Seriously, WHY Do People Consider The Star Wars Prequels to be Horrendous?

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT
 

I don't really think it was nostalgia. Had these movies had been just as good as the originals (or near it) I don't think they would have been scorned much. Case in point: Beavis & Butthead. For many people, that was a nostalgic franchise. Maybe not from their childhoods necessarily, but still nostalgic. When they brought that back recently, critics adored it. It was as if the show had never left. The concept was slightly updated to accomodate modern times, but it still felt true to the episodes from the 90's. Personally, I've yet to hear anyone cry "nostalgia goggles" on this, because people think it's good.

If it could work for an old cartoon about two 90's era teenagers, it could sure as hell work for one of the most beloved film sagas of all time. So why didn't it? Well...because they weren't very good. I do agree with Moviebob though, they're not horrendous movies, they're just meh. If these movies hadn't been affiliated with Star Wars, they probably would have just been your typical summer blockbuster. The type of movies that makes a pretty good chunk of money at the box office, but everyone forgets existed a few years later.

And I think the prequels really could have worked. The concept is fine, and if you just take the main plot points and put them in an outline, it doesn't sound bad at all. Take a look:

- Small slave boy with dreams is taken into Jedi Order
- Boy grows up, but his mother is killed and he falls into a forbidden love
- Meanwhile, a Separatist army being manipulated by Palpatine is warring with the Republic.
- During war, the boy gives in to his anger out of fear of losing his wife. Leads to his downfall and birth of the Empire.

Really, this sounds FINE on paper. The problem was all in the execution. The character is written so haphazardly that he's impossible to like. As a kid, he's way too pure and innocent as well as played by a terrible child actor, and he grows up to be a whiny, self-absorbed, borderline psychotic man child that it isn't tragic at all when he officially turns to the dark side. And even THAT feels forced. One second he's all "I must stop the Sith and save my wife" and the next he's all "I'm going to kill children and the Jedi are evil because Palpatine told me they are." There's little to no actual development here, the character simply changes at the convenience of the plot.

And Anakin isn't the only problem. Palpatine's plan is way too complex and convoluted, the movies are filled with boring political debate scenes that put adults and children alike into comas, certain side-characters are really annoying and just there to sell toys, they create plot holes in the original trilogy (Leia remembers her mother, huh?), they create plot holes within themselves, and-most importantly- they just aren't very interesting or engaging. I love me some good lightsaber action too, but these movies fail plot-wise.

I never saw the original ones. I tried to look them up on YT but what I saw felt ..outdated. I don't have the nostalgia factor for those.

I think the prequels are alright. Especially the second one - stormtroopers are cool and that fight in the end was pretty bouse.
The only thing that kinda annoys me is that Anakin isn't manly enough to just stay away from that woman but I realize that without his weaknesses there wouldnt be much of a movie.

From my perspective:

1) The tech and general 'sterility' in environments of the prequels exceeds that of the original saga, which shows that the producers are trying to show off at the expense of being able to explain WHY. They didn't even bother to match aesthetics.

2) The acting of the prequels' main cast lacks SUBTLETY. Need I explain more? Hope not.

3) Lucas was obviously wanking during the whole filming process, and it's why he cast his own son as a kickass jedi kid that took down quite a few people before eating it. Plus, most of the films seem less of a fanservice to US, than a fanservice to HIMSELF. It was like he was blinded by his own brilliance, and we all failed to see it - in fact, wouldn't you agree with that sentiment, given the interviews with him concerning it?

Basically, the latter films lack heart, and make up for it in failed bravado. It's also why the later Indiana Jones' suck too. He moved more towards Micheal Bay's school of thought - bigger/better = winner... and the worst part is that people raised in this generation of movies, who more than likely watched the latter 3 first, are going to be more aligned with those cinematic horsedroppings anyway. Hell, they keep lining up for transformers, ain't nothing gonna stop this fad of movies that lack substance. All you need is big budget set pieces, special effects, and sexy actors with no skill whatsoever.

~Also, the younger Anakin gets, the more fucking ANNOYING he gets. The only time that character had any chops is as Vader himself.
GOD, don't get me started about how he edited in the new Anakin into Return of the Jedi, just because he could. Fuck him.

katsabas:
Ι cried when Qui Gon died. I memorized the choreography of the Phantom Menace final duel and the final duel from Revenge Of The Sith to the point where my muscles auto-ed the motions. I liked episode 1 and 3, not the entirety of the movies but I grew up with them.

I was only 15 when I went to see Revenge Of The Sith which I saw after the sequels. About 2 days earlier, I realized that the movie is doomed to have a bad ending. I had never been under that feeling.

Depends on the POV. I like the prequels less than the originals, of course but the prequels introduced me to the originals. So...

