• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Why Do People Hate the Star Wars Prequel Trilogy?

Why Do You Hate the Star Wars Prequel Trilogy the Most?

  • The Actors

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • The Plot/Writing

    Votes: 20 28.6%
  • The Era Shouldn't Have Been Explored

    Votes: 2 2.9%
  • It Wasn't Like the Original Trilogy

    Votes: 1 1.4%
  • Nearly Everything Was CGI

    Votes: 2 2.9%
  • The Characters

    Votes: 3 4.3%
  • Political Storylines

    Votes: 1 1.4%
  • Too Many Shades of Grey

    Votes: 1 1.4%
  • Dialog

    Votes: 3 4.3%
  • George Lucas and the People He Put In It (Be More Specific)

    Votes: 4 5.7%
  • There Is More Than One Best Reason to Not Like The

    Votes: 27 38.6%
  • Too Childish

    Votes: 1 1.4%
  • Too Evenly Matched Sides

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • The Action

    Votes: 1 1.4%
  • Other (Comment Below)

    Votes: 4 5.7%

  • Total voters
    70
I think it isn't so much hating the entire pre trilogy.. it's simply the massive let down that The Phantom Menace was.

The Phantom Menace was not a "massive letdown" by any stretch of the imagination, at least for general audiences and a majority (yes, I said MAJORITY) of the Star Wars fandom as a whole.

This is not something that can be substantially disputed.
But with Jar Jar and kiddie Anakin, and believing he was someone special (as opposed to Dakota Fanning in Taken) ..that really threw things off

You clearly completely missed the point of WHY Lucas structured The Phantom Menace the way he did.

Also, Jar Jar is awesome... and I'll let Bryan Young of Star Wars.Com and Full of Sith explain why:
I’ve been meaning to write some detailed essays explaining why the Star Wars prequels are, indeed, as excellent as I say they are. I’ve given a lot of thought to how to approach the systemic defense of the prequels and, like all great battle plans, I’m going to shore up the weakest spot first: Jar Jar Binks.

I understand a lot of you have a deep and festering outrage for so outward a clown being included in our beloved Star Wars movies. To tell the truth, I find Jar Jar just as obnoxious as you guys probably do. But that doesn’t mean I don’t like him and it certainly doesn’t mean that he doesn’t serve a specific and brilliant purpose to the added benefit of the Star Wars saga.

I’m not going to try to convince you guys to like Jar Jar Binks, but at the very least, I’d like you to agree that for the stories George Lucas planned to tell with him as a central character (The Phantom Menace and Attack Of The Clones), Jar Jar was a vital part of the story and fit in with the archetypes of story and myth that Lucas based ALL of the Star Wars movies on.

Jar Jar Binks is the clown of the Star Wars films. And it makes sense to have him feature prominently in the first act. Looking to Shakespeare’s The Merchant Of Venice, we see Lancelot the Clown featuring prominently in the early act of the play, providing useful commentary, lessons, and above all, laughs and largely disappearing later in the body of the work. Jar Jar works the same way, providing those laughs in the first movie, moving on to another purpose until disappearing completely by the middle of the saga. Clowns aren’t anything new to drama. They’ve appeared back as far as our history of theatre goes. Why should George Lucas be demonized for remaining consistent with his use of classic myth, drama, and archetype? Jar Jar is the sad bunny you help on the side of the road who gives you the magic beans to slay the dragon at the end of the journey.

As far as in The Phantom Menace, Jar Jar is supposed to be annoying, and funny to the kids. That's the point. We need to see past people for their annoyance and look at their inherent worth. Jar Jar saved the day and brought two nations of people together because just one person saw through the fog of annoyance. It’s a valuable lesson that would be well learned by those who seem to have the most hatred for Jar Jar.

That's one of the strongest morals to be learned in The Phantom Menace, and that's why I'll stand up for Jar Jar.

Because of his unifying nature in The Phantom Menace, he was promoted from clumsy annoyance to Senate representative in Attack Of The Clones. His role in the second episode of the Star Wars saga was particularly poignant for a number of reasons and explored how even the most well-meaning person can, by no fault of anything but his intention to do the right thing, be manipulated into perpetrating a great evil. In being made to feel that authorizing an army for the Chancellor was the right thing to do, he was complicit in the eventual destruction of the Republic.

This is an excellent lesson to be learned from Jar Jar in the Star Wars films, and it turned out to be disturbingly prescient. Six months after the release of Attack Of The Clones, the United States Congress unwittingly pulled a Jar Jar and gave George W. Bush the same war authority powers Palpatine was given and in another six months the United States would be embroiled in its longest, most senseless war to date.

My last point is this: You’ll always hear people say, “I hate Jar Jar,” and “Jar Jar annoyed me,” and, “Could someone please kill that obnoxious Gungan?” But think of this: how often do you hear people say, “I hated Jar Jar because he looked fake,” or, “I disliked Jar Jar because he didn’t interact with his environment well?” Not very often. The team at Industrial Light and Magic created the first all-CG character so convincingly that his physical presence was never the issue with fans, merely those choking on their own hubris.

Now, you can still hate Jar Jar if you want to, but I think it’s pretty clear that he worked for specific purposes in the films, whether you liked it or not. And if you can’t at least admit to this stuff, your inability to like the prequels has far more to do with a personal problem than with the actual films themselves.
http://www.denofgeek.com/us/movies/14165/in-defence-of-jar-jar-binks
http://fullofsith.com/archives/2004
 
Didn't someone once wrote an article on why the Prequel Trilogy is continuously bashed? I remember it being very interesting and how it said a lot about humanity and society.
 
