The Prequels don't Deserve to be Flogged Anymore

Sniper Team 4

New member
Apr 28, 2010
5,433
0
0
I can't. I just can't. Star Wars is a huge part of my life. I grew up with the books. I adore the original trilogy. And I admit that the prequel trilogy does have its moments, but those movies lacked a lot of what made Star Wars so appealing to me.
And then there's Episode III. I have so, so, sooooooo many problems with that movie, both from a Star Wars stand point and just a storytelling stand point in general, that I just go off on tangents whenever someone brings it up. Out of all the prequel movies, that one is the worst to me. Episode II was slow, clunky, and a boring love story, but at least it had that epic battle at the end. Episode I, while not really feeling like a Star Wars film, was still enjoyable. But Episode III is just...blah.
 
Aug 12, 2013
81
0
0
KazeAizen said:
inu-kun said:
I'll put my money on the film being worse than the prequels, I'll never forgive JJ for Star Trek 2, defaming one of the best sci fi films ever released for batshit insane liberal propaganda.
I was with you until your last two words. I knew this would be a powder keg as it was but why did you have to bring political buzz words here?
Because Star Trek is (and still is to certain degree) one of the most openly liberal franchises in sci-fi history.
 

V4Viewtiful

New member
Feb 12, 2014
721
0
0
The Prequels did give us decent Jedi fights even if they did lack any weight compared to the old ones however seeing Jedi and Sith in their prime was cool.

For a while guys used to accuse the fights as just being fancy sword ballet, but if you put it in context of how the force gives Jedi Precognition it makes sense to the fighting style.

If there's one thing you'd find hard to take away from the prequels are the Jedi Fights.
 

Kingjackl

New member
Nov 18, 2009
1,041
0
0
They were kind of fun. Kids loved them, so they did their job well enough.

I'd more like the prequel bashing to stop because it's one of those things nerds get real insufferably smug and hipster about when they talk about it. I've yet to see a nerd whinge about the prequels without sounding as if they think they're the first person to come up with it, and it drives me nuts.
 

Neverhoodian

New member
Apr 2, 2008
3,832
0
0
For the record, I enjoyed The Phantom Menace. Hell, I even like Jar Jar Binks.



Yes it stumbles in places, but at its heart it's a fun romp in the spirit of A New Hope.

Episodes II and III though...yeah...

I liked Jango Fett's scenes (it's like if Boba actually did shit instead of just standing around all the time) and there were some good spin-offs (Genndy Tartakovsky's Clone Wars series and Republic Commando spring to mind), but the rest of it got bogged down with boring politics, cringe-worthy dialogue and perhaps the most unconvincing romance subplot I've ever seen in a big budget film. And that's not even going into the supreme bungling of Anakin's character...

KazeAizen said:
I don't see why these movies are raked over the coals and are seen to have nothing of value within them when honestly some of the stuff from the original trilogy doesn't hold up all that well either (have you gone back and watched that fight between Obi-Wan and Darth Vader?).
I have, actually. It still holds up, truth be told. The point of interest was never the action. Plenty of movies had done far better choreographed duels by then (Scaramouche, The Prisoner of Zenda, etc.). It was the clash of characters rather than blades that was the true focal point.

Interestingly enough, someone tried their hand at ramping up the action of that scene:

My verdict: I don't like it. The guy's done some impressive editing like his Battle of Yavin [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rKNrK53uA84], but he misses the mark with this one. It comes across to me as trying too hard to be "epic" while diminishing the more subtle intricacies of the original. For example, I like how in the original it's Vader that activates his saber first instead of Obi-Wan, as it fits with the aggressive nature of the Sith.

Consider this; people probably wouldn't have complained nearly as much about the prequels if they weren't Star Wars movies. If it was a different franchise the films would have been long forgotten as mediocre entries in an already saturated genre. Carrying the official Star Wars title carries (or at least used to carry) a certain expectation of quality, thus people were disappointed when it couldn't deliver. Is it fair? Perhaps not, but that's the reality of the situation.

super_mega_ultra said:
There was no overall point to the original trilogy, other than that Darth Vader had acquired the condition of being "evil" and the finally cast away this "evil" status. Other than the fact that they did a lot of things that would have been considered bad things by most people, there was never any explanation why the empire was the bad guy.
Don't buy into the "Chosen One" bullshit. Darth Vader was not the focal point of the original trilogy until they tried to retcon it in with the prequels. The overarching story was the "Hero's Journey" of Luke Skywalker and Co. growing as characters and overcoming insurmountable odds.

Also, when Space Nazis kill billions of people in an instant just to make a point ("Dantooine is too remote to make an effective demonstration, but don't worry. We will deal with your Rebel friends soon enough.") you don't need an explanation.
 

