The Prequels don't Deserve to be Flogged Anymore

lucky_sharm

New member
Aug 27, 2009
846
0
0
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.
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.

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.
 

happyninja42

Elite Member
Legacy
May 7, 2020
8,577
2,888
118
KazeAizen said:
However if the movie just turns out to be good I do not look forward to what will inevitably happen next and that is the continued flogging of George Lucas and the prequel trilogy. George doesn't deserve it and those movies don't deserve it anymore.
I disagree, a bad movie is a bad movie, and time doesn't insulate them from criticism.

KazeAizen said:
They've made the rounds for the past decade and enough is enough. I don't see why these movies are raked over the coals and are seen to have nothing of value within them
Because the expectation for the prequels was through the roof. And what they got were some really poorly done movies that contradicted aspects of the original trilogy, made a mockery of other aspects, and just flat out made the overall tapestry of the Star Wars saga more riddled with plot holes and inconsistencies. Also some of the acting is terrible in those movies. It really is. I personally am fairly forgiving of a lot of it, because I've seen far worse movies than the Prequels in my years, but it's not great acting either. Some of this can be laid at the feet of George Lucas, and some of it at the actors. Overall, it was a poorly written/directed/acted script, and it shows.

KazeAizen said:
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?).
Yes I have, and I'm not going to fault a movie for limits of technology at the time. It was the mid-70's, there wasn't an army of martial arts trained extras to pull from for your fight choreography, or stunt men. You had very little martial penetration into the western movie culture at that time, so it was very improvised. The tech for the special effects back then were very rudamentary, but still very ground breaking for the time. So no, I'm not going to give the original movie shit for limitations of technology, especially when the movie is famous for making a lot of pioneering advancements to that same movie technology.

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?
I'm pretty sure he knows how the general public feels about his prequels, nobody posting here is going to be "reminding" George. We're just discussing it among ourselves, and sharing varied opinions on the subject. Personally I don't hate the prequels, I don't like them, but I don't hate them. They had a few genuinely good and funny moments for me (even one including Jar-Jar!), but overall they were not good movies in my opinion, and if I feel inclined to share that opinion over the next year or so, I will do so. :p
 

ObserverStatus

New member
Aug 27, 2014
147
0
0
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?).
You're right, I did see the fight between Obi-Wan and Darth Vader. It was the dumbest shit ever. They spent like 45 minutes jumping around over CGI lava that should have been cooking them alive, and they didn't even look like they were trying to hit each other.
 

Atmos Duality

New member
Mar 3, 2010
8,473
0
0
KazeAizen said:
Nothing is above criticism but that's not what people do with those movies anymore. At this point people bash on the prequels just to bash on them just to remind everyone of how "bad" they were.
Some, perhaps, but not all.
Personally, I didn't like the prequels. No, not because of Plinkett; I can think for myself thank you.

The one thing that sticks out in my mind for each of the prequels is how thoroughly unthrilled I was with each film after leaving the movie theater. Not angry. Not confused. Just...kinda blithe and sarcastic.

After episode III ended, I kept cracking "pining Darth Vader" jokes all the way home (a good 6 years before they hit full-on internet-meme status).

So now, I'm more curious about Star Wars: The Cultural Experiment, than I am about Star Wars: The Force Rises.

Star Wars has this history with money-grubbing merchandise, dating all the way back to the originals.
Merchandising in movies is nothing special now, but Star Wars is directly responsible for reshaping culture, and especially film business to embrace merchandising more thoroughly.

If the originals' merch was (mostly) incidental, and the prequels' merch was effectively the true focus of those movies, what will the new trilogy bring? I mean, we all know the deluge of toys, comics and games is coming. So how much of it will result incidentally from the movies, and how much will be blunt-force "This exists solely to inspire a cool toy/game?"

Basically, I'm more curious to see how Abrams' (or Disney's) style of money-grubbing compares to Lucas's style of money-grubbing. At this point, I don't really give a damn about the quality of the films themselves. After the disappointment of the prequels, Star Wars' acquisition by Disney (of all companies) and their subsequent placement of Abrams at the helm, I have appropriately lowered my expectations to nil.

