The Prequels don't Deserve to be Flogged Anymore
- Thread starter KazeAizen
- Start date
You're saying that the flawless and obviously choregraphed saber twirling in the prequels is an improvement over the choreography that depicted actual longsword techniques, even if the performance was stilted and awkward?Rainbow_Dashtruction said:
I'd still take the latter over the former because there's actually something going on between the characters fighting, as opposed to a fight between a bunch of characters we don't know or care about.
I guess this is something that might fly over the heads of anyone that actually prefers the fight scenes in the prequels, but the fight scenes in the original trilogy were storytelling devices as well as duels. Between Obi-wan and Vader we learn their history and the connection they have, and at the end of the fight he purposefully yields his guard because he wants Luke to defeat Vader.
And then there's Darth Maul who randomly appears and fights Qui Gon for a minute, leaves, then shows up again later. The music, bless John William's heart for trying to breath life into these awful films, says this is supposed to be an encounter of colossal importance but the only reason we know Maul is a villain is because he has a red lightsaber and wears funky makeup.
George Lucas has brought a lot to film making. I would argue that his use of practical effects in the original series, especially on a limited budget was close to perfect.
I have absolutely nothing wrong with the use of CGI, in fact done right it is a great complement to the action but I would say it was used very wrong in the prequels. Used correctly CGI should removing filming limitations, allowing characters and sets to have things happen that otherwise can't practically or safely be done. But when your entire set is a green screen room, you are placing arbitrary limits on yourself. The space you have to work with is smaller, the actors cannot see or even properly visualize what they are supposed to be reacting to and the whole thing comes across as sterile and emotionless.
The major crime in the prequels was the near total lack of heart in them. I saw no passion, not in the acting, not in the action and not in the direction.
THAT is why the prequels need to be flogged until even the memory of them is erased.
I have absolutely nothing wrong with the use of CGI, in fact done right it is a great complement to the action but I would say it was used very wrong in the prequels. Used correctly CGI should removing filming limitations, allowing characters and sets to have things happen that otherwise can't practically or safely be done. But when your entire set is a green screen room, you are placing arbitrary limits on yourself. The space you have to work with is smaller, the actors cannot see or even properly visualize what they are supposed to be reacting to and the whole thing comes across as sterile and emotionless.
The major crime in the prequels was the near total lack of heart in them. I saw no passion, not in the acting, not in the action and not in the direction.
THAT is why the prequels need to be flogged until even the memory of them is erased.
I am kinda tired of the prequel-hate. Especially when people blame it all on the CGI or Jar-Jar, which were not the things that single-handedly ruined the movies.
I really didn't get the feeling Abrahms was trying to get any message through with it, it was just a confused mess and him trying to make a mystery through 'ah ha! But it was actually THIS guy who did it! For reasons!'
I just considered that as a part of the writing being shit rather than any political stand. The bad guys were super-evil because of course they were. Same was true for Khan, who was another missed chance for complexity.inu-kun said:
I really didn't get the feeling Abrahms was trying to get any message through with it, it was just a confused mess and him trying to make a mystery through 'ah ha! But it was actually THIS guy who did it! For reasons!'
First of all, we don't necessarily know the new movies will be bad (although I become less and less a fan of J.J. Abrams with each film he does).
Second, even if they are, it still doesn't absolve the prequels of their faults. And my main problem with them is that they just...weren't...good.
They weren't terrible. They just weren't particularly well executed. The concepts could have been interesting. It would have been interesting to see how the Empire arose from the Republic. It could have been interesting to watch Senator Palpatine become The Emperor. And it should have been interesting to see Anakin Skywalker fall to the Dark Side and become Darth Vader.
But it wasn't. And that's why the prequels get flogged. They were dull and added nothing to the established mythology. They were also hampered by some questionable production decisions (some casting choices, obvious racist stereotypes, some painfully awful dialogue ("NOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!"))
Finally, to this Gen X Fan Boy who saw the original films in a theater, the prequels just lacked soul. There was no depth to them. No heart. Granted, I may be wearing super thick nostalgia goggles, but there was no magic in the prequels. And I shall continue to flog them until my flogging arm gets tired!
Then I'll switch arms.
Second, even if they are, it still doesn't absolve the prequels of their faults. And my main problem with them is that they just...weren't...good.
They weren't terrible. They just weren't particularly well executed. The concepts could have been interesting. It would have been interesting to see how the Empire arose from the Republic. It could have been interesting to watch Senator Palpatine become The Emperor. And it should have been interesting to see Anakin Skywalker fall to the Dark Side and become Darth Vader.
