- Aug 27, 2009
Whoa, hold on. The original trilogy actually had clear protagonists and villains, and not to mention characters with distinct, contrasting personalities as well as motivations.zegram33 said: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.
As for Mark Hamill his acting definitely wasn't stilted as you can see in the below clip, and see how well actors perform when they're given a halfway decent script and placed in real sets as opposed to green screen environments?
The problem with the action scenes in the prequels that the setpieces become so complex and over-the-top that it becomes cartoony and takes away the tension, because the characters don't seem to notice or are visibly affected by all the crazy scenarios they're in. Furthermore, in the prequels you have a bunch of disposable CGI cloned soldiers fighting a bunch of disposable CGI droids. Not exactly very compelling stakes.
Now contrast the seizure inducing fecal matter that comprised the prequel trilogy battle scenes to the Trench Run and the Battle of Hoth, two battles where there's a clear opposition, goal, and actual characters involved in the middle of them. Even though you don't know each rebel personally you still get to see their reactions, their desperation, and their agony as they die one by one.
Probably the worst sin that the prequels committed most of all are the inconsistencies and ruining the characters established in the original trilogy. Anakin, according to Obi-wan, was supposed to be a great and noble Jedi who was tragically seduced by the dark side, and on top of that was a good friend. You can see in Obi-wan's face the reverence and longing he had for the good old days.
But in the prequels Anakin is depicted as a creepy, psychotic, and adversarial prick right from the start, and on top of that he wasn't seduced to the dark side, he was tricked into serving Palpatine. Anakin and Obi-wan are supposed to be good friends but none of that is seen or felt in the films, except for the some throwaway dialogue about something they did together off-screen. On-screen they fight, argue, sass, and even talk behind each other's backs. Compare that to Luke and Han's relationship where they initially start off distant and rocky, and by the beginning of Empire Strikes Back you can FEEL how they've grown close together without them saying a word recounting a past experience.
And if nothing else, in the original trilogy the audience never had to endure a grossly overwrought romance subplot and intergalactic space politics in a series of films that were originally inspired by adventure serials.