Gordon_4_v1legacy

New member
Aug 22, 2010
2,577
0
0
inu-kun said:
Gordon_4 said:
inu-kun said:
I'll put my money on the film being worse than the prequels, I'll never forgive JJ for Star Trek 2, defaming one of the best sci fi films ever released for batshit insane liberal propaganda.
Uh yeah, I'm with KazeAizen; I can accuse Star Trek: ID of being lots of things (mainly shit) but I must be missing something 'cos propaganda it ain't, unless you count it being a condemnation of lens flare or something.
The plot was basically the federation launching a false flag operation in order to start a war, following the crackpot theory that 9/11 was an inside job for the US to invade Iraq which is beyond ridiculous to comment.

And in general it was the "white evil influencial militiralistic right winger" shtick because god forbid we actually listen to one side rather than demonize it completely, a director has a right to include what he wants in a film but this is more akin to hijacking the whole plot for your own political stand, I didn't pay money to be lectured.
It was technically an admiral of Star Fleet that was doing that rather than the Federation, but I see where you're going now. I thought that was dumb as hell since if Star Fleet has lost like 30% of its ships as I think it did against the Narada in the previous film AND it's a point in Federation history where they're still kind of frosty with both the Klingon and Romulan Empires then going through all that crap with "John Harrison" was needlessly complicated since they'd want to build newer and stronger ships anyway. If he'd just woken the sod up, pumped a few decent ship and weapon designs out of him and put him back to bed he'd be the toast of Star Fleet. To say nothing of how insane it is that he functionally black-bagged building a warship twice the size of the Enterprise. That would be like of one of the Joint Chief's of Staff managed to build a private Aircraft Carrier. The movie is actually so dumb for me, I think you do it too much intellectual credit calling it propaganda.
 

The_Waspman

New member
Sep 14, 2011
569
0
0
KazeAizen said:
You see I don't have this immediate aversion to CGI that a lot of people seem to have. Mostly because I'm at a school that is basically training the next generation of CGI effects artists and I've seen what goes into the stuff. What I think people truly hate is not CGI but bad looking CGI and a ton of it. Again save for Episode I none of the prequels have bad looking CGI and it actually does have a unique feel to it. It feels very "Star Warsy" and not generic sci fi if that makes any sense at all.
Y'know, I railed against CGI for so long, mainly because it is (or at least was back in the late 90s-early 2000s) used as a "cheap" alternative to practical effects.

Don't get me wrong, I don't loathe CGI. it does have its uses. Jurassic Park is still peerless with its effects and - based upon the trailer, Jurassic World wont be able to hold a candle to it effects wise - but I do think it is still over used. It doesn't really recreate organisms very well. I don't know if its just the way my vision works, but I can always tell when creatures/characters are rendered in CGI. I think about films like the Matrix sequels, Avatar, Lord of the Rings, and I think the effects in them are really jarring (if I'm being generous) or look terrible (if I'm not). They never look real, and they really take me out of a film.

On the other hand, I do think that digital animation has come a long way. I begrudgingly went to see Frozen last year, and because the characters were animated, and not attempting to emulate a photo real style, I thought the animation captured emotional reactions and facial animation far better than can be produced in effects attempting to be photo real.

As far as the Star Wars prequels go, I thought the effects were terrible back then, and I still do now. The effects and the live action stuff never look or feel truly integrated to me, and while more modern effects do do a lot more work in terms of lighting for that kind of integration, I don't think its quite there yet...
 

The Madman

New member
Dec 7, 2007
4,404
0
0
If you think the Obi-Wan vs. Vader fight was bad because of it's choreography then I'm afraid you're missing the point of that scene. Anyway the Star Wars prequels are bad movies but that doesn't mean you're not free to still enjoy them, people are allowed to like bad things. I don't like them because they're awful and make me feel kind of depressed, but there's no reason why someone else can't enjoy them where I don't.

They're still bad movies though. Truly terrible. That won't change no matter how much time passes and how many good/bad movies are released in the meantime.
 

Canadamus Prime

Robot in Disguise
Jun 17, 2009
14,334
0
0
It's not so much that the prequels don't deserve it, 'cause they did, but the fact that that particular dead horse has been flogged so much that all that remains is a blood stain and the occasional giblet.
inu-kun said:
I'll put my money on the film being worse than the prequels, I'll never forgive JJ for Star Trek 2, defaming one of the best sci fi films ever released for batshit insane liberal propaganda.
I don't care about the liberal propaganda thing, however I will never forgive JJ for turning a great Sci Fi franchise like Star Trek into a generic action franchise that just happens to take place in space. And whoever did the costume design for Star Trek Into Darkness needs to be flogged, big time. Seriously who thought those plastic hats were a good idea?