But it wasn't. And that's why the prequels get flogged. They were dull and added nothing to the established mythology. They were also hampered by some questionable production decisions (some casting choices, obvious racist stereotypes, some painfully awful dialogue ("NOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!"))
Finally, to this Gen X Fan Boy who saw the original films in a theater, the prequels just lacked soul. There was no depth to them. No heart. Granted, I may be wearing super thick nostalgia goggles, but there was no magic in the prequels. And I shall continue to flog them until my flogging arm gets tired!
Then I'll switch arms.
Well, a lot of people consider the prequels to be the most disappointing films ever, and I can kind of see why. They really are pretty awful films, with bad pacing, horrible characters, nonsensical plot, boring dialogue, boring cinematography, fucking child actors... but not only were they horrible films, they were horrible films in a franchise that had become one of the most significant in all of geek culture.
So it wasn't just that the characters were horrible and we didn't like any of them, it was that we had previously liked the characters in IV onwards, and that the prequels ruined them. It wasn't just that the plot made no sense, it's that it was supposed to be the setup to a universe people already knew, which meant that all of the events of IV are because literally everyone in the universe before that time was a moron.
Which all makes George Lucas into something like Peter Molyneux times a billion.
I get why the films are so heavily criticised. It's like if Avenger's 2 were to not only be shite, but also make us hate all the characters, and somehow retroactively make the plots of previous films make no sense.
So it wasn't just that the characters were horrible and we didn't like any of them, it was that we had previously liked the characters in IV onwards, and that the prequels ruined them. It wasn't just that the plot made no sense, it's that it was supposed to be the setup to a universe people already knew, which meant that all of the events of IV are because literally everyone in the universe before that time was a moron.
Which all makes George Lucas into something like Peter Molyneux times a billion.
I get why the films are so heavily criticised. It's like if Avenger's 2 were to not only be shite, but also make us hate all the characters, and somehow retroactively make the plots of previous films make no sense.
I didn't like the new Star Trek movies much. I have higher hopes now that there's a new director at the helm. You want to talk fan service? LMAO, there was some 'fan service' in those films. I felt that there was little story in the first movie, but this was reasonable because it was mostly a chance to introduce the new faces to pseudo new characters. The second one seemed like an action film to me, and that's nice and all, but it isn't really how I view Star Trek. Sure it has 'action' don't get me wrong, but its usually got a bit more depth then that. I'm also really not seeing Star Trek as promoting a majorly liberal message. Seems to me the most liberal things about Star Trek so far have been the apparent need for VD drugs - a running theme though given you're lead character is James Kirk - and the amount of weapons systems forever being used. Still not sure how I feel about what they've done with Spock's character either, time will tell I guess. I don't dislike it I just... Well we'll see. Still I'll at least not trash talk the next movie until I see a trailer.Cyberstrike said:
As to the next Star Wars movie... If JJ does 'to' Star Wars what he did 'to' Star Trek, it'll probably be great. His directing style, to me at least, seems more suited to Star Wars over all, as is his more rustic vision. He brought a lot of rough visual elements to the interior of the Enterprise - like main engineering actually looking like something along the lines of a machine room rather then an oddly lit night club waiting to open. I mean seriously; who wouldn't rave in any Star Fleet engineering section from Star Trek 3 on? So I think Star Wars is in good hands. Mind you, I'm not a major fan so take the statement on JJ and Star Wars for what it's worth.
I heartily disagree with that. Whether or not this new trilogy is worse than the prequels (very slim chance of that happening as Abrams is at least competent at film-making, even if it is bland and soulless), it has no effect on the quality of the prequels. Well lack thereof. The prequels certainly still deserved to be flogged as poor films on their own, regardless of how bad this new lot may be. I'm definitely putting my money on this lot being in between the OT and PT in terms of quality, since they'll likely just be competent if a bit forgettable.
I don't even get it... I've seen bad movies, movies I either couldn't watch or couldn't stop laughing at. And even if the prequels were worse than the originals, they never entered the same GALAXY as those genuinely bad movies. Neither did the Star Trek reboot. And as for Trek, I have to say, if you can not admit TOS was full of the STUPIDEST plotlines and WORST acting, I don't want you to even comment on Star Wars. The Trek reboot is better than TOS, if nothing else, and as such I don't feel it deserves the hatred. It's more action-oriented? Didn't know that would so easily offend. Bad acting? Compared to TOS, not even. Now compare it to when Trek took a decidedly less-adventurous and more-sociopolitical path, and yes you have a complaint. TNG onward spent time building up plot and setting up the universe, and made the Federation matter as more than "Kirk's club." As for the Star Wars prequels, I find it hard to nail down much that's particularly bad. Some of it is "meh," and the Anakin-Padme romance gets cringeworthy, but accepting the prequels as a different kind of movie set in the same universe as 4-6, and setting the stage for 4-6, the only "bad" to find is that it's different.
