Return of the Prequel Hatred Poll... (Better...!!)
- Thread starter VulcanMindBlown
- Start date
Agreed. But then, I really love Attack of the Clones & Revenge of the Sith. Call me a heretic, but those are actually my top 2 favorite films in the franchise. The dialogue really lets it down but the trick is to tune it out and get swept up in the visuals and the John Williams music. Seriously, Williams is one of the greatest film composers ever and his work on the prequels is him at the absolute height of his powers. "Duel of the Fates" & "Across the Stars" kick so much ass!
Very true.
Out of all Star Wars productions, I believe the prequels most accurately reflect the Saturday-afternoon matinee serials that originally inspired Lucas to create this franchise... yes indeed, those thrilling cliffhanger serials of yesteryear, with all their larger-than-life one-dimensional cookie-cutter characters, simplistic storytelling, and oodles of painfully stilted acting and dialog. The SW prequels are supposed to be that way.
I get that you're being facetious but I actually like that aspect to the prequels. It's actually a big part of why I enjoy Indiana Jones & the Temple of Doom so much-- it feels the most faithful in capturing that vibe of old serials from the 1930s & '40s.
I like the whole line. Ewan McGregor does a great job of selling his grief here and I think he kinda needs the whole line to properly run up into it.
My version of it--
"Anakin, Chancellor Palpatine is evil!"
"From my point of view, the Jedi are evil!"
"What are you basing that on?"
"They tried to kill the Chancellor!"
"And why did they do that?"
"Because I told them that Chancellor Palpatine was evil!"
"Anakin, do you realize how little sense this is making?"
"I'M TOO ANGRY TO MAKE SENSE RIGHT NOW!!!!!!!"
Such a testament to Ewan's acting skill that he's the only one able to work around that hideous dialogue.
I never really get this. I hate the 'visuals' in the prequels, especially in those last two. Even if I liked them, I just can't imagine enjoying the films around that dialogue. The originals have great visuals and great dialogue, so what makes AOTC and ROTS better for you?
Last edited:
Heretic? No. But you really need to watch the OT again.
That's the essential difference between the OT and the PT (and ST, for that matter)--no one had to tune out anything, as the entire film captured the full attention of audiences, where they paid attention to all of the elements working / supporting each other to make a solid, larger than life fantasy. The dialogue was as effective and important as the visuals, with no side able to function without the other--as it should be in any film.
I've never heard or read the assessment of anyone agreeing with your statement. Almost without question most point to far older work as Williams' best.
Yeah, I like Duels of the Fates and Across the Stars but I would put this above those tracks as among his greatest and more memorable:
The visuals of the prequels are radically different from the rest of the saga, so it's just kinda a matter of taste. I love the colorful glossy look of that era. And the fight choreography is second to none. (Seriously, why aren't the sequel trilogy fight scenes up to that quality?) Lightsabers, the icon of the franchise, feature more in the prequel trilogy than in any of the others.
I like the look of the original trilogy but the grungier aspects of it aren't unique. Alien has a similar aesthetic. It's fine but I'm just less interested.
Jurassic Park ranks as probably my 3rd favorite Williams score after the 2 prequels I mentioned. Superman is a close 4th.
I like the look of the original trilogy but the grungier aspects of it aren't unique. Alien has a similar aesthetic. It's fine but I'm just less interested.
Jurassic Park ranks as probably my 3rd favorite Williams score after the 2 prequels I mentioned. Superman is a close 4th.
The Jedi feature more in the PT than any other era, so I think that has a large part to do it with.
Personally, as much as I enjoy the PT duels (mostly-looking at you Dooku v. Yoda), the ST feels so much more visceral and believable as far as combat goes. I find it comparable with the ROTJ fight where it feels like there is more effort and difficulty in each blow.
Again, it's a matter of preference. I prefer the lighting quick sword strikes of the prequels. It may not be as "believable" but I love the style and the visual imagination.
That's fair enough. And I enjoy a lot of the PT duels. But, my struggle is that no one feels in real danger. It's wonderfully fast but deceptively so at the same time.
