Phantom Menace is the best Prequel.

[sonak]

Or the common argument that suddenly SW had always been meant largely for kids. You never really heard that until TPM actually was released to lukewarm reception, but all of the sudden the sentiment that "Star Wars is and always has been for kids!" was everywhere.

Yeah. I have never gotten that argument either. The originals were films that resonated with kids because they were imaginative and colorful, and had neat space battles - not because they had a cartoon rabbit who steps in the poo poo.

The argument that the films are meant for kids kind of falls flat when you look at Episode III, which easily has more violent moments than any of the SW films.

yeah, when ROTS came out with its PG-13 rating and violence, and was actually pretty good, then suddenly the "SW is for kids!" argument disappeared again.


It's only brought out when a movie is criticized, which is kind of insulting, implying that kids somehow enjoy crappy movies.

 

[TremblingBluStar]

Please. Kids shows are full of people getting their limbs chopped off and being set on fire by lava.

Of course.

If the first film were released today, there is no way it would be considered a kids film. First off, we have rebels getting gunned down by Storm Troopers, Vader torturing and breaking a rebel's neck, burning Jawa bodies, the charred skeletal remains of Luke's aunt and uncle, Obi Wan dismembering an alien, and Han shooting Greedo... all within the first 30 minutes!

It's only brought out when a movie is criticized, which is kind of insulting, implying that kids somehow enjoy crappy movies.

Have you seen the box office returns for Revenge of the Fallen?

Kids do like crappy movies!

 

[sonak]

well, I don't think kids like crappy movies any more than adults do, at least.

 

[Uxi]

I would have preferred Darth Maul as the main villain in the prequels. So strong that he can only be beaten if you use the power of the Dark side.

Agreed! I always thought the best... synergy with the OT would have been Qui-gon's voiceover telling Obi-wan to "let go" and he lets himself fall down the shaft, where he ends up in some safe area after a fall (shades of both Ben in ANH and Luke in TESB). Maul realizes the jig is up and hauls ass. He replaces Dooku in AOTC and takes off Anakin's forearm and whoops Obi-Wan again. That would have been a much nicer lead up to ROTS IMO. Maybe too derivative, but I've always liked the idea.

Perhaps I am mistaken, but I don't recall Darth Sidious ever giving orders to kill the Queen. However, I do recall him giving orders to force her to sign the treaty.

Right, but what happens to her after she signs the treaty? Probably the same thing that happens if the Chancellor's ambassadors hadn't been Jedi. Her death helps Palpatine politically.

 

[The Mirrorball Man]

I don't think many of the critics of the prequels wanted them to be deep or thought-provoking compared to the classics of cinema. I would have been happy with the same dept as the originals, but we couldn't even get that!

The prequels may not be as good as the originals, but it's not because they weren't deep enough. None of these movies are deep. If the prequels failed, it's because they weren't as fun as the originals. I do think they were fun enough, but that's a matter of personal preference I guess.

So if you thought The Phantom Menace sucked, you must be someone who can only enjoy Bergman's films? There is nothing in between? That's the most absurd thing I've seen posted on this forum in a long time. Entertainment doesn't equal stupidity.

That wasn't the point I was trying to make actually, and really, it's not the point I've made. Of course I'm sure that there are plenty of people who hate the prequels, yet are able to enjoy lots of movies besides the (frankly excellent) Bergman films.

I wasn't responding to your claim that the prequels were "awful" or "bad", which you've now completed by saying they "sucked". Those are matters of taste, and since you offer no argument to back up your claims, I gather that you don't actually want to talk about it.

What I was responding to is your claim that The Phantom Menace is "offensively stupid, even if you were a 5-year old, which seemed to be the target audience they were going for, let alone an adult". That is, of course, absurd. The Phantom Menace may or may not be a terrible movie, it may or may not "suck", but it's not any more stupid than the average summer popcorn flick. Actually, the very fact that it has lots of characters, parallel plotlines and some very ambitious, if flawed, world-building makes it slightly more complex than most action movies.

If it's that kind of stupidity that makes you react so violently to a movie, then my advice was to seek a different kind of movie, because you're bound to encounter it again and again if you keep watching summer blockbusters. But now that we know that you actually don't mind watching stupid movies, and that you just hate The Phantom Menace because it "sucks", I guess my point is moot.

Really, watch Wild Strawberries, though. It's a lovely film.

