The STAR WARS prequals were better then the original trilogy?
I myself think so. How about you?
I myself think so. How about you?
Would we be looking at Lucas in a better light if...
- Thread starter miraclefan
- Start date
I concur. If Lucas would not suck so much, I would stop saying that he sucks!
I don't think it's that the prequels failed that people look down on Lucas (never mind that it did make a ton of $$$$); it's how they failed. They were like first draft scripts being directed by someone who only cared about the special effects and the actors were just there to service the plot.
If you look at a on-set shot of Lucas from the original trilogy where he has all these miniatures behind him and compare that with a prequel trilogy Lucas where he's got a green screen behind him, that tells you a lot.
If you look at a on-set shot of Lucas from the original trilogy where he has all these miniatures behind him and compare that with a prequel trilogy Lucas where he's got a green screen behind him, that tells you a lot.
The STAR WARS prequals were better then the original trilogy?
Is this a sequel to the "Would you hate Star Trek XI if it had flopped ?" thread ?
Agreed.. if he'd just step back to being producer and maybe oversee the general visual look and technical side of moviemaking and hand over the reins to some talented director and scriptwriter i'd bow down to his feet (assuming the creative people were good).
Lucas has crafted a gorgeous visual look to the movies.. you can say what you want about the prequels but they looked and sounded fantastic with many unique creatures that make Star Wars what it is.
However he is one of the worst scriptwriter and directors ever to helm a big budget movie and that ruined it. Visuals don't make a movie alone.. you have to have a good story and get good performances out of the actors (how he managed to get such bad acting from people like McGregor, Neeson and Portman is beyond me).
Take a look at LotR and Peter Jackson.. equally epic material (though not written on his own) but he made an outstanding trilogy that was near perfect in every aspect.
That the nature of special effects has changed in the last twenty years? Both pictures prove the same thing by this argument, that all hes concerned with are effects. But this is not a very good argument, as it doesn't prove this at all.
Well......uhm, duh. Of course we would.
I, too, would be willing to give George a pass on sucking, if, indeed, he seemed far less inclined to suck so hard.
This. It worked for TESB.
The STAR WARS prequals were better then the original trilogy?
Squid, I don't think that was ever possible.
The main reason is we already KNEW (pretty much) what was going to happen in them. It had to follow the numbers. Now that is anathema to drama. How can there be drama when we know the outcome for each and every character?
I do enjoy Episode III -- except for the Padme parts. That character was just dullsville! Well, so was Anakin actually.
Saying a movie can't have drama simply because we know what is going to happen is like saying historical dramas can never be any good.
If the films were about the characters instead of having them act as cardboard cutouts or motion control for the visual effects, the films would have been dramatic. If the characters acted like real human beings act, the films would have been dramatic.
So things could have played out exactly as expected, and the films would have been good. I mean, did anybody watch the first SW for the very first time not knowing Luke was going to rescue the princess and blow up the Death Star?
Well, I can see you like your films predictable and dramaless.
Good for you.
Bottom line: I found them predictable and boring. Yes, most or part of that is due to the wooden acting, but not all of it...
Quite right. This "prequels can never be good" idea is hogwash. One of the all-time best science fiction novels I ever read--Nor Crystal Tears--was a prequel.
Every action movie ever written has a foreordained conclusion. The hero will defeat the villain. The suspense lies in how, and the drama lies in what it costs him.
The prequel story arc is, ultimately, a tragedy. The fall of Anakin Skywalker. Tragedies too, have foreordained endings. The hero will fail. "Romeo & Juliet" tells you right at the beginning, in the opening narration, that the the titular couple kill themselves at the end. That doesn't keep their misadventured piteous overthrows from making a good story. The Star Wars prequels could have been a tragedy as grand as "Romeo & Juliet", or "Hamlet"...in the hands of a better writer.
George Lucas has his strengths as a creator of film, and where he's good, he's very good. But he has his flaws, too, and it's no coincidence that the best of the Star Wars films are the ones he had the least control over.
That's both an ad hominem and a straw man argument. Surely you can take a higher road.
No disagreement from me that they were badly done, but I disagree with your contention that prequels must be badly done because the ending is known.
Marian
Last edited:
Oh brother...I knew it would happen. The "battle cry" of the wrong -- claims of "Ad hominem" and "Strawman". Talk about a need for originality. For some reason, those words seem strangely popular on Star Trek boards...
Using Romeo and Juliet or Hamlet as an example is ludicrous. Star Wars isn't Shakespeare.
I never said prequels NEVER work (the fact that I am hugely supportive of the latest Trek film sorta proves that I am not necessarily against prequels. An ALIEN prequel -- for example -- could be fantastic if executed properly) -- but in the case of the Star Wars films the prequels didn't (with the exception of Episode III) -- in my opinion -- work. Due to execution. Perhaps I should have clarified that initial comment with a preface of "Given the by the numbers direction Lucas chose when making the prequels...". But, no use crying over spilt pixels...
We can debate why that is as there is more than one reason why that is.
No slam towards Lucas, but in my opinion he hasn't been a great film maker since Raiders of The Lost Ark.
Using Romeo and Juliet or Hamlet as an example is ludicrous. Star Wars isn't Shakespeare.
I never said prequels NEVER work (the fact that I am hugely supportive of the latest Trek film sorta proves that I am not necessarily against prequels. An ALIEN prequel -- for example -- could be fantastic if executed properly) -- but in the case of the Star Wars films the prequels didn't (with the exception of Episode III) -- in my opinion -- work. Due to execution. Perhaps I should have clarified that initial comment with a preface of "Given the by the numbers direction Lucas chose when making the prequels...". But, no use crying over spilt pixels...
We can debate why that is as there is more than one reason why that is.
No slam towards Lucas, but in my opinion he hasn't been a great film maker since Raiders of The Lost Ark.
Very true. The films had the feel of a bad TV miniseries where the drama and characters got lost in the dust while Lucas raced to cover one plot point after another. And big epics like these films NEED good actors that the audience can connect with so everything does not get lost in the backwash of special effects.
This problem could have so easily happened with the Rings films but it did not. Jackson retained focus on his many actors and we cared as a result.