The bad ending is a big part of the problem to a lot of OT fans. I mean, we already know he falls, so there has to be some reason to care about the prequels. But Anakin is completely unsympathetic through the entire prequel trilogy.

People consider The Phantom Menace to be horrendous because it IS horrendous.

People consider II and III to be horrendous because they're still so pissed off at Episode I that they can't see how good II and III actually are.

For me it boils down to child-anakin and Jar-Jar-Bings.
I hate the two so much, even thinking about them gives me heartburn and a rage nosebleed.

THE ACTING WAS SO BAD!

"ANGEL"S ARE ALWAYS A SIGN OF BAD WRITING!

THEY WERE JUST SO ANNOYING!

GTwander:

2) The acting of the prequels' main cast lacks SUBTLETY. Need I explain more? Hope not.

If that were true, every character would be hamming it up at every opportunity like they're trying out for a Brian Blessed imitation competition and that would be at least fun to watch. It's not, because nobody in the prequels ever emotes.

The main cast of the original turned out good results because they had a simple, emotionally weighty story to work with. The prequel actors have nothing to work with. The events of the prequels are just events. It might as well be a history documentary for all the dramatic weight that went into the dialog. Although that's not entirely true; Ken Burns documentaries have way more weight than anything in these scripts.

People do tend to forget some good things about the prequels though. The music is generally fantastic. The music in Episode 3 completely makes up for our lack of emotional investment in the script during the Order 66 scene. That scene only worked because of the music. It is also good that they at least tried to get some use out of Boba Fett, even though it makes no sense that all Stormtroopers have New Zealand accents when they didn't in the original. And yes, I read the Expanded Universe stuff that explains it away, but a movie has to stand on its own merit.

What I hate even more than the prequels is George Lucas' constant meddling with the originals. I only saw the Special Edition on VHS that came out in the 90s, but I'm still appalled. When I first found out that Han shot first, I thought "why the hell would anyone change this?!" When I saw the jazz band scene in RotJ, I thought "Why would anyone include this?!"

When I heard Lucas shopped Hayden Christensen into RotJ, I actually wanted to cry a little bit. It's like seeing a painter running through the Louvre with a box cutter slashing his own paintings. All this unnecessary shit is just distracting, and it means that future generations and film students will never experience the original simplicity and artistry of the original trilogy ever again.

I agree. As someone who watched The Phantom Menace before any other Star Wars films, I consider the prequels to be superior in many ways. I don't get the hatred for the prequels at all, it doesn't make any sense, with the exception of Jar Jar Binks. *cringe* Other than that, I won't hear anything bad about Episode I.

The lightsaber battles in Phantom Menace were great, and you got a feel of just how deadly the Sith could be. Attack of The Clones followed it up well, although the sudden arrival of the clone army seemed like something Lucas pulled out of his arse.

My personal issue was the acting. The fight scenes were well choreographed but anything outside of a fight scene was anemic. Really the only actor that I personally felt wasn't thinking "I'm in a Star Wars film, BOW DOWN TO MY GLORY AS I DO SHIT!!" was Samuel L. Jackson. Hell, it's sad when the CGI characters seem less robotic than the live actors.

Overall it just felt that in any non-fight scene the actors were skimming the script and reading from a teleprompter during filming.

MammothBlade:

The lightsaber battles in Phantom Menace were great, and you got a feel of just how deadly the Sith could be. Attack of The Clones followed it up well, although the sudden arrival of the clone army seemed like something Lucas pulled out of his arse.

1. Lightsaber battles: How deadly the Sith could be? Darth Maul only killed one person. In the originals, we see Darth Vader just killing dudes right and left, regardless of what side they were on. A better way to show that would have been to show Darth Maul slaughtering an entire squad of Naboo before the Jedi catch up to him. Also, his fighting tactics suck. He spent like 2 minutes swinging his sword around the edge of the pit while Obi-Wan dangled helplessly below him. If he had just reached down and lightly tapped Obi-Wan's hand with his lightsaber, the fight would have ended. But he just stood there glaring at him.

2. Attack of the Clones: Does that strike you as a red flag? If they're in the goddamn title and they still feel like they were pulled out of an ass, that script clearly needed a drastic rewrite.

Nostalgia and they were apparently weak from a film evaluation perspective (weak not terrible or the Manos levels that people like to say). Of course no movie, no matter how bad, is worthy of the eternal internet decry that has gone on for.. what over a decade? This goes beyond 'it was bad' to 'I am autistic and my focus in life is saying this over and over' levels.

The main problem that I had with the prequels (aside from what you mentioned) was the shifting of the droids as characters, especially the battle droids that the jedi/clones are fighting. In the phantom menace, they are very robotic the was that droids were in the originals. Then shift to revenge of the sith, and all of a sudden you have battle droids acting out three stooges scenes.