Still, I think analyzing the social aspect could be interesting: Star Wars shaped part of our material culture. Now it comes full circle with culture reshaping Star Wars (ideally, for the purposes of filling bank accounts).
It will be like a reflecting pool of geek culture and consumerism.

While the last thing I expect is to actually enjoy the new trilogy films, I'm not trying to actively hate them.
I didn't actively hate Abram's Star Trek films either (rather I pitied them, but that's another subject entirely).

So who knows, maybe I'll be pleasantly surprised. But I'm not holding my breath.

...There. That's my take on the prequels and how they fit into my perspective going forward for the new trilogy. Rather than hating them for the sake of the internet hate machine, I use them to frame my altered intentions and lowered expectations for the new films.
 

Something Amyss

Aswyng and Amyss
Dec 3, 2008
24,759
0
0
I dislike Episodes 1 and 2. I kinda like Episode 3, despite it's flaws. The original trilogy wasn't perfect, either.

And I will continue mocking both in the measure I see fit. Because I mock even movies I like. You should see me and my girlfriend with Doctor Who or Harry Potter!
 

clippen05

New member
Jul 10, 2012
529
0
0
Doesn't matter what a few vocal star wars purists think. The mass market enjoyed the prequels, and the mass market will enjoy the new movies, no matter how bad they are in the fanboys' minds. It may be sad, but it is true.
 

Neverhoodian

New member
Apr 2, 2008
3,832
0
0
super_mega_ultra said:
The french revolutionaries killed the monarchs to make a point, they could have spared them. The US used nuclear bombs on Japan to make a point that stopped the war. Don't you think US military strategists said the exact same thing? We can bomb some less populated area, but then the Japanese won't see the full effect of our weapon and won't surrender.

We get no feel for how big the war between the rebels and the empire is. How much damage the rebels had done to the empire and under which circumstances. We are just expected to feel that the empire is bad because they are big and the rebels are good because they are weaker. I got the impression that the rebels where not freedom fighters, but merely the empire with different uniforms. They even have a monarch, a wealthy princess, giving orders and running things. Also, Luke Skywalker plans and carries out a genocide when he destroys the death star, killing hundreds of thousands of people, and no one even raises any issue with this. In good sci-fi, like Battlestar Galactica 2004, they questions whether they can do such things as releasing a virus among the Cylons and still be the good guys, even if doing such a thing would mean the end of the war.
Yes, there are plenty of examples from history where horrific violence was implemented to achieve a goal. Thing is, that sort of behavior is widely regarded as abhorrent nowadays due to the rise of "smart bombs" and increased economic dependency and racial/cultural integration. More often than not the international community condemns actions like acts of terror and bombing civilians, and I'd say that's a good thing.

Look, the original trilogy simply does not deal with moral ambiguity. That's not its intent. If it's "shades of grey" morality you're looking for, you're not going to find it here. Hell, the opening text straight-up tells us the Empire is evil from the get-go, and nearly everything the Imperials do in the films further solidifies that claim. From the planet-killing and prisoner torturing to the Nazi-esque uniforms and designations, everything about the Empire practically screams "evil."

I'm referring solely to the films, of course. If you want the Empire portrayed in a sympathetic light, go play Tie Fighter. That game is awesome.

Princess Leia is not the leader of the Alliance. That person is Mon Mothma (the "many Bothans died to bring us this information" lady), a former senator that was elected for the position. Also, there's a stark difference between destroying a purely military target like the Death Star and an entire planet, military and civilians alike. Besides, what choice did the Rebels have? Let the Death Star destroy them and lose the war?

As an aside, I think it's a misnomer to refer to Star Wars as science fiction. "Science fantasy" would be a more accurate term.
 

lucky_sharm

New member
Aug 27, 2009
846
0
0
clippen05 said:
Doesn't matter what a few vocal star wars purists think. The mass market enjoyed the prequels, and the mass market will enjoy the new movies, no matter how bad they are in the fanboys' minds. It may be sad, but it is true.
Then I challenge the mass media to pick out their favorite scene that didn't involve lightsabers.
 

zegram33

New member
Oct 24, 2012
37
0
0
@Lucky_Sham

Sorry dude,but I just...don't agree
The entire opening of III felt like genuine banter between friends for me, lasting till about half way through the movie.
I mean, if they ever remade them, id rather they got rid of II and had the 2nd film just be Anakin and Obi-wan jetting around having adventures and such, but cant have it all. I personally always kinda got the impression that Han hated luke even by the end of the series, but that might just be me.