 

[Rarewolf]

Or the common argument that suddenly SW had always been meant largely for kids. You never really heard that until TPM actually was released to lukewarm reception, but all of the sudden the sentiment that "Star Wars is and always has been for kids!" was everywhere.

Yeah. I have never gotten that argument either. The originals were films that resonated with kids because they were imaginative and colorful, and had neat space battles - not because they had a cartoon rabbit who steps in the poo poo.

The argument that the films are meant for kids kind of falls flat when you look at Episode III, which easily has more violent moments than any of the SW films.

Being a kid at the time (well I was born in 77) I had the toys by the age of 4 or 5, I've never considered them anything but aimed at kids. They had toys. Not marketed as collectables for older fans. Toys. They had cartoon series, they had lunch boxes etc etc all kids stuff.

I find it more amusing that people have to defend the fact they still enjoy kids movies. The first three were rated U - sith was rated 12. 12 year olds are still kids.

The first generation of fans grew up, the films had to take account of the current generation.

The special editions are 15 years old next year, a whole generation have known nothing but.

I've 2nd cousins who enjoy Star Wars as much as I did when I was their age.

 

[Uxi]

You see this line of argument a lot among strong supporters of the PT, and it's kind of a funny one-they're basically putting down the classic OT to make the much inferior PT look better.


Variations include "but the dialogue was bad in the OT, too!" or "the OT story was just as filled with plot holes as the PT!"


Or the common argument that suddenly SW had always been meant largely for kids. You never really heard that until TPM actually was released to lukewarm reception, but all of the sudden the sentiment that "Star Wars is and always has been for kids!" was everywhere.

Because you're setting up a strawman where the arguments are mutually exclusive instead of complimentary to each other?

The dialogue in the OT is bad in the OT, too. "Easy? You call that easy?" etc. While I love the character, let's face it Harrison Ford has never been a master thespian like Guinness nor has Hamill proven to be a better actor than Christensen or Lloyd (though I do love his voice work).

The idea that it's mainly this generation of the adolescent man-child who considers Star Wars an adult themed movie is another matter. You won't find many people from previous generation who take it nearly as seriously as the generation that grew up as children with Star Wars.

Despite the SE changes and the more recent modifications to the OT, I still find the PT to be jarringly dissimilar to the classic trilogy. It just doesn't gell at all to me.


I can enjoy AOTC and ROTS to some extent, but they're nowhere close the OT.

I grew up and loved the original trilogy but I don't let the rose colored glasses of nostalgia blind me to the flaws that are very similar to those in the prequels. They're all popcorn flicks not meant to be taken too seriously.

Maybe if the DGA and WGA hadn't tried to get their pound of flesh from Lucas, he wouldn't have been forced to do things he says he would prefer not to do or used little known names like Marquand and could have kept a working relationship with Kershner and been able to more overtly use his friends and colleagues like Spielberg. After TESB, the biggest issue is that he didn't have to compromise with anyone anymore and after Marcia did her thing, he had no mitigating influences anymore.

I'm reminded of trying to watch the inspirations Lucas had. Some, like the Kurosawa resonate well (obviously) but have you actually tried to watch any of the Flash Gordon serials? They're horrible and make TPM look like Casablanca or Lawrence of Arabia.

 

[DevilEyes]

So if you thought The Phantom Menace sucked, you must be someone who can only enjoy Bergman's films? There is nothing in between? That's the most absurd thing I've seen posted on this forum in a long time. Entertainment doesn't equal stupidity.

That wasn't the point I was trying to make actually, and really, it's not the point I've made. Of course I'm sure that there are plenty of people who hate the prequels, yet are able to enjoy lots of movies besides the (frankly excellent) Bergman films.

I wasn't responding to your claim that the prequels were "awful" or "bad", which you've now completed by saying they "sucked". Those are matters of taste, and since you offer no argument to back up your claims, I gather that you don't actually want to talk about it.

What I was responding to is your claim that The Phantom Menace is "offensively stupid, even if you were a 5-year old, which seemed to be the target audience they were going for, let alone an adult". That is, of course, absurd. The Phantom Menace may or may not be a terrible movie, it may or may not "suck", but it's not any more stupid than the average summer popcorn flick. Actually, the very fact that it has lots of characters, parallel plotlines and some very ambitious, if flawed, world-building makes it slightly more complex than most action movies.

If it's that kind of stupidity that makes you react so violently to a movie, then my advice was to seek a different kind of movie, because you're bound to encounter it again and again if you keep watching summer blockbusters. But now that we know that you actually don't mind watching stupid movies, and that you just hate The Phantom Menace because it "sucks", I guess my point is moot.