I don't think I hate on the prequels as much as most star wars fans, but that is mostly due to me being very selective in what I personally take as canon in those films.

I didn't like prequels much but I am enjoying The Clone Wars tv show. Its ironic that I find the CGI Anakin more believable than his flesh and blood counterpart.

Let me count the ways....

Terrible, wooden acting that made ye olde Thunderbirds jealous.

God awful script.

Zero chemistry between the supposed love interests.

Zero chemistry between teacher and student. In EP3, Anakin and Obi had been together for years yet watching them together felt uncomfortable. It was like they had just met and were having an awkward conversation in a toilet stall.

Trying to have the Force make sense.

Bad, terribly fething bad, choice of actors to play certain roles.

Child Anakin.

JarJar.

Far too much CGI.

It just felt to me like someone had got his friends rounds, wrote a shit script, filmed it and slapped it together on his PC. Having seasoned actors like Neeson, McGregor and Jackson come across as amateur with quite possibly the worst performances i've seen from any of them.

The reason the first 3 did well was because Lucas was kept in line. Spielberg slapped his stupid ideas out of the way. The prequels didn't have that, they had unedited Lucas fuck ups.

Adept Mechanicus:

MammothBlade:

The lightsaber battles in Phantom Menace were great, and you got a feel of just how deadly the Sith could be. Attack of The Clones followed it up well, although the sudden arrival of the clone army seemed like something Lucas pulled out of his arse.

1. Lightsaber battles: How deadly the Sith could be? Darth Maul only killed one person. In the originals, we see Darth Vader just killing dudes right and left, regardless of what side they were on. A better way to show that would have been to show Darth Maul slaughtering an entire squad of Naboo before the Jedi catch up to him. Also, his fighting tactics suck. He spent like 2 minutes swinging his sword around the edge of the pit while Obi-Wan dangled helplessly below him. If he had just reached down and lightly tapped Obi-Wan's hand with his lightsaber, the fight would have ended. But he just stood there glaring at him.

2. Attack of the Clones: Does that strike you as a red flag? If they're in the goddamn title and they still feel like they were pulled out of an ass, that script clearly needed a drastic rewrite.

You can't really say Darth Vader was super dangerous deadly. He only ever killed mooks. Yeah, it shows he's a badass, but it's not until Empire that we see how he goes against a real opponent

Adept Mechanicus:

GTwander:

2) The acting of the prequels' main cast lacks SUBTLETY. Need I explain more? Hope not.

If that were true, every character would be hamming it up at every opportunity like they're trying out for a Brian Blessed imitation competition and that would be at least fun to watch. It's not, because nobody in the prequels ever emotes.

I don't know how you can bring up Boss Nass in the same paragraph you defend it with.

Anakin was hammy, Jar-Jar was so hammy he was honey-baked... the only people giving their roles some dignity were the big name players (Neeson, MacGregor, Portman and Jackson). They simply weren't enough to carry the weight of an unlikable MAIN and the CG circus that was all the additional stupid within it.

Vader had more character to him, and he was just a VOICE.

They have terrible, terrible writing. Characters repeatedly act like idiots or act contrarily to their previous characterization, they are all have poorly thought out plots where the villain's motives and hero's actions make no sense and aren't justified within the context of the film.

Plus nothing in the whole civil war plot thing seems to have any actual consequences. We don't see any cities falling to ruin or civilians being hurt or a surge in poverty - nothing that you'd expect to see in a massive war actually happens. It all just occurs out of the way so that the Jedi have a reason to go fight things.

The set design is nice enough, but its far too clean and the aesthetic is all wrong and at odds with the originals.

The comic relief goes from being merely slightly painful to being full-on cringeworthy.

The shot composition is uninspired and boring.

Need I go on?

...

The only good thing in any of the prequels is the score.

Nah... there were fundamental problems with some of the scenes, especially the lack of a threatening Antagonist, the inclusion of one of the most annoying characters ever and the weak sauce chemistry between Anakin and Padme. At one stage he's like 10 and she's meant to be 16 but is clearly just Natalie Portman, then later on she's still Natalie Portman and he's an entirely different person and there's just no chemistry and some of the whiniest acting Portman has ever done.

What seemed to happen was they had CGI and stuff and tried to rely on that a little more, the ships and set pieces look amazing, but there was just nothing believable about the characters or the whole Darkside transformation to Vader.

But yes I do think we look through the original triligy with rose tinted glasses, however, the origin of Vader was always something you had no idea what had happened, it added mystery to the original trilogy, gave it a past and a sense of the devastation that the Empire had been able to cause. By removing that mystery there was just nothing behind it, I take that it was meant to be driven by Vaders jealousy and love, but with such terrible chemistry and acting... it was just wholly unmotivated as a movie.