As for CGI vs practical: i'll say it outright: The whole hoth battle looks like a kid playing with toys to me nowadays. I am talking like distractingly goofy-looking. The same for the infantry: disposable stormtroopers vs disposable rebels, just costumed rather than CG'd.

Its a matter of personal preference as to people who prefer CG or practical effects, but every problem you listed (unnecessary romance subplot, central villain having...basically no motivation, etc) is equally a problem with the originals.
Han and Leia genuinely loathe each other to begin with but just magically work it out once luke is off the cards.
As for clear motivations....what IS the emperors motivation? Like, I love the series, but I have no idea beyond "be evil"
Hell, he spends the whole of the 5th film calling luke "the son of skywalker" rather than "your son" purely to build up to the most iconic moment in movie history, but it makes no sense. Its never quite clear why palpatine NEEDS the death star when he has fleets that seem to work just as well, and...in general the whole series is REALLY bad at villains

Bear in mind, the characters are very Arch because its a family movie and they need KIDS to get the points as well, so some scenes (Hayden Christianson's scenes once he's evil) are deliberately overdone. The same was true of the original (every villain speaking with comedy british accents and the primary villains name being freakin DARTH). I was a kid when I watched the prequels for the first time so I accept their quirks and love them, people who were a kid when the OT came out accept their quirks, but were older when the PT came out so don't give them the same kind of breaks. For this reason, I doubt i'll like the new trilogy as much as I do the PT.

Again, I love both series, but they are equally flawed, I don't think that you can like one but not the other unless you really hate green screen or really love practical effects, but at that point its personal preference and not one trilogy actually being better than the other since that's a PURELY subjective thing.

Also: can you name ANY memorable scene from either trilogy that doesn't involve a lightsaber at all?

"I AM YOUR FATHER" has lukes hand get cut off immediately prior.
actually, the dogfights in both trilogies are the only things coming to mind
 

lucky_sharm

New member
Aug 27, 2009
846
0
0
zegram33 said:
@Lucky_Sham

Sorry dude,but I just...don't agree
The entire opening of III felt like genuine banter between friends for me, lasting till about half way through the movie.
I mean, if they ever remade them, id rather they got rid of II and had the 2nd film just be Anakin and Obi-wan jetting around having adventures and such, but cant have it all. I personally always kinda got the impression that Han hated luke even by the end of the series, but that might just be me.


Its a matter of personal preference as to people who prefer CG or practical effects, but every problem you listed (unnecessary romance subplot, central villain having...basically no motivation, etc) is equally a problem with the originals.
Han and Leia genuinely loathe each other to begin with but just magically work it out once luke is off the cards.
As for clear motivations....what IS the emperors motivation? Like, I love the series, but I have no idea beyond "be evil"
Hell, he spends the whole of the 5th film calling luke "the son of skywalker" rather than "your son" purely to build up to the most iconic moment in movie history, but it makes no sense. Its never quite clear why palpatine NEEDS the death star when he has fleets that seem to work just as well, and...in general the whole series is REALLY bad at villains

Bear in mind, the characters are very Arch because its a family movie and they need KIDS to get the points as well, so some scenes (Hayden Christianson's scenes once he's evil) are deliberately overdone. The same was true of the original (every villain speaking with comedy british accents and the primary villains name being freakin DARTH). I was a kid when I watched the prequels for the first time so I accept their quirks and love them, people who were a kid when the OT came out accept their quirks, but were older when the PT came out so don't give them the same kind of breaks. For this reason, I doubt i'll like the new trilogy as much as I do the PT.

Again, I love both series, but they are equally flawed, I don't think that you can like one but not the other unless you really hate green screen or really love practical effects, but at that point its personal preference and not one trilogy actually being better than the other since that's a PURELY subjective thing.

Also: can you name ANY memorable scene from either trilogy that doesn't involve a lightsaber at all?

