What's Wrong with the new Star Wars?

[Karma168]

Whenever i hear the new trilogy (ep 1-3) mentioned the term 'horrible sludgefest of awfullness' or its like spouted. why? what makes these films garner such hatred? i can think of half a dozen films much much worse (most of which i am unfortunate enough to own)

the story is in no way worse than the originals and in some areas is better. some elements admittedly fell flat - anakin's emo-ish attitude drove me nuts in 3 and his fall seemed kinda pointless, he was good then for no reason went on a infanticidal rampage.

the characters were much more engaging than in the originals (bar above points), yes some of them had flaws but the important characters who carry through to the 2nd arc seemed well within the boundaries set up in those movies.

the action: ever since 4 came out people have dreamt of fighting as a jedi with a lightsaber but did they really want to fight like kenobi and vader did? no of course not thats the most boring sword fight i have ever seen, people have always pictured the kind of OTT aerobatic fighting hinted at by Luke in 5&6, these films delivered that in spades. people wanted to see what made the jedi so great a threat that they were hunted to near extinction by Vader and these films went a long way to showing what the order meant as this was skipped over in the originals.

while the films were missing a lot of the filler needed to explain the rise of the sith this was probably because they made the films for the diehards (does star wars have a version of trekies?) who know most of the background from the books and other material. A mistake i will admit but what was missing was never really needed anyway.

Ep. 1 always seems to take the most flak, which is something i never understand as to me that is probably one of the better SW films. it has a decent story - fast paced but with enough detail to explain things to a newcomer to the SW universe, brings in all the major characters for the story arc in a reasonable way and sets up the rest of the arc brilliantly.

TL;DR why the hate for the new trilogy, especially epidode 1.

 

[The King of Rock and Roll]

Because they're terrible movies.

 

[Auron555]

Do you have 4 hours to spare?
http://redlettermedia.com/phantom_menace.html
http://redlettermedia.com/clones.html
http://redlettermedia.com/sith.html

That's what's wrong.

 

[itsnotyouitsme]

I agree with you dude... i really do. My biggest complaint about the trilogy is the wholesome lame and unrealness when anakin loses his hand. And as for mediclorians or whatever, i always thought of it like antibodies. If you have the antibodies, then you will have the sickness. So if you have mediclorians you will be able to use the force. Rather then "this is how we use it" it's "this is how we test to see if you can use it". But i guess im the only one in the world who thinks that way.

 

[Omikron009]

The writing is unbearably cheesy, there's a bunch of acting talent that was totally wasted because of poor directing, and there are a bunch of unnecessary plot elements that are completely silly.

 

[Veloxe]

I didn't think they were really bad, but I think the original series is so much better. I just don't think that Lucas is as good at showing a hero's fall to darkness as he is in showing an "ordinary" persons rise to becoming a hero.

 

[CManator]

JarJar, Midichlorians, unbelievable romace story, Grievous, and Samuel Jackson vs old-ass man.

Those were my only gripes with the prequels. Oh and a couple dialogue inconsistences. Obi Wan said Yoda was his instructor in ep5 but ep1 says it was Liam Neeson. In ep6 Leia says she only remembers visions of her mother who died when she was young, but ep3 says she died during child birth.

 

[WraithPrince]

JarJar, Midichlorians, unbelievable romace story, Grievous, and Samuel Jackson vs old-ass man.

Those were my only gripes with the prequels. Oh and a couple dialogue inconsistences. Obi Wan said Yoda was his instructor in ep5 but ep1 says it was Liam Neeson. In ep6 Leia says she only remembers visions of her mother who died when she was young, but ep3 says she died during child birth.

Well if you read the books on obi-wan when he was a apprentice, yoda instructed him before he got taken by qui-gon.

 

[Nosforontu]

For me the first major problem is that Lord Vader the Dark Lord of the Sith and one of the most iconic villains in the history of cinema could now easily be referred to as "Little Orphan Anni".

A more important reason for my problems with the movies is that many people have referenced the original trilogy as a classic example of the heroes journey. So when I heard that they were doing a prequel I was really exited because I wanted to see a comparable journey for the Villain.

We didn't really get that from the movies in three movies Lord Vader the Dark Lord of the Sith got to be a bad guy for a couple of minutes at most and his only really disturbing scene that he was a really bad guy per say was his somewhat evil for evils sake attack on the Jedi Children though we of course never saw their bodies (to the best of my recollection).

In my humble opinion you need your villain to be a villain especially if he is destined to be as iconic as Vader later turns out be. Their were other odd film elements such as Amadalia being an elected Queen, but the people chose to elect a child for their Queen which was just odd when that element popped up in the later movies. Toss in the unpopularity of a certain CGI character in the first movie and that we only got a little bit of screen time of Little Orphan Annie, actually being Vader when I think that could have been an entire prequel movie on it's own.

 

[NickCaligo42]

Argument 1: The Force is Depressing in the Prequels and the Characters Suck as a Result
In the original trilogy the Force was a much more ethereal thing, a lost art which one could equate to the power of the imagination. Not psychic power, not magic, but pure imagination. It can be bent for great or terrible purposes, used to subjugate and manipulate others or for great good. Most of all, though, those who master it can make great things happen--one needs only to believe in it and in themselves, and to find the discipline to harness it as Luke did. Seeing his journey from a farm boy to the last Jedi Master was deeply inspiring for many people, making them feel as if they, too, could do great things.