GTwander:

I don't know how you can bring up Boss Nass in the same paragraph you defend it with.

Anakin was hammy, Jar-Jar was so hammy he was honey-baked... the only people giving their roles some dignity were the big name players (Neeson, MacGregor, Portman and Jackson). They simply weren't enough to carry the weight of an unlikable MAIN and the CG circus that was all the additional stupid within it.

Vader had more character to him, and he was just a VOICE.

You make fair points. I guess what I mean is that the ham was there, but it wasn't fun to watch. The kind of ham that's fun to watch is the kind where EVERYONE IS YELLING ALL THE TIME IN EVIL VOICES. YOU KNOW, THE DAWN OF WAR KIND!!!

In all seriousness, it says something about how bad it was that you can have both ridiculous overacting in some scenes and total lack of emotion in others from the same actor.

I saw the prequels when I was a kid, having never seen the original movies and I enjoyed them a lot, in fact I love the prequels. I must admit though the Anakin character is the most poorly written annoying piece of shit.

Sure the prequels might be crappy writing wise but I really don't get the whole "OH MY GOD George Lucas ruined Star Wars I'm going to murder him and his entire family!" I mean have you ever considered just not watching the prequels? Its not like George Lucas recalled every single copy of the original movies and replaced them with the prequels. People are making a huge deal over nothing.

There's nothing that anyone can say here that won't have been said better in the Plinkett reviews.

Just go on youtube and watch them. Make sure you've got a spare couple of hours though, they're very long and indepth reviews.

While there are a number of reasons, most have already been said by other people, so Ill go for one that really grates me: midi-chlorians. To be percise, the idea that being able to use the force and be a Jedi are genetic, and not simply a matter of believing in it.

I've said this to my friends before and they always give me the weird eye.

Honestly? If not for the Star Wars in the title, the prequels could have worked as a half-assed "meh" average sci-fi/action flick. But the fact that it has the Star Wars title doesn't just mean it has the namesake to live up to. It also has YEARS of established canon in movies, books, and otherwise to live up to. And really, it falls flat in every regard.

My major gripes:

The "hero" we're supposed to sympathize for is a whiny, bratty, spoiled piece of shit who is taken from his home and given a brand new life on the basis of being some sort of "chosen one", and he bitches CONSTANTLY about how shitty his life is and how "it's not fair" (he even SAYS those words exactly, as if he were written by a petulant 10-year old). Then go back to being a slave, you shit stain! And he ends up being not all that consequential, honestly. This is Darth Vader, he should be the pivoting focus of this series, and in the end he really isn't.

Padme is the blandest love interest out there, not to mention her love interest with Anakin is made especially creepy since they were clearly not the same age in appearance or otherwise in Episode 1. It would be like me falling in love with a 10-year old, it's fucking creepy.

And she "lost the will to live" but "there's nothing medically wrong with her"? BULLSHIT. What Lucas was going for is a real condition commonly called "Broken Heart Syndrome", which is a TREATABLE MEDICAL ILLNESS with actual symptoms. It's not some mysterious "she's dying and we don't know how" disease, there are obvious symptoms and they can be treated with modern technology. In their future-science-world there's no reason they shouldn't have a medical equivalent of happy pills, open her damn mouth and shove a few down there if you have to.

But the most insulting part? The evil Empire of the original trilogy and the Emperor's dastardly evil plan all hinged upon a single event: Jar-Jar putting forth the motion to grant Palpatine emergency powers. WHAT. So the Empire exists only because of fucking Jar-Jar? The Emperor's brilliant plan to seize control of the galaxy relied on Padme appointing an oafish moron into her position? That is the ultimate insult, the ultimate middle finger. Now whenever you look at the Empire in the original trilogy, in all of its evil glory, you're forced to remember that all of this was made possible by the most obnoxious CGI character ever imagined. It's actually made the original trilogy harder for me to watch, knowing that the Emperor, who was supposedly this cunning mastermind in the original trilogy, hinged his bets on such a convoluted and moronic plan.

That said? If the movies weren't Star Wars films, yeah, I'd just call them B-grade "meh" films and be done with it. You slap that Star Wars franchise label onto it, though, and you dun fucked up.

WanderingFool:
While there are a number of reasons, most have already been said by other people, so Ill go for one that really grates me: midi-chlorians. To be percise, the idea that being able to use the force and be a Jedi are genetic, and not simply a matter of believing in it.

Yeah, a million well-put dissertations on how 'the force' was ruined by killing it's mysterious/spiritual connotations have been made already. Basically, when Obi-Wan was saying "the force is in us all", he wasn't speaking in soliloquy, rather, he was giving a lecture about how space bacteria gives you magic powers. /FU_face

To me, one of the bevy of ways Lucas has shot his own work in the foot by trying to 'revamp' it to the point of a botched breast augmentation.