I'm seriously at the point where I approach any new installment to a franchise I enjoy with generous amounts of apprehension as opposed to excitement.
 

Zhukov

The Laughing Arsehole
Dec 29, 2009
13,769
5
43
inu-kun said:
I'll put my money on the film being worse than the prequels, I'll never forgive JJ for Star Trek 2, defaming one of the best sci fi films ever released for batshit insane liberal propaganda.
What was the "batshit insane liberal propaganda" in JJ's Star Trek?

Not even challenging here, nor am I trying to defend the movies from... whatever you're accusing them of (I didn't like them), I'm honestly just curious.
 

Fox12

AccursedT- see you space cowboy
Jun 6, 2013
4,828
0
0
KazeAizen said:
DizzyChuggernaut said:
Hmm, I'm of a mixed mind. Lucas should have known what he was doing before he started the prewuels, but he definitely should have known what he was doing after the failure of the Phantom Menace. I don't buy the argument that he was just trying to get his vision on screen, because he didn't seem to put forward a great deal of effort during the development process, and only seemed to have a half formed idea of where the plot was headed. I always felt like his motivation was solely based on marketing, which is rather sad. Otherwise he wouldn't have sold his rights to Disney, allowing them to retcon his work. This has stained my opinion of him.

However, he's not some monster. Supposedly a fat chunk of that sweet Disney gold went to charity, so how can I hate him? Furthermore, I'm more upset by the Hobbit movies ruining a good work, and I'm convinced that the new Star Wars films will be far worse then the prequels.

In the end I'm forced to conclude that Lucas is a business man, not an artist. And he's always been a business man. In fact, I would argue that he's an incredibly talented business man. He's certainly successful. A New Hope was just a fun sci-fi serial based on Flash Gordon, if we're being honest, and his other two films weren't even directed by him. Perhaps we expected too much from old George
 

lucky_sharm

New member
Aug 27, 2009
846
0
0
Saying the George Lucas "gave us" Star Wars grossly overstates how much of hand he had in its success. Yes, he's responsible for the original spark but then you have 1. John Williams, 2. Ben Burt. 3 The cast. 4. Irvin Kershner. 5 Dennis Muren. 6 Phil Tippet and finally of course Laurence Kasdan that actually brought his story to life and made it good.


The prequel trilogies prove that George Lucas by himself is a poor director and storyteller. A decent visionary to be sure, but nothing more.
 

Haerthan

New member
Mar 16, 2014
434
0
0
Johnny Novgorod said:
I veel flog ze prequels and ze prequels veel like it.
And if ze trailer is anyzing to go by, JJ veel join ze prequels.
Thy service for the Internet Humour has earned thee a cookie and knighthood to yours truly, the King of Cookies. Together we shall venture forth and troll and joke and cry across the interwebz my good knight. Together we shall triumph and bring peace to the internet. Join me my knight as we prepare to flog all newcomers in Star Wars. And may the Force be with you.
 

Therumancer

Citation Needed
Nov 28, 2007
9,909
0
0
inu-kun said:
I'll put my money on the film being worse than the prequels, I'll never forgive JJ for Star Trek 2, defaming one of the best sci fi films ever released for batshit insane liberal propaganda.
Spoilers Below:

Despite my political leanings I actually had more of an issue with the fact that the entire end of the movie was a giant satire of some of the greatest moments of classic Trek movies, and the entire classic cliffhanger is resolved by literally transfusing blood absorbed by a Tribble.

JJ Abrams has done a lot of things I've liked, I was a "Lost" fan even if it was a bit too much of a slow burn and had a disappointing wrap up. I liked "Alias" a lot as well. That said when he starts playing with other people's worlds I don't think it works.

See, the problem with JJ in my opinion is not that he makes "fan films" for the fans, but rather he likes to take established franchises and then try and make them his own, and does his thing with them. As a general rule this fails, even with him involved, in working with an established franchise the creators/directors need to understand they are playing in someone else's world, not making it their own. I'm thinking Star Wars, like Star Trek, is going to involve too much JJ and not enough of the Star Wars world we all want to see.