Didn't someone once wrote an article on why the Prequel Trilogy is continuously bashed? I remember it being very interesting and how it said a lot about humanity and society.
Most entertainment does.

I don't recall such an article but it would be interesting. Personally, I think its a matter of expectations combined with characters and the mixed reception to them. Visually, the films stand out, and the production values and digital designs are ground breaking. Jar-Jar, to me, is less interesting as a character and more interesting as a digital model. The Kaminoans sell it a whole lot better, in my opinion. So do the battle droids, come to think of it.

And that's the struggle I will always have. I can read books about PT characters, or watch the Clone Wars, but at the end of the films, I lack an emotional connection to those characters in the film. And I'm the guy who cries at the beginning of Star Trek 09 when George Kirk tries to say "I love you" right before he dies.

ETA: I recently discovered another podcast that might be of interest to people discussing the story aspects of the Star Wars Saga. It is very interesting, because it takes a more literary approach to the story, in terms of concepts, and then how they are presented on screen. It is only one guy, so there isn't a back and forth like a radio show, so if you don't like lecture format, this won't be for you. But, he unpacks the stories in a very interesting way.

And, no, I don't agree with everything he says. I just enjoy the perspective. Find the "Introduction" here
 
Last edited:
Interesting. A lot of people make similar complaints about "Rogue One".
And? Was there a point attached to that statement? I think Rogue One is beautiful looking, and certainly a fun film, but wholly unnecessary, in my opinion, and bogged down in the middle. and suffered from pacing.

Now, while I don't especially care about the characters in RO, I at least believe that they are characters interacting this world. Unfortunately, I cannot say the same about the PT.
 
And? Was there a point attached to that statement? I think Rogue One is beautiful looking, and certainly a fun film, but wholly unnecessary, in my opinion, and bogged down in the middle. and suffered from pacing.

Now, while I don't especially care about the characters in RO, I at least believe that they are characters interacting this world. Unfortunately, I cannot say the same about the PT.


I'm sure that you do. But I have encountered a great deal of complaints about "Rogue One" - especially by those who compare it unfavorable to "The Force Awakens". That is what I was saying.

Personally, I like the characters in "Rogue One". I find them more interesting than the new characters in "The Force Awakens" - with the exception of Finn, whom I like very much.
 
I liked Jyn. And Saul (for his 5 minutes of fame) and the robot of course.

It was (literally) a special fx movie, so I factor that in when considering the shallowness.
 
I'm sure that you do. But I have encountered a great deal of complaints about "Rogue One" - especially by those who compare it unfavorable to "The Force Awakens". That is what I was saying.

Personally, I like the characters in "Rogue One". I find them more interesting than the new characters in "The Force Awakens" - with the exception of Finn, whom I like very much.
Fair enough.
I liked Jyn. And Saul (for his 5 minutes of fame) and the robot of course.

It was (literally) a special fx movie, so I factor that in when considering the shallowness.
That's a good point and one that I will keep in mind. I also keep that in mind with the PT, because many of the visuals are groundbreaking in terms of their design and scope.
 
I think that people hate the prequels because of the bad writing and the political themes (particularity in episode I). In terms of the writing, there are many cringe worthy scenes such as Anakin flirting with Padmé in "Attack of the clones. In terms of politics, there are too many trade negotiations and political disputes and not enough action.
 
Fast and Furious
sUaSyGa.gif

d864b859-e1c2-4dd7-bfee-d6d494e8db79
 
I think that people hate the prequels because of the bad writing and the political themes (particularity in episode I). In terms of the writing, there are many cringe worthy scenes such as Anakin flirting with Padmé in "Attack of the clones. In terms of politics, there are too many trade negotiations and political disputes and not enough action.


How many people are you talking about? The Prequels have a larger fan base than many realize.
 
How many people are you talking about? The Prequels have a larger fan base than many realize.
Does that eliminate the problems? Or, are others just willing to overlook them? Honest question, because there are plenty of movies that I absolutely enjoy and love but are very flawed. I'm not blind to those flaws, but can look past them.

Of course, the counterargument is that "The OT has flaws too!" right? That's the next argument? I can hear it now. The difficulty that I have encountered with the PT is the fact that those flaws are not covered over by characters, story or a sense of fun or excitement. I think AOTC is my favorite, but I still struggle to get through the entire film.

Regardless, I do agree that the PT have a larger fan base than is realized.
 
Every movie has flaws, it's just a question of whether the good things are enough to counter those flaws. So trying to defend one trilogy by saying the other has flaws too, doesn't really work. It's pretty clear that there was enough good in the OT for most people to be willing to over look their flaws, but not in the PT.
 
Every movie has flaws, it's just a question of whether the good things are enough to counter those flaws. So trying to defend one trilogy by saying the other has flaws too, doesn't really work. It's pretty clear that there was enough good in the OT for most people to be willing to over look their flaws, but not in the PT.
Not back in the 80's. The OT received a very similar treatment by film critics. One film was praised(A New Hope), the other two were decidedly mixed.

The OT was said by many to have terrible acting, awful dialogue, all spectacle/no substance, "basically a 2 hour long sfx reel," and so on. What's actually a "flaw" is subject to each individual viewer and their tastes.
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top