CriticKitten:
But the most insulting part? The evil Empire of the original trilogy and the Emperor's dastardly evil plan all hinged upon a single event: Jar-Jar putting forth the motion to grant Palpatine emergency powers. WHAT. So the Empire exists only because of fucking Jar-Jar? The Emperor's brilliant plan to seize control of the galaxy relied on Padme appointing an oafish moron into her position? That is the ultimate insult, the ultimate middle finger. Now whenever you look at the Empire in the original trilogy, in all of its evil glory, you're forced to remember that all of this was made possible by the most obnoxious CGI character ever imagined. It's actually made the original trilogy harder for me to watch, knowing that the Emperor, who was supposedly this cunning mastermind in the original trilogy, hinged his bets on such a convoluted and moronic plan.

You and I should hang out sometime, I likes the way you think.

It's probably because I was pretty young when I first saw them, but I didn't mind them. I loved the originals (But by no means understood them at the time), and the prequels were more of what I wanted at the time-lightsaber duels and space battles. Looking back, there are problems: Episode 1 has pretty much no purpose. It's a waste of time they could have spent in exposition, setting up stupid groups like the trade federation etc. The conflict on Naboo has no stakes for the audience, if they're looking for the rise of Darth Vader. Which is ostensibly what the prequels are about. On the other hand, Liam Neeson is awesome, and so is Ewan McGregor. I always took them to be the protagonists, so I enjoyed it well enough.

My gripes with the second:
Anakin is generally poorly played, and written. He's stupid, irritating, and doesn't learn from his mistakes. He's snarky in an unjustified smug way. We never see him fall from grace, he's an annoying kid, then he's an emo teenager in black robes who's already a rebel against the rules for seemingly no reason. Really, that actor is my main issue with the entire second film. The rest was pretty fun. And again, I'm a massive Ewan MacGregor fan, so that was good.

The third film has the problems of the second, combined with uneven tone, and the completely out of left field introduction of Grievous as the new "Dragon" (TV tropes) for the antagonists. And his tone is completely fucked. He could be a completely menacing figure-he's scary looking as hell, and could be a great villain. Instead, he's a comic relief gag. He's comical and cowardly. He's like the baby of a Battle Droid and Jar Jar. They aim at Greek tragedy with Anakin's final fall, but they end up just making the tragic failing of a supposedly great man, look like an idiotic teenager completing his fall into idiocy through pointless violence and slaughter. Also, the acting was kinda shite. There weren't any really good performances, but a lot of bad ones, and a lot of fourth wall breaking mockery of the film in general by characters. But Star Wars has never had self-aware characters, and the points they're mocking are plot induced stupidity, so why should we care? It's not crticism or examining the genre, it's them mocking the movie they're in for being as stupid as it is.

But, all of the movies present some really good fight scenes, brilliant Lightsaber duels, and space battles. Which would be why they made a ton of money anyway. They're certainly not really egregiously bad. They're just not as good as the originals. They're a bunch of slightly below average science fiction/fantasy/space opera/whatever the heck we call the genre films. The original had badass fight scenes, but also interesting characters, and an intriguing plot. The prequels have potentially more badass fight scenes, but few interesting characters, and no semblance of a sensical plot. I guess 1/3 isn't bad? I'd certainly rate all of them above egregious pieces of shit like any of the Bay Transformers, or the Starship Troopers sequels. They're mediocre. Of course, you can drag your way through the RLM videos (I only got through the first one. That guy annoys me as much as Jar Jar Binks.) and pick up a bunch of other points you hadn't considered for why to hate it which didn't actually have anything to do with why you disliked the movies, and were in fact, views you did not hold, and extend your criticism to a 3 hour length which doesn't actually explain your problems with it.

(Also, stop bitching about midichlorians, really. It's a stupid and inconsequential point, yeah, but I figure it solves the plot point of having characters be able to confirm force sensitivity. Apart from that, it's entirely inconsequential, and doesn't ruin the mysticism at all.)

I think it's a little unfair to chastise someone for pointing to the red letter media reviews of the Star Wars prequels when asking why those movies are so horrendous. Yeah, we've probably all seen it and seen people point to them several times before, but that doesn't make them any less accurate.

OT though: the writing was terrible, the acting was also terrible, there are huge plot holes, characters do things that make no sense or contradict their motivations, and there are just so many little things they do wrong that there is no way they could be considered good or even decent movies. Calling the prequels good movies is like trying to tell someone that you went on nice picnic except for the part where you got swarmed by ants. Then bees. And it was raining. And a dog peed on the food.