"I AM YOUR FATHER" has lukes hand get cut off immediately prior.
actually, the dogfights in both trilogies are the only things coming to mind
What gave you the impression that Han hated Luke? Even when they first met Han was at worst condescending to Luke by calling him "kid". Even by the end of A New Hope it became a term of endearment instead of a degrading remark, what with Luke and Han embracing one another after destroying the Death Star. Also, how many genuine moments are there in the prequels where the characters bare their souls and just go nuts with emotion, Anakin's megalomania-cal rant about killing women and children notwithstanding?

The thing with Han and Leia's romance is that it never overtook the main plot the way Padme and Anakin's did. More than that, Leia actually had a voice and presence of her own whereas Padme presence was completely vestigial beyond being a warm body for Anakin to birth Luke and Leia.

As for the central villain, he makes it perfectly clear that he wants to destroy the rebellion and bring order to the galaxy. That's it. And for the Death Star that was explained in the first film, simply to be an instrument of terror and bring the galaxies in line.

As for your final question, yes I can because lightsabers only comprised a very small fraction of the action depicted in the original trilogy. What I remember are Luke and Han's banter while infiltrating the Death Star, the cantina scene where Han blows up Greedo, Han's solo scene talking to another Stormtrooper on a mic, Han and Luke and Obi-wan on the Millennium Falcon talking about the Force, the scene where Owen and Luke are picking out the droids, the trash compactor scene, Han chasing after a gang of troops like a mad man and running away afterwards, Luke and Leia swinging over a large chasm, the Trench Run, and the aftermath celebration where the entire cast embraces one another.

Notice how almost all of the above scenes I mentioned consist primarily of dialogue? What interactions in the prequel trilogy do you remember where characters are just going back and forth on one another where there wasn't any battle going on? Were they just sitting down on chairs talking, standing on floating platforms while talking, pacing slowly from one area to another while talking?
 

Kenbo Slice

Respect your surroundings
Jun 7, 2010
2,699
0
0
TizzytheTormentor said:
I actually enjoyed watching the prequels, they weren't perfect or as good as the original trilogy, but I think they stand well enough on their own to be considered proper Star Wars movies.

Also, you can rag on em all you want, the score and fight scenes are absolutely top notch (most of the time) with Obi-Wan Vs Anakin being just a joy to watch.

I also like the JJ Abrams Star Trek movies, since they seem to have reared their heads into this, ignoring whatever political theories you see in Into Darkness, I still think its a damn fun movie.
I'm with you on Star Trek Into Darkness. That movie was damn fun and it was awesome to watch Spock throw down.
 

DeimosMasque

I'm just a Smeg Head
Jun 30, 2010
585
0
0
lucky_sharm said:
As for your final question, yes I can because lightsabers only comprised a very small fraction of the action depicted in the original trilogy. What I remember are Luke and Han's banter while infiltrating the Death Star, the cantina scene where Han blows up Greedo, Han's solo scene talking to another Stormtrooper on a mic, Han and Luke and Obi-wan on the Millennium Falcon talking about the Force, the scene where Owen and Luke are picking out the droids, the trash compactor scene, Han chasing after a gang of troops like a mad man and running away afterwards, Luke and Leia swinging over a large chasm, the Trench Run, and the aftermath celebration where the entire cast embraces one another.

Notice how almost all of the above scenes I mentioned consist primarily of dialogue? What interactions in the prequel trilogy do you remember where characters are just going back and forth on one another where there wasn't any battle going on? Were they just sitting down on chairs talking, standing on floating platforms while talking, pacing slowly from one area to another while talking?
And that's just A New Hope. When you get to Empire it nearly triples in memorable moments (hell every scene with Yoda is a memorable thing.) Return a but less but that's because the movie gets a bit slow after Tattonine is over.

To be fair looking back, while I'm not really much a fan of the Prequels, @zegram33 each movie does have some great little scenes here and there that I find to be memorable for the -right- reasons (as in good moments that aren't remembered because of how bad or boring they were Pod Racing and 'Yippie' from Phantom come to mind)

In Phantom Menace - The first "I'm cold" scene with Anakin and Padme when they are heading to the Capital, is probably one of the only scenes where the young actor really showed he could potentially act given the right director. There's a lot of emotion and pathos there. The only other one I can think of off the top of my head that has always hit me is during the final Duel.