That's what I feel it comes down to: I think people just don't like what they see coming for Star Wars because it's not the same, and gave themselves too much of a stake. People will EAT UP Tom Cruise in Mission: Impossible, but we can't do nearly the same with Star Wars. People LOVED The Avengers, but hate that Dracula: Untold actually cares who Vlad Tepes is.
You saw a SHORT trailer of the new movie, and it SCARES you. It didn't show any real plot, it didn't give you any reason to fear that it'll be like the prequels you hate so much. It just showed you shinier Storm Troopers, a weird lightsaber, and a ball droid, and you PANICKED. You know what this fear reaction tells me? What I've always suspected: you're damaged goods. No matter how good the movie is, you'll hate it because it's new and it's Disney. Innovation won't matter. Good writing won't matter. You're mad that a sword looks silly and a Stormtrooper is black. I've lost respect for you, Star Wars fan base. I hope I never become as bitter as you when my beloved films get old.
That's what I feel it comes down to: I think people just don't like what they see coming for Star Wars because it's not the same, and gave themselves too much of a stake. People will EAT UP Tom Cruise in Mission: Impossible, but we can't do nearly the same with Star Wars. People LOVED The Avengers, but hate that Dracula: Untold actually cares who Vlad Tepes is.
You saw a SHORT trailer of the new movie, and it SCARES you. It didn't show any real plot, it didn't give you any reason to fear that it'll be like the prequels you hate so much. It just showed you shinier Storm Troopers, a weird lightsaber, and a ball droid, and you PANICKED. You know what this fear reaction tells me? What I've always suspected: you're damaged goods. No matter how good the movie is, you'll hate it because it's new and it's Disney. Innovation won't matter. Good writing won't matter. You're mad that a sword looks silly and a Stormtrooper is black. I've lost respect for you, Star Wars fan base. I hope I never become as bitter as you when my beloved films get old.
There is a difference though between a fucking movie with practical effects and real sets, and one with fuzzy looking CGI. Even with many of the effects shots in the original trilogy, models or stop-motion were used which has more of a physical presence and sense of craftsmanship to it. The human brain simply knows instantly when something is physically present infront of the camera with the actors, than when it's added with the computer. It's why a martial arts fight scene in The Matrix is engaging, while a similar fight scene in the sequels looks rubbery and limp because it's all done with the computer. Or why Indiana Jones jumping onto a riding tank from the back of a galloping horse is thrilling, while Mutt swinging across a CGI jungle along with CGI monkeys is not.Rainbow_Dashtruction said:
CGI is fantastic if used effectively. If used to just have actors walk on a treadmill infront of a green screen, not so much.
Hate to break your balls kid but Jurassic Park is a science fiction film.Rainbow_Dashtruction said:
OT: The prequels are terrible and deserved to be mocked.
You know, they really kind of do deserve to be flogged. And flayed. And possibly dismembered. They're not good movies, they're not good storyline continuity, they're full of excesses and mistakes that it would be shameful to repeat through overlooking them, and they're a shining example of what can go wrong when you think that ownership of a popular franchise trumps all sins.
We don't, perhaps, need to go on with all the "George Lucas raped my childhood" nonsense. The movies exist, they're out, what's done is done, fine. The original trilogy captured lightning in a bottle; even if they had their own share of oddities and mis-steps, they created characters and a mythology that remain deeply resonant with a generation. If the prequels' only sin was not being able to do that again, we should indeed get past it.
But we shouldn't ignore just how badly even the originator of a franchise can misunderstand the fundamental qualities that made that franchise successful. We ignore that at our peril.
We don't, perhaps, need to go on with all the "George Lucas raped my childhood" nonsense. The movies exist, they're out, what's done is done, fine. The original trilogy captured lightning in a bottle; even if they had their own share of oddities and mis-steps, they created characters and a mythology that remain deeply resonant with a generation. If the prequels' only sin was not being able to do that again, we should indeed get past it.
But we shouldn't ignore just how badly even the originator of a franchise can misunderstand the fundamental qualities that made that franchise successful. We ignore that at our peril.
Ok, story time.
Obviously, im a huge nerd, and a lot of my friend group is, too.