Nope. I don't mind movies that don't require a lot of thinking about the plot or moral dilemmas. I do mind the movies that are stupid, and in this case, offensively stupid. That means that they don't just don't require you to think a lot; they actually require you to shut your mind off completely to be able to not notice just how bad they are.

"No arguments"? Uh, I don't know, how about bad dialogue or ridiculous characters, and failed attempts to make them funny (Jar-Jar Binks)? Sorry I can't go into more details since it was a long time ago and I frankly didn't want to dwell a lot on it or remember it, so I can't even remember whatever plot was there. Ambitious movie = / = smart movie. Lucas may not have been trying to make a stupid movie, but he still did end up making it. You really can't see the difference between the quality of the original trilogy and TPM/TAOTC? A movie doesn't have to be deep or incredibly thought-provoking to be good (though I prefer if it does), but it does have to have interesting, believable and well fleshed-out characters, good dialogue, well-constructed plot... and it's also desirable that it's entertaining, especially if it's meant to be. And TPM really wasn't, not to me, even though it was desperately trying to be.

Really, watch Wild Strawberries, though. It's a lovely film.

I did. I love Wild Strawberries and Seventh Seal, even though I'm generally not Bergman's biggest fan.

I'm not sure what that has to do with The Phantom Menace, though. But if you really want to compare the two, Wild Strawberries isn't just much better written, directed, shot and acted, and doesn't just have more depth, but it's much more entertaining since is actually held my attention and made me want to know about the main character's past and his relationships with his family, while TPM just didn't make me care at all about anything and just made me lose my patience and stop watching.

 

[Admiral_Young]

The problem with Darth Maul surviving throughout the trilogy is that I seriously can not see him being able to lead the Separatists. We didn't see that much of him but I did get the impression right off the bat that he was a follower, not a leader. That is another reason why Palpatine recruited Dooku. He had charasmia, was a respected Jedi Master, came from an aristocratic family and was immensely familiar with galactic politics. I'm not saying that Maul didn't posses these traits himself but he was trained for a different purpose entirely. Lucas named Dooku well indeed, Darth Tyrannus, which of course stems from the word tyrant which Sidious aimed to be and that Dooku was acting as. Maul was exactly that...he was a mauler. A highly trained secret assassin who served his purpose well.

 

[Temis the Vorta]

I don't think many of the critics of the prequels wanted them to be deep or thought-provoking compared to the classics of cinema. I would have been happy with the same dept as the originals, but we couldn't even get that!

The prequels may not be as good as the originals, but it's not because they weren't deep enough. None of these movies are deep. If the prequels failed, it's because they weren't as fun as the originals. I do think they were fun enough, but that's a matter of personal preference I guess.

The prequels had the chance to transcend the OT in being both fun (which is mandatory!) and deep (by delving more into the weird but kinda plausible mashup of Christianity and Buddhism at the core of the story).

Wasted opportunity. Still frustrating.

The Phantom Menace may or may not be a terrible movie, it may or may not "suck", but it's not any more stupid than the average summer popcorn flick.

But it's a lot worse than the best of the summer popcorn flicks. Movies like Star Trek XI, Captain America and Iron Man are a step above the rest, by being fun (which is mandatory!) and also being about something beyond just the splosions.

The OT was also at this level. ANH was about "learning to believe in yourself," ROTJ was about "learning to forgive" and ESB was a necessary transitional movie between those two themes. Luke's growth in ANH was from child to man; in ROTJ it was from man to something that transcends the usual petty level of human existence, becoming the best sort of man possible.

But what was the PT about? Nothing. It had the chance to be about something, for instance, it could have been a retelling of the Icarus Myth (which Anakin's story strongly suggests). Constructing the whole trilogy along those lines could have focused the dramatic conflict and avoided a lot of the problems, of unappealing or dull characters, nobody being pro-active besides Palps, scenes that go nowhere, and general incoherence.

 

[Set Harth]

being about something beyond just the splosions.

But what was the PT about? Nothing.

Completely false. "Didn't like the plot" = "there was no plot".

An oldie, but a goodie.

I'm going to suppose until shown otherwise that that's the reason that Darth Maul is sent in - to trigger events that assure Anakin's training as a Jedi.

Why not go with the reason given in the film?

It's still a dumb and illogical concept.

Funny, I never heard anyone say that in the OT days when Vader and Palpatine were running the Empire. I can't fault the PT for consistency with the "dumb and illogical" OT. I think prequels being consistent with the originals is a good thing.

