universe than three simple films.
Some of the people I know who love the OT became part of the fandom, but most just drifted away after the prequels came out and don't really identify with that culture or care much about Star Wars outside loving the first three. I don't think prequel hate has subsided. I just think plenty of OT fans don't really care anymore.
Also, Star Wars really committed to the prequel era, which is always going to help.
Last edited:
Like if I asked you to write down the general gist of the each movie. The pitch notes as it were. The prequels idea of Palp playing both sides, Anikan being corrupted because of his love and that being frowned on by the council. Even the notion that maybe Ben failed Ani because he was promoted due to dead mans boots rather than maybe being truly ready for it.
It was let down by the directing, dialogue, wardrobe and so forth.
The general core, pitch, story idea of say episode 7, to me, has far less going for it. It's far more shallow and uninspired. But the people working on it, shooting it, directing the actors are so much better than George was that you end up with two terrible trilogies for the completely opposite reasons.
If they could have kept George on, I know his ideas made it into the movies, as writer but had J.J just direct the thing I think we might have got a decent trilogy out of Disney.
Yeah, I think that's mostly true. I watched an interview a few months back where George gave a rough outline of the prequels and it actually sounded pretty good, although I still think the Anakin as a super Jedi thing and his reason for turning were a little silly, even as concepts.
I see your point, but I don't agree that Abrams and Johnson are 'far better' than Lucas. I definitely agree that the sequels are far worse stories.
Not sure how they are "worse stories" when they carry many of the same beats as the PT and the OT. One thing I do note is whether or not people care about the characters. Which, to be honest, seems to be more prevalent with people liking the PT characters more, flaws and all, while being dismissive of the ST characters.
I think the ST is a good story, one that we haven't seen the end of yet, but the characters are questionable as to whether or not people care for them. From my own experience, the PT was not enjoyable because I didn't care about the characters. They didn't feel like real people to me in a real world.
I think the ST is a good story, one that we haven't seen the end of yet, but the characters are questionable as to whether or not people care for them. From my own experience, the PT was not enjoyable because I didn't care about the characters. They didn't feel like real people to me in a real world.
I guess it comes down to how you define fandom. I mean you got die hard fans who consume every bit of Star Wars media but you also have fans who like some, or all of the movies, and that's it. Or you might have people who gravitate more toward the cartoons than the live-action films, etc. Is there any one set definition of fandom? Are there membership rules? I would say not really. It's more self-identified.
For people coming into Star Wars in say 1999 or 2015 there was a lot more readily available and/or accessible Star Wars content to consume than it was for people who watched the original films in the late '70s/early '80s. That being said, there were the Star Wars toys and then comics and novels. The proto-Star Wars fandom wasn't as large and sophisticated as today, however, the seeds were sown IMO with the original Star Wars novel, the toys, Splinter of a Mind's Eye novel, and the Marvel Star Wars comics. Maybe even the Holiday Special and perhaps the Ewok films and Droid cartoon as well. I do agree that some are entranced by the universe of Star Wars and not necessarily solely the original films anymore. However, the original films are still at the heart of Star Wars. The prequels just fleshed out the backstories rooted to some original characters, and the sequels are telling the story of the fading of the original characters. If they are successful, the sequels will supplant those characters for future generations and for future stories to spin off from their adventures and that of their progeny. Doesn't mean the original series will ever be put to pasture though. There could always be anthology films, television shows, video games, novels, and comics, and toys for the original trilogy era. (Though depending on how things go with Ben Solo, and then his relationship with Rey, there might be more heroes from the Skywalker line in future films. I can't see Disney completely putting Leia, Luke, Vader, or Han for that matter on the shelf).
I agree that some of lack of vitriol for the prequels these days is that OT fans might not care as much about it. But why? Because there's the nice, new, shiny sequels which gives some more to get into and/or complain about, and it also provides another avenue to look at the prequels from a sense of perspective. Fans no longer have only the OT to compare the prequels to, they now have the sequels, and so that might invite them to look at the prequels differently or not as with much hostility. (I think something similar is going on with Star Trek: Enterprise now that Discovery is out there). As you mentioned, Star Wars/Lucasfilm did commit to the prequel era and I do think the Clone Wars cartoons (especially the CGI one) went a long way to mitigating some of the problems people had with the prequels, and so in a way, the prequels might have been somewhat redeemed.
