No thanks.
Return of the Prequel Hatred Poll... (Better...!!)
- Thread starter VulcanMindBlown
- Start date
Yes thanks
Either way, someone will feel like a childhood hero was ruined.
Ok, if you like them.
The only movie of the prequels that I can even try to rewatch is The Phantom Menace. At least this movie has the best visuals (CGI, scenarios and costumes), soundtrack and a cool villain.
I know "I" wouldn't be allowed to get away with it ...
Acting = mixed bag, let down as much by clunky dialogue
Child-friendly doesn't mean they have to resort to far jokes. I know it's not 1963 any longer, but still... it can be done, it had been done.
Anakin = dialogue
Jar Jar = fart jokes. They wrote it as comedy relief so people took the character as a joke. Note that Jar Jar is treated increasingly respectable in the prequels' sequels. Again, pin it not on actor or CGI artist but the main writer.
Politics... um, the original Star Wars had just enough that's needed for a kindergartener to comprehend. Evil = bad, Good = good. Adults liked it in 1977-83 as well, probably for the shiny new flying things or to see Leia in a bronze swimsuit.
The battles were impersonal - a 70' screen showing lots of CGI dots glowing blue, green, or red just isn't exciting, special, or an event. Again, bad writing - subsection "not adding the emotional impetus to get audiences to care about the big lightshow". Even I could figure that one out.
*** The plot/writing (and lack thereof) *** got my vote
Should the era have been explored? Not if they make something cool like Darth Maul, then not be bothered to use him until he has to be quickly sliced up like the onion I put into my casserole last night. They came really close to a novel character that could have been set up as a really good villain.
CGI... it never ages well but if it sells the story then it'll still last. TOS-R's use of CGI has dated better and it was cheap at the time! SW's CGI, for prequels of "remastered OT" has aged pitifully and far worse and far faster. Largely because, again, seeing a big Colosseum with dancing blue and green dots with the audience not caring about the alleged plight isn't going to matter how they did it. People watch movies made from reshaped lumps of clay and plastic brick things and that's far uglier than most CGI yet most of them are loved. I bet the plot and good characters (and acting to improve what's on paper) had more to do with that.
Characters... Lucas had some good ideas. The dialogue is where it all falls apart.
Shades of gray - The prequels set up a huge universe that would become the galactic empire. In concept, it was a good decision. In execution, bad dialogue kills it.
*** Dialogue *** got my vote
SW pimped the plastic toys since 1977. And kids would love Darth Maul, if nobody else. That isn't a problem as such.
Lucas' involvement isn't the problem. Comparing the PT to the OT and the people involved in the OT put on more polish and mad enough dialogue rewrites...
*** The action... *** got my vote, but I already covered that, LOL
TPM actually has a more consistent SW vibe than its prequels, despite being the least-necessary or most-padded of the three installments timewise. Consolidate TPM into AOTC or get more plot material for a trilogy.
*** Too different? *** Got my vote. In terms of technology, yeah. The prequels were way too advanced and glossy, nor does attrition really get sold across the trilogy all that well.
Lucas had a LOT of ideas and I appreciate his pioneering with CGI. He brought in some big names and talented actors, of which Samuel L Jackson gets the best dialogue of the bunch when all is considered. And they underused and rendered unmemorable as a result Christopher Lee (!!! I repeat, !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!). Especially as Palpatine is rightly the big bad of the bunch and here's the epic Christopher Lee that... well, he shot purple moonbeams out of his hands and made a quote about anger that Yoda would use in TESB, verbatim no less, so it must be in the Jedi scripture or else it's a callback to make the audience feel all warm and fuzzy with since the 2000s didn't allow liquor to be sold in the theaters unlike today... The bulk of the problems are sadly with the dialogue and plot development or lack thereof.
Child-friendly doesn't mean they have to resort to far jokes. I know it's not 1963 any longer, but still... it can be done, it had been done.
Anakin = dialogue
Jar Jar = fart jokes. They wrote it as comedy relief so people took the character as a joke. Note that Jar Jar is treated increasingly respectable in the prequels' sequels. Again, pin it not on actor or CGI artist but the main writer.
Politics... um, the original Star Wars had just enough that's needed for a kindergartener to comprehend. Evil = bad, Good = good. Adults liked it in 1977-83 as well, probably for the shiny new flying things or to see Leia in a bronze swimsuit.
The battles were impersonal - a 70' screen showing lots of CGI dots glowing blue, green, or red just isn't exciting, special, or an event. Again, bad writing - subsection "not adding the emotional impetus to get audiences to care about the big lightshow". Even I could figure that one out.
*** The plot/writing (and lack thereof) *** got my vote
Should the era have been explored? Not if they make something cool like Darth Maul, then not be bothered to use him until he has to be quickly sliced up like the onion I put into my casserole last night. They came really close to a novel character that could have been set up as a really good villain.
CGI... it never ages well but if it sells the story then it'll still last. TOS-R's use of CGI has dated better and it was cheap at the time! SW's CGI, for prequels of "remastered OT" has aged pitifully and far worse and far faster. Largely because, again, seeing a big Colosseum with dancing blue and green dots with the audience not caring about the alleged plight isn't going to matter how they did it. People watch movies made from reshaped lumps of clay and plastic brick things and that's far uglier than most CGI yet most of them are loved. I bet the plot and good characters (and acting to improve what's on paper) had more to do with that.