To me it doesn't even matter that they are Star Wars movies. If they were completely unrelated to Star Wars, I'd still think they were bad. They are just all around poorly executed, with the exception of some special effects. I don't hate George Lucas for making them, I just think they suck.

And if anyone asks for specifics, I'm just going to point to the red letter media videos because the movies have already been dissected thoroughly and I'm not about to waste my time re-dissecting movies I don't like when someone has done it better than I could.

the characters were bland and everything they did seemed implausible or utterly ridiculous - take for instance the flying car chase scene in the second movie or anakin's acting in the first movie as well as the third movie - balance the force my ass

Early disclaimer: I have a fondness for the entire saga. I had the original trilogy DVD box set and episodes I, II and III on DVD until last year, when I got the entire saga on Blu-ray for Christmas. Every year on the second Saturday of December, I watch all six movies. (Yes, there's a significance to that). I don't hate any of the movies. I also saw the prequel trilogy before the original trilogy. I was about 7 when The Phantom Menace came out, just to give a little context.

Now, that said, I do see that the quality of the prequel trilogy is lesser than the original trilogy. In reality, I would say that Return of the Jedi would actually be pretty close to prequel trilogy level, because that, in my mind, at least, is where it all starts to go silly. Return has some pretty stellar moments, though, and some really strong scenes, which the prequel trilogy lacks, so it still manages to be above their level.

My biggest problem with the prequel trilogy is, and has always been, a matter quite different than wooden characters, too much CGI, over-choreographed lightsaber sequences and such: the way I see it, the prequel trilogy is substandard because it doesn't tell the story it should have.

If you've ever seen Revenge of the Sith, then I want you to call up a scene from near the end of the movie: the lightsaber duel between Obi-Wan and Anakin. Consider the moment where Anakin is lying on the edge of the lava flow, unable to move due to the wounds Obi-Wan has inflicted. Recall Obi-Wan shouting down at him about how Anakin was supposed to be the man to bring balance to the Force.

Think about that scene. Those two men were Master and Apprentice. They have been together since Anakin was a boy. Obi-Wan saw them as brothers. He certainly seems distraught about having to injure Anakin so badly. But have you, as a viewer, ever felt so much as a pang from that scene? Probably not.

See, the thing Lucas missed (in my opinion) with the prequel trilogy, is that he didn't have to go back to the very beginning. We didn't have to see Anakin as a child, joining the Jedi Order. What we needed to see was what Obi-Wan gave importance to in the original trilogy: what we needed to see was the Clone Wars. Considered a trilogy of live-action movies where you see Obi-Wan and Anakin as Master and Apprentice at first, taking part in a galactic conflict attempting to keep the Republic from falling apart.

In a series of movies like that, watching the two fight side-by-side, you would get a better sense of the bond they were supposed to share. In the prequel trilogy, you see Anakin as a whiny adolescent, being ignorant and defiant to the man he should, by all rights, see as a father figure. Is that what we needed? No.

What the prequel trilogy really should have shown was not what led Anakin to become Darth Vader, (and, yes, I would agree that they don't do a particularly good job at that), but the context of the relationship that existed between Obi-Wan and Anakin, and how the dynamics changed because of the transformation Anakin was going through. Yes, you cannot have a prequel trilogy that does not show Anakin falling to the dark side, but it would have had so much more impact if you could have seen how that transformation affected those around him.

I would argue that the only place that even remotely hints at this is how Anakin becoming Vader affects Padme, but the relationship between those two is so poorly constructed that it doesn't carry any weight. As for him and Obi-Wan, we see Anakin go from being a whiny little shit to his Master, to Anakin being a whiny little shit to his elder, to Anakin being a whiny little shit who finally pulls a lightsaber on the guy. The relationship doesn't really change: Anakin's fall doesn't hold any emotional value.

I'll admit that, in a series like that, you'd lose some really good moments. Darth Maul and his double-saber has kind of become an iconic Sith figure (you don't have to like the prequel movies, but you have to admit, the first time you saw him activate both sides of that thing, you were kind of in awe). Liam Neeson as Qui-Gon Jinn was also one of the saving graces of the prequels, and in a series of movies about the Clone Wars, you'd lose him, too.

But you'd gain so much more. Now, I know that the Clone Wars has an animated series, but as far as I know, (and having not watched it quite as religiously as I have episodes I-VI, I could be totally wrong), it adheres close enough to the feel of the prequel movies, in that it doesn't really explore the depth of Anakin's relationships with the other Jedi as it should.

What I'm saying, if you boil it down into a nutshell, is that the prequel movies miss the most important things that the original trilogy suggests you should know about Anakin, or entirely misrepresents them. When I think about Alec Guinness telling Luke Skywalker that his father was one of his closest friends, and try to attribute that to what I know about Obi-Wan and Anakin's relationship, it just doesn't fit.