When the energy barriers go up and Qui-Gon and Darth Maul are separated. Qui-Gon immediately begins to meditate, enhancing his calm and becoming one with the Living Force. And Darth Maul paces like a caged animal to keep his aggression and passions inflamed... to stay with the Dark Side. Everything else that did go wrong with that movie, that scene did the most to show the difference between the Light and the Dark. The Serene and the Passionate.

The Clone Wars is a bit harder because the Anakin and Padme's romance is so backwards and awkward (the one trained by a monk order not to love pushes for a relationship, an unattached Senator keeps reminding him it's forbidden always seemed backwards to me.) But I would say one scene always hit me... and it's pretty much at the end. The Prototype Star Destroyers and cruisers taking off from Coruscant as Palpatine, Bail Organa and others watch. Just as Organa shakes his head and smashes his fist on the railing, a version of the Imperial March plays... it's perfect because you've been cheering on the Clone Troopers because they were helping the Jedi... you forgot what they would become, and what is happening right now. That subtle music cue sells it.

Revenge of the Sith. The first long shot is awesome, but it's CGI so it's not as impressive as other long continuing shots. But it is memorable and a good shot, even if the more slapstick and silly stuff that comes after it clashes with the tone of the rest of the movie. The scene at the Opera with Palpatine and Anakin has the one great moment "Where can I learn this power?" the response: "Not from a Jedi." Now for two unpopular ones... The Scene where Mace initially confronts Palpatine and lets out the lightsaber. In some ways its the wrong thing because in Return the Emperor basically viewed a lightsaber as a toy, a Jedi's weapon. But man that scene and scream is so cool.!

The other unpopular one is... I love Revenge's reveal of Dark Vader (except for the Nooooooooo!) I think seeing Anakin burned and destroyed (btw why did the lava only burn by proximity when they were done fighting?) And slowly rebuilt and then asking about his wife was perfect. The rest was sort of bad, but acceptable.


So there. As a 34 year old. Who saw all three Prequel movies in the theaters. I just listed the moments that were memorable to me that didn't involve lightsaber battles.
 

Brian Tams

New member
Sep 3, 2012
919
0
0
I liked the prequels. They showed what star wars action could've been. It just forgot to bring the others things that made IV, V, and to some extent VI such classics.

They are at the very least some of the best musically scored star wars movies of all time.
 

DeimosMasque

I'm just a Smeg Head
Jun 30, 2010
585
0
0
Kenbo Slice said:
TizzytheTormentor said:
I actually enjoyed watching the prequels, they weren't perfect or as good as the original trilogy, but I think they stand well enough on their own to be considered proper Star Wars movies.

Also, you can rag on em all you want, the score and fight scenes are absolutely top notch (most of the time) with Obi-Wan Vs Anakin being just a joy to watch.

I also like the JJ Abrams Star Trek movies, since they seem to have reared their heads into this, ignoring whatever political theories you see in Into Darkness, I still think its a damn fun movie.
I'm with you on Star Trek Into Darkness. That movie was damn fun and it was awesome to watch Spock throw down.
As a long time Star Trek fan, and being in the unpopular position of being a Niner (Deep Space Nine fan.) I liked the first JJ Abrams Star Trek Movie. It was fast paced, exciting... and well... It felt like a Star Wars movie.

The second movie I had more of a problem with because I felt they had wasted Kahn, and while the comics made me feel better over all.. I felt like they took the elements of one of the best Star Trek movies ever made and made a decent action movie at best.

Without the Space Seed episode, Khan is just wasted... instead it's just a set piece after set piece leading to a finale that apes the original.

I really liked the rebooted crew, even if they were overdrived, and I loved the first movie. But I would have gone with Gary Mitchell, or really, anything else before I went to Kahn.
 

drummond13

New member
Apr 28, 2008
459
0
0
KazeAizen said:
Atmos Duality said:
Prequel bashing is a very tired subject, yes, but nothing is above criticism.
Nothing is above criticism but that's not what people do with those movies anymore. At this point people bash on the prequels just to bash on them just to remind everyone of how "bad" they were.
Sometimes? But in this case they're bashing them because you started a forum with "the prequels don't deserve to be bashed anymore". Of course you're going to get responses that "bash" them. Many of the people responding to your original post are simply answering your question.

