Why we hate the prequels at OT forum. — Page 4

I hate the prequels because - all technical/asthetic issues aside - they're forced on us as canon, and because the OT & EU have been defiled to accomodate them.

Exactly, the opening credits have been left alone.  And my custom DVD cover says "Raiders" too!  (I just don't look at the disc art or menus when I put it in my player ... )

For the DVDs?  Yeah, they did, thankfully.  "Raiders" was placed before "Temple" in the 4-disc box set, while "Temple" had been placed before "Raiders" on the above pictured VHS set.

I certainly don't see how anyone can think Phantom Menace is a better film than Crystal Skull, but I don't really want to get into an argument about it.  I can understand thinking that Temple and Crusade are better.  I just don't think they are.

But as I said, I don't want to get into an argument about it.

Indy Four!? There is no Indy Four!

Watch the pendulum.

Watch it go from one side to the other and back again.

Watch the pendulum.

Repeat after me: "There is no Indiana Jones four".

You're Lucas?

*shock*

Ignorance is bliss.

captainsolo said:

Try playing any of the awful prequel games (JEDI FREAKING BASH YOUR CONTROLLER AND PLAYSTATION AGAINST THE FLOOR POWER BATTLES!) and in about 2 minutes you will be cursing bad programmers, designers, and lucas. Or you could read an awful prequel novel.

Stover's ROTS novelization is so much better than the film though. Characters actually have psychological depth. If his Shatterpoint had been Episode II I think all of us would have been happy. (just about the best thing about the prequels.)

So I'd recommend reading the novelizations, and Ady's TPM reconstruction to have the least offensive prequel run.

 Actually, one of the best Star Wars games is, sadly, a prequel setting - "Republic Commando". I'm saying sadly because the prequels are undeserving of that game. Me, and every one of my friends, cared more about any of the clones in the squad than any prequel character, ever. It completely pulverizes the prequels in the quality of its action sequences, tension, dialogue and drama.

Also, Stover's "Shatterpoint" is a great book. I know many people don't like it because it's supposedly "too dark, too philosophical and too militaristic" to be Star Wars... but hey, those people got their child-friendly, flat and "war is fun" prequels in the end.

Most of the Clone Wars episodes have provoked sympathy for the Clones in the manner you describe.

They have even done a better job of showing the light and dark sides of Anakin than any point in the PT.

First of all, in my opinion, people are too hard on the prequels. Yes, the script could have been better. The story seemed inept, convoluted, rushed, and they could have done better. But I think what George Lucas made is not complete garbage. Making a back story in the league of the original star wars trilogy is not an easy feat.

Take the Yoda fight for example. Most fans hated that, but how would you get around it? I mean really, from what we learn of the jedi knights from the first trilogy, how plausible could it really be?

So apparently jedi can do almost anything they want with the force. Since that is true how do you make that plausible without being ridiculous? Yoda's got to fight with a light saber, there's no way around it. How can he be all knowledgeable and powerful with the force and not be able to fight somebody with a light saber? You can't just have human beings fight and the rest of the creatures that are inadequately fit not fight, just because they look inadequate to fight with a light saber. Because Yoda says, size matters not. That can also be interpreted as body type, matters not. But I won't get into any more of that because redlettermedia so eloquently explained that in their review of Attack of the Clones.

People complained about the CGI. CGI was still in its infacy at the time and frankly, I found TPM to have the best CGI which is odd because you'd think it would look better as they went along.

Another thing, people complained about the plots going too much into politics. While I would agree, you do have to admit that a lot had to be setup in the way the galaxy's government operates in order to keep the story flowing. I find it odd how similar they made their government sound from ours. Courts, Senate, Chancellor, Viceroy, I know the original trilogy borrowed a lot of words we use in our governments, but it didn't come off as sounding so derived like in the prequels.

I felt like George was torn between making a film for children or a serious movie for grown-ups all through the making of the prequels. Jar Jar Binks, probably the most unanimously hated character ever to grace the screens of cinema. It's been a long time since I've seen TPM, but my memory is that he was a very creative character and kind of fills the shoes of Chewbacca or C3PO from the original trilogy. You have to admit that he was very memorable. Hell, he's probably up there with the most memorable cinema characters not only in Star Wars, but movies in general. I found him to work well as comic relief and he did play an integral role in the story of TPM. Something you can't really say about a lot of the other supporting characters in the PT like "Count Dooku" and "General Grevious." They're basically just there because, they want an old guy and a robotic guy in there.