I don't dislike the prequel movies, but I do think they tell the wrong story. They try to chart Anakin's rise and fall, and do a pretty poor job of it. We know from the prequel movies that Anakin was an important Jedi. What we need to know is how his fall impacted his friends and loved ones, and the prequel trilogy doesn't show that.

Couple quick points of order:

FitScotGaymer:
The prequel movies ruined this by making force sensitives and jedi so prolific and well known that it makes the near mythic status that the force and its adherents has in the wider galaxy seem stupid and silly. It makes it feel boring, mundane, and every day instead of special and rare.

A New Hope already established by implication that the Jedi were a great organization with a long history. To quote Obi-Wan: "For over a thousand generations the Jedi Knights were the guardians of peace and justice in the Old Republic. Before the dark times. Before the Empire." Mind you, that would be utterly impossible without a very sizeable order. It's also worth noting that seeing a lot of Jedi (especially at times when they'd naturally convene) is not indicative of force ability being particularly common any more than the sheer number of students at Hogwarts implies that magical ability is common in the Harry Potter universe.

It also helps to recall that the Star Wars universe is comprised of a Galaxy spanning Republic/Empire (depending on when you look at it), so even low rates would yield high totals in a short amount of time. Take the following as a case in point: Assume the incidence is quite literally one in a million (ie, a 0.0001% rate of occurance). Now look at Earth. Earth has an estimated population of 7.047 billion, meaning statistically one could expect 7047 Jedi from a population that size, which again, stems from a single planet. Take the rate and apply it to multiple earth-like planets and you naturally get a very high number of force sensitives very quickly, despite the very low incidence rate. Based on even the prequel trilogies, however, I'd venture to guess that the incidence rate was likely far lower.

FitScotGaymer:
Also Qui Gonn being Obi's master breaks prior established lore as Obi says in the original trilogy that Yoda was his master. No mention of this pointless Qui Gonn Jinn.

Uh, no it doesn't. Obi-Wan identifies Yoda as "The Jedi Master who instructed [him]". That does not necessarily imply that Yoda was his specific master, just that he taught him at one point. Given that Yoda is seen teaching younger Jedi in the temple, the obvious implication is that Yoda taught Obi-Wan (among others) when he was young. So what he told Luke was true, from a certain point of view.

FitScotGaymer:
Three - Not only to the prequels break and arbitrarily change the SW lore for no apparent reason (midichlorians anyone?) but the writers kept writing scenes where the characters would act completely out of character.

Actually, oddly enough, Midichlorians are ostensibly Lucas being consistant with the Lore of his universe. Ostensibly, the idea was explained behind the scenes as far back as 1977 (though Lucas supposedly couldn't find a way to incorporate it directly until Phantom Menace), and truthfully they do very little to affect the actual lore. As per Qui-Gon, "Midi-chlorians are a microscopic lifeform that reside within all living cells and communicate with the Force. ... Without the midi-chlorians, life could not exist, and we would have no knowledge of the Force. They continually speak to you, telling you the will of the Force". That's their debut scene, which immediately establishes them as distinct from the Force itself, instead acting as the vehicle that allows entities to have a sense of it, thereby establishing why not everyone had the same level of Force Sensitivity. The actual nature of the Force itself remains as ill-understood as before.

More on topic, I can give you a few reasons:

Episode I was kinda a trainwreck in terms of focus. The primary plot point was the blockade of Naboo due to trade laws, not exactly a wonderfully interesting topic in and of its own right. But how does it explore this plot point? By following a freedom fighter force on the planet? Nope. Point of fact, that resistance movement doesn't happen until the third act, after we've already had a false climax in the form of the 10 minute long race. What's worse, the film jumped from plot point to plot point so fast that they neglected to develop them in the way required to make the audience connect. Take Coruscant, for instance. The protagonists' entire reason for leaving Naboo was to present their case to the Senate, and Amidala folds her hand after one attempt. ...I'm sorry, but are we really supposed to empathize with her view of the Senate as a corrupt and ineffective organization when they were given less exposure than the aforementioned race and because they wouldn't immediately jump in without first proving her accusations had a basis? Really? Don't get me wrong, I can see the intent of most of these scenes, but ultimately they lacked the buildup required to give the scenes the impact they needed.

Episode II...well let's just say that I feel the part that absolutely sunk this film was the fact that its main subplot was a romance that...well...didn't work out in any respect. To borrow Yahtzee's characterization: "To say Hayden Christensen and Natalie Portman had chemistry in that film is like saying that a chair stacked on another chair is a sizzlingly erotic love scene". Frankly though, that's still giving it too much credit, if only by the omission of the subplot's other failings, which other posts here have already touched on. It also certainly doesn't hurt that Anakin's character was just poorly handled.