Yes, they deserve to be "bashed". They were terrible films then. They're still terrible films today. People are free to enjoy them, of course, and I'm actually a little jealous of those who are able to. But I've used specific moments from all three prequels to teach my students exactly how bad editing and/or bad writing can ruin a scene. There are so many clear-cut moments of this that the movies are almost a godsend as a teaching tool in what not to do, and why you shouldn't do it.

No idea about the next one, because all we've seen is a bunch of random images arranged in a teaser trailer. It reminds me a little of the teaser of Episode I, which was considerably better than the movie it advertised and is still a good watch.

As always, some will like it and some won't. I would be amazed if it's anywhere near the ineptitude shown in the prequels, however the movie turns out.
 

drummond13

New member
Apr 28, 2008
459
0
0
zegram33 said:
@Lucky_Sham

Sorry dude,but I just...don't agree
The entire opening of III felt like genuine banter between friends for me, lasting till about half way through the movie.
I mean, if they ever remade them, id rather they got rid of II and had the 2nd film just be Anakin and Obi-wan jetting around having adventures and such, but cant have it all. I personally always kinda got the impression that Han hated luke even by the end of the series, but that might just be me.


As for CGI vs practical: i'll say it outright: The whole hoth battle looks like a kid playing with toys to me nowadays. I am talking like distractingly goofy-looking. The same for the infantry: disposable stormtroopers vs disposable rebels, just costumed rather than CG'd.

Its a matter of personal preference as to people who prefer CG or practical effects, but every problem you listed (unnecessary romance subplot, central villain having...basically no motivation, etc) is equally a problem with the originals.
Han and Leia genuinely loathe each other to begin with but just magically work it out once luke is off the cards.
As for clear motivations....what IS the emperors motivation? Like, I love the series, but I have no idea beyond "be evil"
Hell, he spends the whole of the 5th film calling luke "the son of skywalker" rather than "your son" purely to build up to the most iconic moment in movie history, but it makes no sense. Its never quite clear why palpatine NEEDS the death star when he has fleets that seem to work just as well, and...in general the whole series is REALLY bad at villains

Bear in mind, the characters are very Arch because its a family movie and they need KIDS to get the points as well, so some scenes (Hayden Christianson's scenes once he's evil) are deliberately overdone. The same was true of the original (every villain speaking with comedy british accents and the primary villains name being freakin DARTH). I was a kid when I watched the prequels for the first time so I accept their quirks and love them, people who were a kid when the OT came out accept their quirks, but were older when the PT came out so don't give them the same kind of breaks. For this reason, I doubt i'll like the new trilogy as much as I do the PT.

Again, I love both series, but they are equally flawed, I don't think that you can like one but not the other unless you really hate green screen or really love practical effects, but at that point its personal preference and not one trilogy actually being better than the other since that's a PURELY subjective thing.

Also: can you name ANY memorable scene from either trilogy that doesn't involve a lightsaber at all?

"I AM YOUR FATHER" has lukes hand get cut off immediately prior.
actually, the dogfights in both trilogies are the only things coming to mind
The special effects of the original trilogy are certainly dated, but that's hardly surprising given how old they are.

Yes, the original trilogy has goofy moments and cliches. It's based off of Republic Serials, which aren't exactly known for their subtlety. It isn't revered for its realism.

The original has better writing, better editing, and more compelling characters, despite their simplicity and two-dimensional nature. They aren't masterpieces by any stretch of the imagination, but they are reasonably well-crafted films. The prequels are not.

To answer your last question:

The trash compactor scene. Han shooting Greedo. The trench. Taking down an AT-AT with a tow-line. Han and Leia's dialogue before their first kiss. Han getting frozen. Luke meeting Yoda. Leia strangling Jaba. The rebels Kamakazying a super star destroyer.

I could go on.

There's nothing wrong with liking the prequels, but the direction and writing in them is incredibly poor all the way through. The acting isn't often all that great either, but with bad direction and bad writing it's incredibly hard to turn in a good performance.

But hey, agree to disagree. :)
 

Denamic

New member
Aug 19, 2009
3,804
0
0
Some people grew up with these movies. They fantasized about Star Wars when they were awake and dreamed about it when they went to sleep. The prequels were bad and severely failed to satisfy the expectations of people who has been fans for decades. The prequels will be hated as long as the original trilogy is loved.