I do agree that some fans are more interested in the universe of Star Wars and not just the original films. I think this is Disney's goal. That you fork over your money for the Star Wars 'experience' more so than to see old friends again. That's why, IMO, the sequel characters are somewhat not well-defined, because it's not about character per se anymore, it's about the overall world. Disney made certain to keep the visual aesthetics, to a great extent. You still have stormtroopers, X-wings, TIE fighters, you have an "Empire" (First Order), and "Rebellion" (Resistance), the main bad guy dresses in black, wore a mask, and has a red lightsaber, etc.
Last edited:
I think the sequels are worse stories because there isn't an overall vision guiding them and they don't flow that well, they don't feel as organic to me. Granted the prequels also had some narrative issues, but they were held together by Lucas's overall vision. I'm not going to say the prequel character work was great. I think it relied on fan interest in the original trilogy and curiosity about how the universe got to the state it was in Episode IV, but also how some of the characters got there as well. So, I was able to care about some of the prequel characters in part because I cared about the older versions of them in the original trilogy.
With the sequels, Disney could tell the story of what happened after Episode VI, which they have done (not well IMO), but it's not as good to me as what the prequels did. In part because the successor characters aren't well-developed and they, or the larger galactic scene aren't as unique as we were presented in either the prequels or originals. In the PT we got to see the Republic in its last days and the oppressive Empire was the backdrop for the original films. I don't think the sequels have done a good job of setting the galactic scene and perhaps kept it muddled because they didn't know what to do or were hesitant to just pick a path.
The sequels also sought to deconstruct almost every major OT character, which wasn't that endearing either. Don't cut down the better liked characters if you can't successfully replace them. I think of the recent hit film Creed II, and also Creed. Both films found ways to build on not only Rocky's legacy, but even Apollo Creed's, in ways that are not tearing them down. Doesn't mean that either character was treated with kid gloves. But the films were respectful to what came before. They found value in the franchise, and weren't talking about killing the past, or letting it die. Instead they built on the foundations. I think Disney just made some bad creative decisions in the character department and haven't found a way out of that hole yet. Perhaps they are still banking on the Star Wars brand alone to save them, but Solo was the first example that the Star Wars label alone isn't automatically and universally embraced anymore. The prequels did have a role in denting the brand, but so have the sequels.
To me, if the sequels had wanted to stand out more, they should've taken bolder creative choices. After Episode VIII, creatively there's not a lot of places I can see them going, if they haven't been as willing to shake things up from the start of the new trilogy. Perhaps that's just due to my limited lack of vision, but in any case, I'm not that interested in these characters and if the heroes win or not, or even if the villains take over.
Last edited:
I think it's just the idea of a fandom. Even though they're extremely popular and well-regarded, there isn't really a 'fandom' for those other movies I mentioned. That's kinda how it used to be with Star Wars.
I don't know. I always got the impression the driving force behind older expanded universe stuff was just writers who loved the series. Since the prequels, the push for expanded universe stuff seems to be coming more from Lucasfilm, especially since Disney took over. Feels like that stuff is now considered as important as the films. Also, not to step on any toes, but Star Wars books were considered children's books when I was growing up. That seems to have changed - EU stuff is now marketed to all ages.
I really don't think so. I know they might not be too popular around here, but look at the Plinkett reviews. They came out years after the prequels, but they're still immensely popular. Remember, the real hardcore prequel haters only make up a small percentage of the people who disliked those films. Dislike of the prequels hasn't gone away, but the people who voice those opinions largely have. What's left over? Plenty of people who do like them.
What I see more of is people who always loved the prequels hating on the sequels.
Last edited:
Yes, even the PT gets grace because of Yoda and Obi-Wan. I don't feel like there was an overall "vision" beyond the action/adventure tropes. AOTC is a far different style to it than ROTS, and ROTS feels like it is cramming in way too much story that the film didn't have time to breathe.
I genuinely don't understand the "lack of vision" slung at Disney when a) it's been demonstrated that Kennedy used the framework Lucas had provided and b) there is a long running theme of finding one's place in the universe that carries these films through.
I don't understand the deconstruction part, though I can kind of see the argument, barely. It's not a deconstruction to sit there and put these characters through hell (the EU did this too) and see what happens. This is building upon the logical consequences of the choices. In my opinion, it follows the themes from the PT, OT and in to the ST quite well.
Now, I will grant that TFA could have done more to set the galactic stage and that the current status of the New Republic probably could have been better served in that story. However, I think there was enough pieces there to enjoy the film.
Yup, that's the difference. If you don't care about the characters, the filmmakers could have had all the vision in the world and it would have made zero difference.
Also, more bold choices? I would call that TLJ. For good or ill, it was a bold choice to make with Luke. Even Mark Hamill has grown to appreciate that choice.
Couldn't the filmmakers have created better characters?
Similar threads