I'll also be blunt in saying that it's bad sign that the movie is already engaging in race baiting, which seems to currently be a big deal. The very first scene being a black dude in Storm Trooper armor has gotten a lot of attention. Normally that wouldn't be a big deal as parts of the EU went on to explain that The Empire was pretty much conquering planets and/or inducting massive numbers of people into it's war machine. Indeed some of the fiction for the old "Tie Fighter" game (written in the strategy guide if I remember) winds up defining the pilot from that game as having been conscripted from a conquered planet as a pilot, where one of his friends is sent off to become a Storm Trooper. That said one of the first things JJ and Disney did was pretty much scrap the entire EU, which means we're looking at a
canon of their own creation where the Storm Troopers are clones of Jango Fett, and what's more they all look like him (which admittedly presents a challenge if they ever want to show them outside of armor given the way the actor probably aged... since I'd imagine if they keep making clones a lot of them would be young). Previously some dude taking off his helmet and "hey it's a black dude" wouldn't be a big deal, nowadays? Well they seemed to pretty much go out of their way to say this isn't possible, and then decided to show it, almost seeming like it's intended to get people who have been paying attention to comment and get irritated by the new Star Wars not following it's own rules before it's ever released. Some of the very first comments I read after the trailer were about this.

Now, speaking for myself I don't much care because honestly I felt the EU ideas made more sense here, especially given the pro-human sentiments of The Empire and how they probably wouldn't want to be reliant on alien science, and what's more conscripting people and sending them out to fight wars far away is a great way to keep down planetary uprisings. Conscripts also explains why a lot of the Storm Troopers can't hit the broad side of a barn, and would also explain why say Obi Wan would have mentioned Storm Troopers being so precise (in reference to disabling a Jawa transport) when the Troopers we see later are nothing like that, this implying that along with the Conscripts there are still some clones in service. What's more being in hiding Obi Wan could arguably be out of touch, expecting everyone in armor to be a clone of the universe's greatest mercenary. What's more Luke himself mentions there being an academy he wants to go to, implying there is voluntary recruitment as well (though it contradicts his sympathetic thoughts towards the rebels, but hey... writing can be hard).

What's more, being alone we don't know if this guy is actually a Storm Trooper or someone disguised as one, the entire scene lacks any kind of context.

That said though it seems like baiting because it seems to be deliberately calculated to generate discussion and get a rise out of people given the comments about what is canon and what isn't. Strictly speaking, comments from the first movie aside (well out of context, and badly written) we see the creation of what will become The Storm Troopers, even the sole non-movie source one can consider canon: "Star Wars: Republic Commando" (which gets in on a technicality due to this game explaining why General Greivious is damaged at the beginning of one of the movies... the direct tie in between game and movie being a big deal at the time) all pretty much reinforce that Storm Troopers all look like Jango Fett. There might be really good explanations here, but why start off showing a scene just begging for comment given the furor with which everything non-canon has been being axed. The actor himself hasn't been helping much as he's been implying his character is a Storm Trooper (as opposed to someone in disguise) and how we should "get used to it", but not offering any other context or background on how this is explained in the movies, which again seems like premeditated baiting.

All of this aside, the part of the trailer that bugs me is that rolling droid, I just really hate that thing, it looks terrible. The speeder-bike is okay, but I'd expect better, simply put they give us cooler things to ride around on in "Old Republic Online" it looks kind of brick like... but then again maybe it's a space tractor or something. Still, they need to get rid of the rolling droid and the way the astromech head sits on it.
 

Ieyke

New member
Jul 24, 2008
1,402
0
0
KazeAizen said:
George doesn't deserve it and those movies don't deserve it anymore.
They ABSOLUTELY deserve to be perpetually thrashed.

KazeAizen said:
They've made the rounds for the past decade and enough is enough.
Not even close to enough.

KazeAizen said:
I don't see why these movies are raked over the coals and are seen to have nothing of value within them
They're of negative value to the series. They literally HURT the value of the series.

KazeAizen said:
when honestly some of the stuff from the original trilogy doesn't hold up all that well either
It all holds up great, except where Lucas went back and dicked with it.

KazeAizen said:
(have you gone back and watched that fight between Obi-Wan and Darth Vader?).
Yes. Nothing at all wrong with it.

KazeAizen said:
So do you think we can just not do that when the time comes next year or does George and his creations deserve to be reminded again how "bad" the prequels were?
Nope. He deserves to be reminded 'til it's engraved on his tombstone.
 

Casual Shinji

Should've gone before we left.
Legacy
Jul 18, 2009
19,636
4,442
118
KazeAizen said:
Also I'm getting the vibe you despise CGI from this, or at least the prequels CGI which save for episode I is actually pretty dang good over all.
I'd have to counter that. Out of the prequels, Episode 1 probably has the best CGI. There's a starkness to it, not to mention the amount of real sets and shots on location making you feel like you're not trapped in a screen saver. From Episode 2 onward Lucas had the CGI made so that it would apparently show up better digitally, but all it does is make every scene look extremely fuzzy and synthetic.