Characters... Lucas had some good ideas. The dialogue is where it all falls apart.
Shades of gray - The prequels set up a huge universe that would become the galactic empire. In concept, it was a good decision. In execution, bad dialogue kills it.
*** Dialogue *** got my vote
SW pimped the plastic toys since 1977. And kids would love Darth Maul, if nobody else. That isn't a problem as such.
Lucas' involvement isn't the problem. Comparing the PT to the OT and the people involved in the OT put on more polish and mad enough dialogue rewrites...
*** The action... *** got my vote, but I already covered that, LOL
TPM actually has a more consistent SW vibe than its prequels, despite being the least-necessary or most-padded of the three installments timewise. Consolidate TPM into AOTC or get more plot material for a trilogy.
*** Too different? *** Got my vote. In terms of technology, yeah. The prequels were way too advanced and glossy, nor does attrition really get sold across the trilogy all that well.
Lucas had a LOT of ideas and I appreciate his pioneering with CGI. He brought in some big names and talented actors, of which Samuel L Jackson gets the best dialogue of the bunch when all is considered. And they underused and rendered unmemorable as a result Christopher Lee (!!! I repeat, !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!). Especially as Palpatine is rightly the big bad of the bunch and here's the epic Christopher Lee that... well, he shot purple moonbeams out of his hands and made a quote about anger that Yoda would use in TESB, verbatim no less, so it must be in the Jedi scripture or else it's a callback to make the audience feel all warm and fuzzy with since the 2000s didn't allow liquor to be sold in the theaters unlike today... The bulk of the problems are sadly with the dialogue and plot development or lack thereof.
It's pretty common for big name actors to have a clause in their contract that allows them to have a preferred screenwriter tweak their dialogue. I wonder if Samuel L. Jackson had that which is why his dialogue was better than most of what was scripted.
The poll asks why "you" (I) didn't like them, or why they weren't successful, but I do like them and they were successful.
As you all know, I don't hate the Prequels. I like them as much as I like the Original films. However, do you have a similar thread for the Original and Sequel Trilogies? Do have a thread for the stand alones? If not, I cannot help but regard this thread as useless.
The "cat and mouse battles of the Original Trilogy"?? WTF?????
The "cat and mouse battles of the Original Trilogy"?? WTF?????
This was attempted before, as well as the critique films. When something as big as Star Wars as a lukewarm reception and legacy as the Prequels do (been around the Internet long enough to know that the reputation of the PT is not positive) then it will be discussed forever and day. That's what fans do, as much as there are podcasts and commentaries about OT favorites, memories, characters and the like.As you all know, I don't hate the Prequels. I like them as much as I like the Original films. However, do you have a similar thread for the Original and Sequel Trilogies? Do have a thread for the stand alones? If not, I cannot help but regard this thread as useless.
The "cat and mouse battles of the Original Trilogy"?? WTF?????
The psychology of this is an effort to understand why there is the reaction to the films that there is.
Finally, if this thread is useless, why comment?
That is just as baffling.
My reasons I disliked (Not Hate) the prequels I was promised to see the story of Anakin Skywalker, this great Jedi warrior and the best pilot of his time fall from grace. I didn't see the greatness, a figure who should've been respected by everyone in that era--it seemed Anakin was being upstaged by all of the major Hollywood actors cast and had to have THEIR screen moments. Yes, even the cartoon Yoda upstaged Anakin. The other unfortunate thing is I never had a chance to see the Clone Wars which Luke briefly mentioned in the first Star Wars movie. I had no interest seeing the Clone Wars on TV but Live Action on the big screen with the actors they had. A wasted opportunity.
Then this is a misunderstanding of what I meant. I am in no way capable of stating what "all" or "none" of Star Wars fans felt. I can only speak to my experiences, and they are predominantly critical of the PT.
If you want to discuss flaws in the OT we can certainly do so. Empire Strikes Back is right on the top of my list to pull apart.
It did seem that way. For the prequels but especially TPM, I got the impression that the story revolved around the fx rather than having the effects serve the story.
Two scenes in particular come to mind. Qui-gon, Obi-wan were speeding along in their submersible. All of a sudden a huge fish gobbled another fish which in turn was gobbled by an even bigger monster fish, which then tried to eat the submersible. Qui-gon and Obi-wan escaped with no worse for wear. But they hardly even noticed the fish. They barely batted an eye. The underwater effects were nice but the scene was much ado about nothing.
The other was the Jake Lloyd pod race scene. Lots of CGI aliens. Nice fx. That scene took up quite a bit of time. Again, did it really matter.
And then there's annoying CGI Jar Jar.
It seemed to me that those scenes were there to showcase the fx and the work of ILM. The story mattered less.
The prequel got off to a bad start. TPM seemed like a waste of time. The trade war story was lame. The first prequel movie was a wasted opportunity. Darth Maul was the most forgettable villain in any of the SW movies. Was he there just for the obligatory light saber fight.
The acting was relatively weak throughout the prequel, even from the big name actors. Samuel Jackson was awful. He sounded stilted, the way he spoke.
AOTC and RotS had similar issues imho, but they were better. Better overall stories. I have come to appreciate these two movies a bit more after having seen them a few more times over the years on TNT.