Compare to the prequel trilogy. The Force isn't the power of the imagination made manifest, it's not something that anyone can master if they only learn to open their mind and channel it, it's reserved for the privileged; a thing of genetic inheritance that requires people to submit themselves to an elitist boarding school of monks.

Where the Jedi of the original trilogy were deeply in tune with their feelings and with nature, the Jedi of the prequels are a bunch of aristocrats who try to eliminate their emotions, aren't allowed to have relationships, can't have possessions or hobbies, and don't encourage creative potential but rather seek to subjugate it under a strict dogmatic code. Yes, there's reasons for that--but it makes them so in-human that they're impossible to have any interest in, let alone like. They could have put a telekinetic robot onstage in place of Samuel L. Jackson and it would've had the same effect, and that's a horrible waste of Samuel L. Jackson.

Further reinforcing this elitist attitude is the fact that these films focus almost exclusively on the Jedi, suggesting that they're the only ones that matter and that everybody else is just a pawn on their chess board. Apart from Anakin and Obi-Wan, and occasional bits with Mace Windu or Yoda, we just see Padme--and that's only because she's Anakin's love interest; a peripheral aspect to one of those elite.

Compare with the original trilogy, AGAIN, where Princess Leia is a pivotal leader in the fight against the Empire and where the participation of non-force user Han Solo SAVED LUKE'S LIFE on numerous occasions. Not only did the Force seem more special in the wake of all the very outstanding non-force-users in the cast, but these films offered that one didn't necessarily NEED it to be important, whereas the prequels hold that you're basically nothing without it and that it's more important than having healthy, understanding relationships with people.

You see now why these characters are so unbearably difficult to relate to?


Argument 2: There's Such a Thing as Too Much Action
Simply put, the action in the prequels is way too choreographed and sterile. Yes, it's impressive, but outside of a few pauses there's very little expression or emotion in the way the fight scenes flow. They're so busy going through pre-meditated dance steps that're just too damn fast for the eye to see that the actors don't really get a chance to give a performance.

You watch the fight with Darth Maul, you see lots of pretty colors and flips and spins with no really distinct way of telling what direction the fight's actually going in. They're just spinning and spinning and spinning and woops, Qui-Gon's dead.

You watch the fight between Luke and Vader on Cloud City, though, and you feel the dread as Vader repeatedly proves himself to be out of the kid's league, the chill of the wind as he hounds Luke through its tunnels and into the chasms of its airways. It's a better fight because it's much more real and because it's actually moving at a speed that you can keep up with.

Also, the characters are way better established. Compare with the fight against Count Dooku in Episode 2. Count who-ku? The guy just shows up at the end of the second act. We've never seen him before, we don't know who he is or what his motives are, he's just kinda' there throwing out random Sith-ish taunts that don't mean anything. Where A New Hope and The Empire Strikes Back spent a lot of time building up Vader as a threat to the heroes--not to mention their relationships with one another--we just get villains sort of thrown at us out of nowhere in the prequels.

If you're still not buying my argument, though, think of it this way: To create any sense of tension in the final duels of Revenge of the Sith, which is the best of the prequels, Lucas had to do no less than set one in a gigantic arena full of flying saucers for the characters to hurl at each other and set the other on a magma planet with a half-dozen implausible moving setpieces in a river of lava. To create tension in the final duel of Return of the Jedi, all he had to do was put three characters in a quiet, dark throne room. I think that says a LOT about the strength of their respective stories.

 

[SL33TBL1ND]

MEDICLORIANS. I have nothing more to say.

 

[Drakmeire]

I think the problem is that they were made in a similar way to the first movies which were fun and cheesy at times but the prequels took away the fun and made everything a bit too serious so now were stuck with bad acting and forced dialog but it doesn't sound like anyone is having fun.

 

[MetaMop]

Hayden Christenson in Return of the Jedi. I had a seizure when I saw that, unexpecting it, like a tiger pouncing from the underbrush.

 

[Zedar0]

http://downinfront.net/

Watch the one on Episode 3 (preferably along with the movie). That will explain a lot of it, as well as how it could (easily) have been better. I haven't watched the ones for 1 and 2, but I assume they're similar, though they sum a lot of it up in the one for 3, since it's conclusion and all.

 

[mattttherman3]

I didn't mind them, I just really don't like Jar Jar Binks.
My buddies brother hated them for one reason apparently: MEDICHLORIANS

 

[Evil Alpaca]

Since most of my main complaints have been made here are some more minor complaints.

The Blatant pandering to the fan base really annoyed me. Look how many gizmos and gadgets R2D2 has by Episode 3.

Also, the stupid voices given to the battle droids. Their inane dialogue isn't funny and serves no purpose. The storm trooper dialogue in Episode 4 was meant to show that those troopers were just average men serving in the empire's ranks. The droids are robots, we don't need to try and empathize with them.