I'll gladly criticize he original films when they deserve it, and Jedi deserves a lot of criticism, but saying the moronic rule that there can only be two Sith is a flaw of both series because it was introduced in the prequels and the prequels take place chronologically first makes no sense.

I agree, but I never said that. You seem to be ignoring or misunderstanding my last post. If something is a flaw of both series because it appeared in the OT, that means it did precede the prequel era and is not the fault of the PT.

And saying pointing out flaws in the PT is also criticizing the OT is a pretty lame defense of the prequels. That is like saying you can't criticize Star Trek: Enterprise without criticizing the original series as well.

Once again, I said that flaws of the PT apply to the OT only if they appear in the OT. I then cited Jar Jar as an example of a "flaw" of the PT that does not also appear in the OT. You're simply ignoring what I actually said and rewriting it into a strawman. That accomplishes nothing and fails to cover up your mistake.

 

[Temis the Vorta]

So what was the PT about? Maybe "stupid people get what they deserve?" Perhaps that is true, but it's hardly something we need to suffer through three movies to learn.

 

[TremblingBluStar]

Once again, I said that flaws of the PT apply to the OT only if they appear in the OT. I then cited Jar Jar as an example of a "flaw" of the PT that does not also appear in the OT. You're simply ignoring what I actually said and rewriting it into a strawman. That accomplishes nothing and fails to cover up your mistake.

But it didn't appear in the OT. There was no "rule of two" or "Sith rule the galaxy" ever uttered in these films.

How am I rewriting what you said? I pointed out a flaw in the prequels, you jumped on me saying that is also a flaw in the originals. I quoted you and disagreed.

I think you need to look up the definition of a straw man argument. It is thrown around far too much on the Internet these days, and most people attribute it incorrectly.

Being a kid at the time (well I was born in 77) I had the toys by the age of 4 or 5, I've never considered them anything but aimed at kids. They had toys. Not marketed as collectables for older fans. Toys. They had cartoon series, they had lunch boxes etc etc all kids stuff.

Like I said, kids were enamored with the films because they had cool special effects and characters that could appeal to all ages.

That is what Lucas simply does not understand. Kids love the OT because they wanted to be Luke or Han, but these are not characters written to appeal to kids specifically. There were no cartoon rabbits in the OT. There were real adult situations and themes that you will never see in your average Disney feature.

Even Pixar, who most people credit with making films that can appeal to kids as well as adults haven't made a film with anything as dark and violent as some of the scenes from the original Star Wars.

 

[sidious618]

So what was the PT about? Maybe "stupid people get what they deserve?" Perhaps that is true, but it's hardly something we need to suffer through three movies to learn.

Did you even watch the films? They were packed with plot which was a complaint at the time about how they were too boring because of that fact. If you want to point out things you didn't like that's fine but you can't just pull things out of the air and act like they'll stick. The PT was much more plot driven than the OT.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

Why not go with the reason given in the film?

That would be to eliminate the Jedi before attempting anything else.

 

[TremblingBluStar]

Did you even watch the films? They were packed with plot which was a complaint at the time about how they were too boring because of that fact. If you want to point out things you didn't like that's fine but you can't just pull things out of the air and act like they'll stick. The PT was much more plot driven than the OT.

I agree the PT had a plot. One that was executed in a dull, plodding manner, but they had one.

But to be fair, Temis said the films were about nothing. Meaning, there was no overarching theme. She never said there was no plot. That was something Set Harth assumed she said in the same post where he accused me of misrepresenting his statements.

I personally don't think these films needed a theme or any sort of basic moral lesson to be good movies. Just having characters whose situation and actions we can relate to would have been a good.

Lucas blew this by immediately introducing us to a slave who lives in a rather spacial home, isn't starving, isn't overworked, and can afford the components to build a pod racer and a robot.

So according to Lucas, slavery is living a normal, middle class live style with a good paying job... but not being able to leave.

Like Confused Matthew said in his review, sign me up for that!

 

[CorporalCaptain]

Lucas blew this by immediately introducing us to a slave who lives in a rather spacial home, isn't starving, isn't overworked, and can afford the components to build a pod racer and a robot.

So according to Lucas, slavery is living a normal, middle class live style with a good paying job... but not being able to leave.

Like Confused Matthew said in his review, sign me up for that!

Indeed. This was a significant failure in TPM.