A very good friend of mine's girlfriend (also both nerdy) turned out never to have seen a star wars film in her life, so before we went away to uni we all watched both trilogies, in two movie nights.
and you know what? I was SHOCKED by just how BADLY the original trilogy held up by comparison. still great movies, but I was definatley looking through rose-tinted specs.
by the end of episode 3 (after about 9 hours of solid movies, bear in mind) we were all pumped up and chattering about how brilliant certain moments were (and I maintain that the climactic duel at the end of episode III is one of the best n all cinema)
next week, after all three original trilogy films, we were pretty much ready to go home, and a couple people even fell asleep.
They're still amazing films individually, but I think people forget tha mark hamil is just as stilted in his lines as Hayden Christenson is in the prequels.
and, to be honest, whilst saying you prefer the characters to have sword fights in a more "realistic" manner is I guess valid, it does undermine the incredible reflexes and superpowers that are supposedly the whole REASON these guys can get away with using swords in a sci-fi setting, and to me at least, makes that fight with old ben and vader seem kinda unreal and....well, pointless. When 2 superpowered legends are duelling WITHOUT using any magic at all, it becomes pretty clear that the fight is merely a plot device.
Episode II is a big dumb action movie and to my mind the worst of the 6, I's ok, and III is as far as im concerned the best of the bunch.
None of them are flawless, but...yeh, they definatley don't deserve the hate they've got, and a LOT of people look back with rose tinted glasses on them.
It might be a generational thing, maybe?
I was thinking when reading "Crackeds" recent article on the guys who make movie makers that they apparently look incredibly real to people of the last generation, whereas from people my sort of age, the comments I most often hear about practical effects are "it looks plasticy" or "but that's obviously just a guy in a suit" whereas older people seem to find CGI just as hard to get into (maybe cuz my generation tend to all have played a few video games and thus be adapted to Computer generated stuff? I dunno)
neither is better or worse that the other, But for me I prefer the actually alien-looking aliens in the prequel trilogy rather than the rubbery guys in the original
just my (exceedingly long) take
Obviously, im a huge nerd, and a lot of my friend group is, too.
A very good friend of mine's girlfriend (also both nerdy) turned out never to have seen a star wars film in her life, so before we went away to uni we all watched both trilogies, in two movie nights.
and you know what? I was SHOCKED by just how BADLY the original trilogy held up by comparison. still great movies, but I was definatley looking through rose-tinted specs.
by the end of episode 3 (after about 9 hours of solid movies, bear in mind) we were all pumped up and chattering about how brilliant certain moments were (and I maintain that the climactic duel at the end of episode III is one of the best n all cinema)
next week, after all three original trilogy films, we were pretty much ready to go home, and a couple people even fell asleep.
They're still amazing films individually, but I think people forget tha mark hamil is just as stilted in his lines as Hayden Christenson is in the prequels.
and, to be honest, whilst saying you prefer the characters to have sword fights in a more "realistic" manner is I guess valid, it does undermine the incredible reflexes and superpowers that are supposedly the whole REASON these guys can get away with using swords in a sci-fi setting, and to me at least, makes that fight with old ben and vader seem kinda unreal and....well, pointless. When 2 superpowered legends are duelling WITHOUT using any magic at all, it becomes pretty clear that the fight is merely a plot device.
Episode II is a big dumb action movie and to my mind the worst of the 6, I's ok, and III is as far as im concerned the best of the bunch.
None of them are flawless, but...yeh, they definatley don't deserve the hate they've got, and a LOT of people look back with rose tinted glasses on them.
It might be a generational thing, maybe?
I was thinking when reading "Crackeds" recent article on the guys who make movie makers that they apparently look incredibly real to people of the last generation, whereas from people my sort of age, the comments I most often hear about practical effects are "it looks plasticy" or "but that's obviously just a guy in a suit" whereas older people seem to find CGI just as hard to get into (maybe cuz my generation tend to all have played a few video games and thus be adapted to Computer generated stuff? I dunno)
neither is better or worse that the other, But for me I prefer the actually alien-looking aliens in the prequel trilogy rather than the rubbery guys in the original
just my (exceedingly long) take
I didn't see it, but my roommate railed on this. He didn't go as far as to call it propaganda, but I can see how it could be viewed as that. Anyone is welcome to correct the details that I'm missing or poorly informed on.Zhukov said:
The movie ends with a large, flying object crashing into some very large skyscrapers. Basically 9/11 all over again. The credits are also dedicated to 9/11 survivors/losses, so it was hamfisted at best. 9/11 happened more than a decade before this second movie was filmed, so it's pretty out of place to be making a big deal out of it still.