Even though the prequels did come up flat, I do think that George did develop a good foundation to work with in TPM. I thought Liam Neison's character was really good in it and it was cool seeing everything established in the first movie. I don't think having Anakin as a young child was a bad idea. I don't even think Jake Lloyd's acting was that bad. Maybe I should go back and review it but I didn't see a problem with it last time I watched the movie.

After typing this, I'm not sure if I am defending or criticizing the prequels, the more I think about them the less I like them. That's about all I have to say. Redlettermedia did a great job critiquing the movies and I look forward to his episode 3 review.

http://www.redlettermedia.com/

How would you get around the Yoda fight looking implausible?

Easy.  Don't have Yoda fight.  Same with Palpatine.  They should be above lightsaber fighting, so powerful they don't need one.

At least, that's what I always thought before Episode II came out.

^Agreed.  Any fanedit that leaves the Yoda fights in is not worth watching.

Ghostbusters said:

I felt like George was torn between making a film for children or a serious movie for grown-ups all through the making of the prequels. Jar Jar Binks, probably the most unanimously hated character ever to grace the screens of cinema. It's been a long time since I've seen TPM, but my memory is that he was a very creative character and kind of fills the shoes of Chewbacca or C3PO from the original trilogy. You have to admit that he was very memorable. Hell, he's probably up there with the most memorable cinema characters not only in Star Wars, but movies in general. I found him to work well as comic relief and he did play an integral role in the story of TPM. 

He's memorable because of how awful he is.

In the OT Jedi seems to mean more than just Jedi Knight.

Some of the Jedi could use their connection to the Force to defend peace and justice martially (Jedi Knights) and others could just be followers and teachers of the Jedi way (Jedi Masters).

Yoda gives pointed lessons to Luke about wars not making people great and that violence and the use of weapons should be avoided (he is a Jedi Master).

Obi-Wan starts off by giving Luke a sword and teaching him how to use it (he is a Jedi Knight).

So why do we have to see Yoda using a lightsaber (it being the weapon of a Jedi Knight)?

Come the PT all Jedi are martial artists and even the Masters are Knights but of a high rank.

Even their librarians carry swords at all times :

They are reduced from being impartial defenders of peace and justice to being a mystical martial arm of the Republic and restricted by Republican law (so they can't intervene on non-Republican worlds like Tatooine, they can't make their own mind up as to if the Republican Government and it's policies are the problem or the solution).

They are hugely dependent on technology having their own computer centres and robot staffed labs (what's wrong with the Republic having that stuff and the Jedi acting on the Force and instinct...surely the lesson of ANH's conclusion).

It utterly screws up all the grandeur suggested by the backstory as seen from the OT end of the saga and it looks really stupid to have Yoda bouncing around like that when he can pull X-Wings out of swamps using his mind.

The same with Palpatine.

He is the dark shadow of Yoda.

He can shoot lightning out of his hands so why does he have to spin around the place with a lightsaber?

Why does Dooku have to do backflips when old Ben who is younger than old Dooku does not do those moves in ANH?

Why have General Grievous in the saga at all when we are already told that the sabre wielding cyborg who hunts down Jedi is Vader and Vader is a less fancy looking cyborg and yet more of a plausible threat.

If Dooku is a swordsman why give him the lightning ability (thus undermining Palpatine's use of it in the final act of the final story)?

Not only were these films blandly written but they were so badly thought out it's staggering how anyone could like them let alone love them so much that they feel the need to defend them.

I don't hate the prequels but I do believe their delivery could have been much better had they not been so mechanical in nature.  The ONLY one that has a bit of natural feel to it is TPM.....the other 2 are simply way too digital and character development seems stifled by it.

They could have been much more even if the story lines stayed the same...case in point....Mace Windu.  Samuel Jackson delivered his lines like a wookie in ewok undergarments and ended up looking like a wussy dressed like a Jedi and that was sad. 

Impressive effects, unimpressive dialogue and story movement.

:)