But, I'm also a guy who thinks that the brief encounter between Obi-Wan and Maul in Rebels is one of the best lightsaber combat ever done in Star Wars:
While I imagine many would prefer this recut to the original cut:
I think there's a bit of a parallel between a good action sequence and a good dance sequence. For me, the appeal comes more from how visually interesting the choreography is and how skilled the performers are. Conveying the reality of the scenario is far less of a concern for me. (Veering off topic a bit, that's why I didn't particularly like La-La-Land. It may be more "grounded" & "realistic" than the classic musicals of yesteryear but Ryan Gosling & Emma Stone come across as pure amateurs when it comes to the musical arts. They didn't spend their entire careers perfecting the craft the way that one comes to expect from classic stars like Gene Kelly, Fred Astaire, Ginger Rogers, James Cagney, Ruby Keeler, etc.; or even modern song-and-dance men like Hugh Jackman & Zac Efron.)
I see this comment a lot, comparing the PT duels to a dance. Thing about professional dance is the years of training and conditioning that goes into it. This is literally just people waving around fake swords as fast as possible, and plenty is CGI. You look at an actual martial arts movie and that's something impressive.
PT duels are like the Transformers of lightsaber combat. As much as I don't like the Darth Maul duel, at least it seems like they're trying to hit each other. By the time you reach Anakin vs. Obi-Wan, it's just ridiculous.
It's kind of a quantity vs. quality thing.
Having choreographed both sword duels and dances I can agree with this. Each one is to tell a story and have a beginning, middle, and end. I think Duel of the Fates and the OT duels do this fairly well. There is strong intention and deliberate movement towards a definitive goal. In short, we understood the duel because we understood the characters. I think that the Dooku duels lack this because Dooku's intentions are barely known or understood. I think the ST duels work better if you are a bought in to the characters. Otherwise, they begin a lot less believable in their intentions.
Count Dooku is the leader of the Separatists, a rival political faction from the one that Obi-Wan & Anakin represent. Meanwhile, in the Duel of the Fates, Darth Maul is a hired gun (er, sword) working for the Trade Federation, a rival political body to the Queen of Naboo, represented by Qui-Gon & Obi-Wan. I'm not really seeing the difference here. These are fights based on an external disagreement as opposed to the more emotionally loaded fights between Obi-Wan & Anakin in Revenge of the Sith, Luke & Darth Vader in Return of the Jedi, and Luke & Kylo Ren in The Last Jedi.
The difference is one of presentation. In concept, you are correct. In display, Maul's is an ideological opposition to Qui-Gon and Obi-Wan. If Maul was purely opposed to the Queen of Naboo then he would not have focused on the Jedi. Maul, despite his lack of defining characteristics, really embodies the Dark side of the Force.
Dooku, however, lacks quite the same defining moment of "We shall have our revenge." Dooku plays as a front man for the Separatists who's true alliance is not to that movement at all. So, what is he fighting for? On the surface, it reads as the Separatists vs. The Republic. But, then, Dooku meets Sidious. Rather than being clearly defined, it complicates the picture in a way that is less than clear. It does not carry the weight of even Duel of the Fates, much less even the OT battles.
Again, on paper, it sounds good. In presentation, it is lacking for me.
Dooku may not genuinely be fighting for the Separatists but he's certainly against the Republic & the Jedi.
Again, surface level. But, it lacks the character compulsion from knowing the character and the intent. His ideological ambiguity does not contribute to investment in the conflict.
I didn't mind episode 1 to 3 all that much.
"The Plot/Writing" - My main issue was with episode 1 with the pod racing. I fell asleep to the pod racing my first time watching episode 1. I wasn't interested in watching a long drawn out kid playing his racing game.
"Too Different From the Original Trilogy" - making the past look more modernized than the originals is counter-intuitive. Kinda like comparing Star Trek Discovery and Star Trek TNG
"The Plot/Writing" - My main issue was with episode 1 with the pod racing. I fell asleep to the pod racing my first time watching episode 1. I wasn't interested in watching a long drawn out kid playing his racing game.
"Too Different From the Original Trilogy" - making the past look more modernized than the originals is counter-intuitive. Kinda like comparing Star Trek Discovery and Star Trek TNG
You’re about to hear a ton of excuses to explain this away.
I thought it kind of made sense, even though it was off putting at first to see the disparity. But, I always took it as the Empire basically ignoring a lot of basic technological advancements to invest in military.