 

[Thestral]

Even Pixar, who most people credit with making films that can appeal to kids as well as adults haven't made a film with anything as dark and violent as some of the scenes from the original Star Wars.

With respect... violent, sure (Owen and Baru), but dark? Lea's torture aside, you can find darker in Toy Story (the lives of Sid's toys) and The Hunchback of Notre Dame (Judge Frollo... his villain song especially) to give a couple examples.

 

[sonak]

Or the common argument that suddenly SW had always been meant largely for kids. You never really heard that until TPM actually was released to lukewarm reception, but all of the sudden the sentiment that "Star Wars is and always has been for kids!" was everywhere.

Yeah. I have never gotten that argument either. The originals were films that resonated with kids because they were imaginative and colorful, and had neat space battles - not because they had a cartoon rabbit who steps in the poo poo.

The argument that the films are meant for kids kind of falls flat when you look at Episode III, which easily has more violent moments than any of the SW films.

Being a kid at the time (well I was born in 77) I had the toys by the age of 4 or 5, I've never considered them anything but aimed at kids. They had toys. Not marketed as collectables for older fans. Toys. They had cartoon series, they had lunch boxes etc etc all kids stuff.

I find it more amusing that people have to defend the fact they still enjoy kids movies. The first three were rated U - sith was rated 12. 12 year olds are still kids.

The first generation of fans grew up, the films had to take account of the current generation.

The special editions are 15 years old next year, a whole generation have known nothing but.

I've 2nd cousins who enjoy Star Wars as much as I did when I was their age.

er, if you're argument boils down to "it's a kids movie if it's not rated R or NC-17 and it has a line of action figures," that's not a very strong argument, and would make a LOT of movies that are not kids' movies into kids' movies.

 

[sonak]

You see this line of argument a lot among strong supporters of the PT, and it's kind of a funny one-they're basically putting down the classic OT to make the much inferior PT look better.


Variations include "but the dialogue was bad in the OT, too!" or "the OT story was just as filled with plot holes as the PT!"


Or the common argument that suddenly SW had always been meant largely for kids. You never really heard that until TPM actually was released to lukewarm reception, but all of the sudden the sentiment that "Star Wars is and always has been for kids!" was everywhere.

Because you're setting up a strawman where the arguments are mutually exclusive instead of complimentary to each other?

The dialogue in the OT is bad in the OT, too. "Easy? You call that easy?" etc. While I love the character, let's face it Harrison Ford has never been a master thespian like Guinness nor has Hamill proven to be a better actor than Christensen or Lloyd (though I do love his voice work).

The idea that it's mainly this generation of the adolescent man-child who considers Star Wars an adult themed movie is another matter. You won't find many people from previous generation who take it nearly as seriously as the generation that grew up as children with Star Wars.

Despite the SE changes and the more recent modifications to the OT, I still find the PT to be jarringly dissimilar to the classic trilogy. It just doesn't gell at all to me.


I can enjoy AOTC and ROTS to some extent, but they're nowhere close the OT.

I grew up and loved the original trilogy but I don't let the rose colored glasses of nostalgia blind me to the flaws that are very similar to those in the prequels. They're all popcorn flicks not meant to be taken too seriously.

Maybe if the DGA and WGA hadn't tried to get their pound of flesh from Lucas, he wouldn't have been forced to do things he says he would prefer not to do or used little known names like Marquand and could have kept a working relationship with Kershner and been able to more overtly use his friends and colleagues like Spielberg. After TESB, the biggest issue is that he didn't have to compromise with anyone anymore and after Marcia did her thing, he had no mitigating influences anymore.

I'm reminded of trying to watch the inspirations Lucas had. Some, like the Kurosawa resonate well (obviously) but have you actually tried to watch any of the Flash Gordon serials? They're horrible and make TPM look like Casablanca or Lawrence of Arabia.

um, I'm not blinded by nostalgia. It's an established fact that the OT is much better regarded by professional critics than the PT was. Go back to reviews at the time. Apologists for the PT tried to say that the OT was treated harshly by film critics at the time it was released also, but that's just not the case. Are all those critics "blinded by nostalgia?"

It's also pretty obvious that the OT made a lasting impact on pop culture that the PT didn't and most likely never will.

Years from now, when people refer to "star wars," they're going to mostly mean the OT.


I don't know why PT fans want to knock the OT to make the PT look better.


Either defend all the films as equally good if that's what you believe, or realize the OT is the superior trilogy. But knocking them all down to "dumb popcorn movies" just because you think this makes the PT come off better is just silly.