Then there's Episode III...which just handed the cast the "Idiot Ball" and had them run with it. Anakin in particular suffered here. Seriously, he knew the Sith's tactics to have no problems fighting and even killing them, he realized that Palpatine was a Sith Lord, and by correlation has been deceiving the republic for years and directly ordered him to kill another Sith Lord with whom he had to have been in cahoots with...and he trusts the guy's claims implicitly? What's worse, Anakin's characterization showed little development towards the iconic villain we know and love from the original trilogy. Which of course begged the question of why they even bothered in the first place.

tldr: Episode I lacked a sense of importance and had horrible pacing. Episode II put far too much emphasis on a romantic subplot that didn't work. Episode III felt contrived and lacked the character transition needed to justify the existence of the prequels.

The acting was horrible and Jar Jar.

This basically sums up my feelings

RJ 17:
snip*

I am not a starwars fan

I have only ever seen "a new hope" (which I thourght was bloody good)

I was in a toy store once and one of them was playing on an ovrhead screen...and I thought to myself "my god...this is awful"

take that as you will

Because the characters are all unlikeable, the action had no weight or consequence (droids vs clones) and they're just not compelling movies in any respect whatsoever.

And yeah as much as Jar Jar binks is a friggin moron at least one can sorta care about the guy when the shit goes down, everyone else? Anakin's such an a-hole (grown up anakin), why would I give a damn when he goes to the dark side? The world isn't losing anyone worth giving a damn about.

They're just badly written, badly directed, badly whatever movies.

I understand why everyone hated the clone wars....that WAS really crappy, however i've never gotten why people hate 1 and 3. 1 is my favorite with Qui Gon Jin and three has some epic fight scenes. Sure the acting was perfect the whole time but its better then the baseball bat fight scenes of the older ones. Now before I'm ganged up on i understand the love for the old ones, however because i was born around the time of the new ones i just cant get into the fight scenes in the older ones. The book for the third movie also is a lot better then the movie because it explains a bunch of things the movie doesn't

Tismo:
I hated the fact that Spock dies.

LOL this is the best response ever

Asita:
Couple quick points of order:

FitScotGaymer:
The prequel movies ruined this by making force sensitives and jedi so prolific and well known that it makes the near mythic status that the force and its adherents has in the wider galaxy seem stupid and silly. It makes it feel boring, mundane, and every day instead of special and rare.

A New Hope already established by implication that the Jedi were a great organization with a long history. To quote Obi-Wan: "For over a thousand generations the Jedi Knights were the guardians of peace and justice in the Old Republic. Before the dark times. Before the Empire." Mind you, that would be utterly impossible without a very sizeable order. It's also worth noting that seeing a lot of Jedi (especially at times when they'd naturally convene) is not indicative of force ability being particularly common any more than the sheer number of students at Hogwarts implies that magical ability is common in the Harry Potter universe.

-snipity-

While your point on the size of the empire leading to a sizable amount of Jedi being available etc etc makes perfect sense and works very well, the prequels are set only 20 years before the Originals. Given the amount of Jedi that were kicking around, in government, fought huge battles, and in the prequels don't exactly seem secretive(not in the Harry Potter sense at least), the amount of scepticism about the force and Jedi, that exists within the Originals makes it all seems very poorly thought out.

Now correct me if I'm wrong but I mean it would be like me questioning whether Vietnam happened. 20 years ago, there were an entire order of Jedi across the entire Republic, ruled the way it was in the Prequel, then there was a galaxy spanning Coup d'état, resulting in the deaths of almost all the Jedi, the government being otherthrown and what are Nazis by any other name now in charge. There ARE going to be people around who remember what it was like, who lived through it and it would still be very fresh in peoples minds. If Jedi are presented mythically in the originals, more than 20 years is going to have needed to pass before they would even begin to gain that status.

CriticKitten:

But the most insulting part? The evil Empire of the original trilogy and the Emperor's dastardly evil plan all hinged upon a single event: Jar-Jar putting forth the motion to grant Palpatine emergency powers. WHAT. So the Empire exists only because of fucking Jar-Jar? The Emperor's brilliant plan to seize control of the galaxy relied on Padme appointing an oafish moron into her position? That is the ultimate insult, the ultimate middle finger. Now whenever you look at the Empire in the original trilogy, in all of its evil glory, you're forced to remember that all of this was made possible by the most obnoxious CGI character ever imagined. It's actually made the original trilogy harder for me to watch, knowing that the Emperor, who was supposedly this cunning mastermind in the original trilogy, hinged his bets on such a convoluted and moronic plan.

Having successfully wiped most of the prequel series from my brain I have one thing to say to you. You my friend, are a bastard. WHY WOULD YOU DO THIS TO ME?!

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked