# Star wars prequels - what makes them bad that the originals were't guilty of?



## Droidsteel (Mar 22, 2012)

Ok, so I loved the star wars prequels, having grown up with them and all, and I'm just wondering if anyone can give me a legit reason why they were so 'terrible.' Because literally every time I hear someone give any reasons why they hated them, Its always something that was also present in the original three.

So, can anyone give a reason why the prequels 'sucked' that wasn't also a fault in the original trilogy?


----------



## Baiken (Sep 11, 2012)

Nostalgia glasses.


----------



## IcedOver (Feb 26, 2007)

Let me say right off that I'm not that big on "Star Wars", but I liked it somewhat as a kid. Basically, the prequels never should have been made because they're simply giving form to a story that is much more interesting in the imagination -- the transformation of Anakin Skywalker into Darth Vader. Because Lucas was working within such strict storytelling confines, and on a story that had been mulling in geeks' heads for over two decades, the result couldn't help but be at least somewhat disappointing to the fans who had built it up in their minds for so long. The pressure of having to make it all "fit" with the original trilogy (even though he fails many times in this) along with having to make these characters whose fates we know interesting was a little too much for Lucas, who had become a very rusty filmmaker.

I actually like many things about the prequels, but aside from what I mentioned above, they have some problems. If you look at the original trilogy, the acting is of course much better, and the dialogue has more crackle. Portman and Christensen are pretty awful in those movies, and Jake Lloyd was just a poor choice (when you're talking about a child actor, it's not his fault that he was bad, but Lucas's for choosing him). The originals kept the gooey romance stuff poppy and brief, but the prequels have those cringeworthy scenes where Anakin and Padme (what a stupid character name, George) talk about their love. Yuck.


----------



## Droidsteel (Mar 22, 2012)

Baiken said:


> Nostalgia glasses.


Well thats what i think really  Have a hug :squeeze



IcedOver said:


> *Because Lucas was working within such strict storytelling confines, and on a story that had been mulling in geeks' heads for over two decades, the result couldn't help but be at least somewhat disappointing to the fans who had built it up in their minds for so long.*
> 
> I actually like many things about the prequels, but aside from what I mentioned above, they have some problems. If you look at the original trilogy, the acting is of course much better, and the dialogue has more crackle. Portman and Christensen are pretty awful in those movies, and Jake Lloyd was just a poor choice (when you're talking about a child actor, it's not his fault that he was bad, but Lucas's for choosing him). The originals kept the gooey romance stuff poppy and brief, but the prequels have those cringeworthy scenes where Anakin and Padme (what a stupid character name, George) talk about their love. Yuck.


First off, I agree with the bold. I think that is one of the main reasons people didn't like it.

Okaaaay.. as for your last paragraph, just complains about the acting. Something that one could complain about in the originals.

Yes there are some awful padmie/anikin scenes in the prequels, and lot of examples of bad acting (more bad writing really) but the originals have moments like this too, most of marks hamill's acing is just.. silly really, his reaction to finding out darth vader is his father and obi-one's death are more funny than emotional. And if anyone goas back and re-watches the scene in empire where han, chewie and leia visit luke after they find him in hoth, every line just sounds silly.

The acting or has NEVER been stellar in star wars. Just a mix of good, bad and terrible.

And why was Jake Lloyd a bad actor? No one EVER gives reasons for saying this.


----------



## burrito (Aug 29, 2012)

Anakin and Padmes love crap just got incredibly boring and was poorly done. Christensen and Lloyd were bad actors for such a big budget movie. The originals had bad acting but not to the same extent, even considering they were made in the 70-80s. Lucas's directing didnt evolve, he relied to heavily on cgi instead of making a good story with a solid script imo.

erasercrumbs explains it pretty well; http://www.socialanxietysupport.com/forum/1060486224-post31.html

And as far as nostalgia, consider you grew up with the prequels instead of the originals. Thats like trying to get into the Indiana Jones series by growing up with Kingdom of the Crystal Skull instead of Raiders or Last Crusade. Its just not the same.


----------



## burrito (Aug 29, 2012)

Droidsteel said:


> Well thats what i think really  Have a hug :squeeze
> 
> Nostalgia goes both ways, you said yourself you grew up with the prequels.
> 
> ...


Just the way I see it anyway.:boogie


----------



## Droidsteel (Mar 22, 2012)

burrito said:


> Anakin and Padmes love crap just got incredibly boring and was poorly done. Christensen and Lloyd were bad actors for such a big budget movie. The originals had bad acting but not to the same extent, even considering they were made in the 70-80s. Lucas's directing didnt evolve, he relied to heavily on cgi instead of making a good story with a solid script imo.
> 
> erasercrumbs explains it pretty well; http://www.socialanxietysupport.com/forum/1060486224-post31.html
> 
> And as far as nostalgia, consider you grew up with the prequels instead of the originals. Thats like trying to get into the Indiana Jones series by growing up with Kingdom of the Crystal Skull instead of Raiders or Last Crusade. Its just not the same.


erasercrumb's reasons were't too bad, but a lot of it seemed like nitpicking to me. The point about the battle droids was silly though - at least they managed to kill people, which is more than can be said for stormtroopers.

And the films didn't rely on cgi - just because the effects were good it didn't mean they were relying on them. Thats like saying the prequals relied on practical effects, or that color films rely on color.

And a lot of what you are saying in the above post basically equates to 'the OT is older, therefore it is absolved of any and all flaws whereas the prequels should be perfect because they were made later.'


----------



## Fanta can (Aug 13, 2011)

burrito said:


> Anakin and Padmes love crap just got incredibly boring and was poorly done. Christensen and Lloyd were bad actors for such a big budget movie. The originals had bad acting but not to the same extent, even considering they were made in the 70-80s. Lucas's directing didnt evolve, he relied to heavily on cgi instead of making a good story with a solid script imo.


QFT.

The acting in the original trilogy was far from great, but it was a lot better than in the prequels. A lot of that probably has to do with the ridiculous overuse of CGI. 90% of these movies were green screen. Not only did they make poor choices when casting, the actors rarely interacted with tangible objects or other real actors. They were never on real sets.

The excessive use of CGI hindered the acting, but in my opinion it also hurt the overall tone of the films. I think compared to the original trilogy, these movies looked plastic, sterile, and cartoonish. It felt more like a fully animated movie than a live action film. The way CG characters like Yoda and Jar Jar interacted with real actors looked like something out of Mary Poppins. In my opinion, these movies simply didn't look like the Star Wars that I know and love. Too much focus was put on these expensive special effects that a few years later don't really look that impressive any way. A year or two from now, I'm sure George will want to rerelease the prequels with all new special effects because he's embarrassed by how they look. But the reason he failed is because he's too concerned about the look of his films. He should have been thinking about the story.

More focus could have been put into the storytelling and character development. Qui-Gon Jinn and Darth Maul were two of the few compelling characters, but they were killed in the first movie before we even got to know them. In the original trilogy, Obi-Wan dies, but we're left with a great cast of cool characters and he shows up in the other two films as a ghost. In the prequels Qui-Gon dies, but we're left with a mediocre group of characters and we never see him again. In the original trilogy, we only have two main villains in the emperor and Darth Vader. They're very dark and sinister, yet in the end, we end up sympathizing with Vader. In the prequels, there's a long list of bad guys that we don't really care about. It's like they just wanted to cram as many characters and props into the movies as they could, yet they didn't have enough actual story for one movie, let alone three.

In short, too much emphasis was put on special effects and not enough was put on story. I don't dislike the movies, but there's no question that the original trilogy is vastly superior.


----------



## lonelyjew (Jan 20, 2010)

If you've got the time to kill, these reviews are excellent, and go over all of the reasons why the prequels are terrible. They are long (they're in multiple parts, the videos bellow are only the first parts), but they're really funny.

Episode 1:






Episode 2:






Episode 3:


----------



## burrito (Aug 29, 2012)

Droidsteel said:


> erasercrumb's reasons were't too bad, but a lot of it seemed like nitpicking to me. The point about the battle droids was silly though - at least they managed to kill people, which is more than can be said for stormtroopers.
> 
> And the films didn't rely on cgi - just because the effects were good it didn't mean they were relying on them. Thats like saying the prequals relied on practical effects, or that color films rely on color.
> 
> And a lot of what you are saying in the above post basically equates to 'the OT is older, therefore it is absolved of any and all flaws whereas the prequels should be perfect because they were made later.'


I agree with his point on the battle droids myself. The storm troopers were more menacing in that they were actual living beings, so you assumed they CHOSE to be evil like Nazi SS soldiers or something. We didnt know they were clones (or I didnt) until Ep 1. The droids just seemed kindof slapstick and always had some comical little line while they got sliced in half by a light saber. They made me think more of the little squeeky rubber alien toys in the claw machine of Toy Story than a dreaded galactic military force.

And George Lucas is notorious for relying on cgi. Let me elaborate a bit. When you think of the Transformers movies do you think "wow what a great script, Megan Fox nailed her role and the 2 ghetto transformers were so necessary."? No. People think "Wow its a visual feast that has a horrible script". because it relied on its visuals while other areas suffered. Imbalance.

I keep bringing up Lord of the Rings but Peter Jackson went through excruciating detail to use as many camera tricks and special fx possible before using cgi as a last resort. In the Bram Stokers Dracula of the early 1990s they didnt use a single bit of cgi. it was all matte paintings and camera tricks. The difference is quality and believability usually. Yeah computer animation great but not totally realistic yet.

I guess thats the difference between a master director and George Lucas. He was once innovative but like I said he stopped evolving. Better graphics dont always equal better movie, just like videogames. He doesnt get that.

And I said nothing about the originals being absolved of mistakes. I agreed with a few of your points even. But if you refuse to improve over 30 years then yeah there is a problem. Polish a turd and its still a turd.

And to be clear I dont hate the prequels, Ive seen them many times actually. Darth Maul is probably my 2nd or 3rd favorite character. The movies just arent my personal favorites.


----------



## Droidsteel (Mar 22, 2012)

People reeeeally need to realise that cgi and good writing is not an oxymoron -_-

I don't care how much you loved the yoda puppet... it had like, 3 facial expression, tops. The cg version was superior in every way. I do agree that George Lucas used cg in unnecessary ways though (such as for clone trooper armor) but that is really just nitpicking.

I don't even understand how a film can possible be 'based on effects' unless it is based around one concept (such as transformers) the digital effects are put in last and the scrip is always written first - so surely the crew would be thinking 'how are we going to tell this story' and _then_ thinking 'how are we going to pull this off' rather than just going 'oh yeh an explosion would look great, lets add it in for no reason.. or lets include this scene with no bearing on the plot and is just a set piece!'

And acting against a green screen should have no difference to acting against a detailed set - acting is their job, so they should be acting like there is an environment there. Any actor worth their salt should be able to deliver a convincing performance regardless of their surroundings.

Effects failures aren't a reason to not like the prequels people, the OT had much much worse effects, which is why you won't see any puppets used to play characters with a lot of lines in films anymore.


----------



## fingertips (Jan 11, 2009)

Droidsteel said:


> People reeeeally need to realise that cgi and good writing is not an oxymoron -_-


nobody ever said this.



> surely the crew would be thinking 'how are we going to tell this story' and _then_ thinking 'how are we going to pull this off' rather than just going 'oh yeh an explosion would look great, lets add it in for no reason.. or lets include this scene with no bearing on the plot and is just a set piece!'


yeah, but it's george lucas.



Droidsteel said:


> And acting against a green screen should have no difference to acting against a detailed set - acting is their job, so they should be acting like there is an environment there. Any actor worth their salt should be able to deliver a convincing performance regardless of their surroundings.


are you serious

i won't pretend the original star wars films were amazing or anything, but at least the special effects constraints _forced_ the action to be a little more subdued. whereas in the prequels it's BOOM BOOM BOOM GIANT SPACE BATTLE WHERE HUNDREDS OF SHIPS FLY IN EVERY DIRECTION OH NOW THERE'S HUNDREDS OF JEDIS AND THEY'RE ALL USING LIGHTSABERS PZOO. silly action sequences are replaced by absolutely stupefying ones.


----------



## low (Sep 27, 2009)

Jar Jar Binks. Too many comical/stupid characters.


----------



## Luna Sea (Apr 4, 2012)

burrito said:


> The storm troopers were more menacing in that they were actual living beings, so you assumed they CHOSE to be evil like Nazi SS soldiers or something. We didnt know they were clones (or I didnt) until Ep 1.


IIRC, the storm troopers in the first 3 aren't supposed to be clones. By that point most of them were recruited soldiers. And obviously George Lucas hadn't thought of them being clones until the 90s anyway.


----------



## burrito (Aug 29, 2012)

TristanS said:


> IIRC, the storm troopers in the first 3 aren't supposed to be clones. By that point most of them were recruited soldiers. And obviously George Lucas hadn't thought of them being clones until the 90s anyway.


Ah. Never knew. Didnt know if they discussed that in a novel or somewhere Id missed between the films.


----------



## erasercrumbs (Dec 17, 2009)

Droidsteel said:


> I don't care how much you loved the yoda puppet... it had like, 3 facial expression, tops. The cg version was superior in every way. I do agree that George Lucas used cg in unnecessary ways though (such as for clone trooper armor) but that is really just nitpicking.


I prefer the puppet myself, simply because it just has that innate Frank Oz whimsy about it. But whether Yoda is a stolid puppet with limited movement or a CGI ghost from the uncanny valley, it doesn't really matter to me that much. What really made Yoda special to older geeks like myself is stuff like this:






To this day, this scene quite honestly makes me smile. In a bubblegum, pop-psychology kind of way, it at least gives the illusion of profundity. Moments like this are simply nowhere to be found in the prequels. Yoda never made me smile, or think, or feel anything at all in them. He just says things like, "Around the survivors a perimeter create."

When it comes to the battle droids, perhaps I am being too persnickety. The Stormtroopers were almost laughably inaccurate at times, after all. That said, after seeing the charred remains of Owen and Beru at the beginning of New Hope, I knew that the Stormtroopers were creeps that needed to be dealt with. The battle droids never gave me that impression. It's not even that they were ineffective combatants, because the droideka seemed to be pretty powerful. They were just too cute and silly--which would be fine, if they weren't the primary antagonists. They were like Johnny Five from Short Circuit, only slightly more evil. Slightly.

In all honesty, the original films weren't flawless. It's not like they're North by Northwest or Sunset Boulevard. Return of the Jedi, in particular, had some mighty big problems. And I'm not just talking about Ewoks, though they were indeed offensive on a lot of levels. I really can't believe Lucas had the gall to reuse the Death Star as a plot device. Instead, the plot could have hinged on a super weapon being built aboard the Devastator or the Eclipse, and it would have had the same dramatic effect without being quite so redundant. To see a huge Super Star Destroyer blowing up amidst a fleet of smaller Star Destroyers would have had more emotional effect besides, especially since in the first scene of the first Star Wars movie, Star Destroyers are quickly established as the symbol of Imperial dominance. It would have been like a bookend for the trilogy...they opened with a Star Destroyer assailing a smaller ship, and ended with the Queen Mum of Star Destroyers getting blown up. But I digress.

You know, when I first started to type this, it was just going to be a sentence or two about Yoda, and maybe an embedded YouTube video. But it turned into an essay. About Star Wars. And it's not my first. Ugh. My therapist obviously needs to dig harder.


----------



## gorbulas (Feb 13, 2004)

out of all the movies, I think ep. 3 was the worst. its just bad acting and bad writing which is bit of a shame. for the most part, the writing (or movie script) in the original movies were a lot better.


----------



## lonelyjew (Jan 20, 2010)

erasercrumbs said:


> Moments like this are simply nowhere to be found in the prequels.


Basically this. The first movies weren't flawless, as you said, but they were still full of brilliant scenes, brilliant imagery, and brilliantly directed. Take the much more simple scene that opened the original trilogy, and it's very fantastic and complicated story to the audience:






Now, I'm paraphrasing the reviewer in the videos I posted above (seriously, they're great reviews, and I'd recommend any Star Wars fan to watch them), but I agree that without any explanation, that quick scene establishes so much. Right from the start, we know know that the good guys, in their tiny little ship, are on the ropes, and dwarfed by the shear dominating power of the bad guys. The shear scope of the Star Detroyer, as it passes overhead, and just keeps getting larger, and larger, and larger, sets the stage for the epic struggle that is to come, and it makes the audience engage immediately to the plot.

That's what made the original movies brilliant, the fact that you didn't have to be told anything to understand the story, because it was clear and obvious; the scenes created a visceral understanding of the events, the characters, their struggles, their motivations. We didn't need long dialogue sequences to fill us in, the epic story was clear. Contrast that to the prequels, where there were tons of long, dry, and unemotional scenes where the characters talk about one stupid thing or the other, to make sure that the audience understands that, for instance, Obiwan and Anakin were friends, or that Anakin and Padme were in love ("I love you," "I know" was all that needed to be said to feel the pain of Han and Leia being torn apart.

It's easy to take this shot for granted, but when it came out, the special effects were truly revolutionary, and I can't even begin to imagine what it must have been like to be one of the many people who went into the movie, not sure what to expect, maybe not even caring about the movie to begin with, and then seeing that, and being floored by it. We're spoiled today, and the brilliance of the above scene are easily left unappreciated, but it doesn't take away with just how amazingly well done it was.

edit*
LOL, BTW, I know how it is to end up wasting tons more time than you intended on a post lol

Figured I might as well include another awesome scene






Watching it, especially when watching it during the actual movie, it draws out such a strong emotional reaction. "He's your son! Save him you heartless monster!" And when you're desperately watching the beloved hero of the movie dying, slowly, painfully, with almost all your hope gone, your prayers are answered, and Darth Vader saves Luke. Keep in mind, during the vast majority of the movies, he's the dark symbol of evil, a heartless, cold, shell of a man, who is more machine than human; it would seem almost impossible to redeem such a reviled character, but Lucas did it brilliantly. In the end, as you hear him struggle to breath, and his helmet is removed, exposing his humanity, and his frailness, your opinion of Vader changes completely; you feel bad for him, and you forgive him wholeheartedly. Again, brilliantly executed.


----------



## Droidsteel (Mar 22, 2012)

So people are saying bad acting, 'silly' action scenes (which I guess means 'better' in this case).

No one is giving any reasons :?

All of this 'the prequals had no charm' is really a matter of opinion.

And the comment above: 'too many silly charachters, jar jar binks.'

So the preqals have ONE silly charachter who has no bearing on the plot, and thats too many, but the ot can have tons of eworks defete the empire but thats ok...


----------



## Droidsteel (Mar 22, 2012)

I think ot purists are just impossible to please really..

Looking at episode 2, it had the origins of boba fett, yoda in a lightsabre duel, all the jedi fighting at once and christopher lee playing a sith lord.

And yet all they can do is go: 'poorly handled romance subplot! Whine, whine, whine!'


----------



## fingertips (Jan 11, 2009)

Droidsteel said:


> Looking at episode 2, it had the origins of boba fett,


why do we need to know this?



> yoda in a lightsabre duel, all the jedi fighting at once


why do we need to see this?



> and christopher lee playing a sith lord.


named "count dooku".



> And yet all they can do is go: 'poorly handled romance subplot! Whine, whine, whine!'


it's like you aren't actually reading anything anyone actually says.


----------



## burrito (Aug 29, 2012)

fingertips said:


> it's like you aren't actually reading anything anyone actually says.


:clap


----------



## Droidsteel (Mar 22, 2012)

fingertips said:


> why do we need to know this?
> 
> why do we need to see this?
> 
> ...


Its difficult to reply to what lots of people are saying at once, so Im just summerising stuff.

To the 'why do we need to see this' because its entitaining. That is the point of fiction.


----------



## Droidsteel (Mar 22, 2012)

No more cgi gripes.

You hate cgi? Congrats, you can't stand change.

Bad acting is present in the ot, so are silly charachters, special effects failures and moments of bad writing. So please don't mention these.

Posting reviews is not your opinion. Its like saying 'what he said'


----------



## fingertips (Jan 11, 2009)

Droidsteel said:


> To the 'why do we need to see this' because its entitaining. That is the point of fiction.


no it isn't, and no it isn't.



> No more cgi gripes.
> 
> You hate cgi? Congrats, you can't stand change.


or you know, you can hate the _complete overuse_ of cgi.



> Bad acting is present in the ot, so are silly charachters, special effects failures and moments of bad writing. So please don't mention these.


it's worth mentioning when the standard or writing and acting in the prequels is significantly _worse_.

why am i arguing about star wars???? argh


----------



## typemismatch (May 30, 2012)

John Williams made the original star wars for me, the recent ones were terrible mostly because they had no soul and no fun.


----------



## Adversary (Mar 20, 2012)

For me the prequels were "lacking" in many ways. (especially episode I and II) I think the main reason for that being that George Lucas is just not that good of a writer and director. He should have just stuck to just the story telling and let someone else direct and write the dialog. Episode IV was a good movie only because it was the foundation for the story and Lucas got a lot of input from other people.


----------



## gorbulas (Feb 13, 2004)

Droidsteel said:


> No more cgi gripes.
> 
> You hate cgi? Congrats, you can't stand change.
> 
> ...


-cgi can't be the only thing standing out. its like with games, good graphics doesn't equate it to being a good game. good cgi needs a good movie script to go along with it. 
-no one said that the original trilogy didn't have any of those flaws, its just that overall it was worse.


----------



## Fanta can (Aug 13, 2011)

Droidsteel said:


> No more cgi gripes.
> 
> You hate cgi? Congrats, you can't stand change.
> 
> ...


You're taking everything everyone said completely out of context. Are you actually reading people's posts, or did you just make this thread to talk about how much you love the prequels? Because you asked why people dislike them, and so far everyone has put forth really intelligent arguments and raised valid points, yet you keep claiming we haven't.

No one in this thread said they hated CGI. They said they felt it was poorly executed and overused. Because it was. The vast majority of critics and even diehard Star Wars fanboys would agree that they went overboard with the effects.

No one said those things weren't present in the original trilogy. We've all explained that they're simply more abundant and noticeable in the prequels. If you just examine them all individually as regular films and forget the fact that they're a part of the Star Wars franchise, they aren't that good. The Empire Strikes Back was an outstanding film, even if you're not a fan of sci-fi action flicks. And even if the prequels were just as good, which they aren't, what's so wrong about not liking them because they don't remind people of the Star Wars they grew up with? Would that really be such a bad thing? I don't think so. Personally, I enjoyed the prequels when I was a kid. They were fun to watch. These days, they don't hold my interest though. They're mediocre. The original trilogy on the other hand, is something I can watch a million times and never get sick of. Especially Empire Strikes Back.


----------



## Thix (Jul 14, 2012)

Because Vader is one of the most iconic villains in movie history and in the *three* films dedicated to outlining his origins he just comes off as a whiny b!tch.


----------



## lonelyjew (Jan 20, 2010)

I had longer post, that I deleted because with so many responses, I can't expect you to read all of it, but I would like you to read my response to this post Droidsteel.



Droidsteel said:


> I think ot purists are just impossible to please really..
> 
> Looking at episode 2, it had the origins of boba fett, yoda in a lightsabre duel, all the jedi fighting at once and christopher lee playing a sith lord.
> 
> And yet all they can do is go: 'poorly handled romance subplot! Whine, whine, whine!'


This post is garbage. Believe what you want, but most of us aren't impossible to please, we just wanted a decent movie, and were pissed off as the shear awfulness of the new movies set in. Frankly, as I'm typing this out now, I'm realizing that you citing the above, while criticizing us for "whining" about the poorly handled romantic subplot, is making me wonder why I'm even bothering, when you clearly are demonstrating your extremely shallow judgement of movies.

Why do I say this? Because you seem to think that cool characters and fancy action scenes are the mark of a great movie. While you cite positive things like light saber fights and Boba Fett as things that we should love for some reason, you think we're too upset about the extremely subpar writing. I have to ask, why the hell do you think we should love them when the originals got away with not having fancy light saber duels, and only had Boba Fett briefly shown? Frankly, if I wanted to see a movie that relied on cool/nostalgic characters, in high budget, action sequences, I'd watch Transformers, or any other terrible Michael Bay movie. Do you know why I don't? Because I (unlike you) care a lot more about the plot of a movie, and how effectively it is communicated. BTW, I think it's worth saying that Boba Fett is only as cool as he is because of what the fans, the books, and the comics have done with him; honestly, the way his FACE was reveled with the clones, and *him being shown as a G-d damned child* made him way less cool.

I may be a bit of a snob, but I'm hardly impossible to please, and I'm guessing neither are the legions of other Star Wars fans who were livid after they the shear awfulness of the prequels truly set in. It's funny that in another post you say that the original trilogy there was bad acting and writing, because those movies had actors and a plot that passed the cardinal rules of greatness: while watching 1. you don't see the actor, you see the character, and 2. you get an emotional connection/attachment to the characters and what happens to them; if you're watching a good movie, you forget you're watching a movie, and are taken in by the story. The lack of the above is what made the new movies so terrible; I was left groaning in many scenes, where the characters were acting in a way that wasn't believable in the least (usually because of terrible writing - even a great actor can't be convincing with terrible dialogue), bringing me out of the movie, over, and over, and over.

Even when it wasn't that bad, the comparisons you can draw, that show just how bad the new movies are in comparison to the originals are many. One from the reviews I posted (which are in agreement with my opinion, which isn't invalidated because I shared a review that things better, and in a more entertaining way than I can) had a great example in which he compared Obi Wan and Anakin's friendship being communicated: In episode II, Obi Wan and Anakin are given a scene where they list of a bunch of crap they've done together, in a way that isn't terribly convincing, to get across that they've been through a lot together. In episode IV, Obi Wan says a handful words about Anakin, saying "he was a good friend," and just with that last line alone, and the sad way in which Obi Wan says it communicates their friendship honestly, clearly, as well as the pain that came with it being lost. The scene from the original is strong and effective because of it's simplicity - nothing more needs to said, while the one from the prequels is perfunctory, and forced, and imo failed to effectively deliver the understanding of their being close.

TL;DR - just because we have critical opinions, and actually care about the substance of the movie, and not fancy flashing lights (unlike you apparently), doesn't mean that we're impossible to please.

edit*
Also, I wanted to add, when I was posting about why Adventure Time, a kids cartoon, is great, I couldn't help but think how much better the writing and plots of that show are than the prequels. The only reason those movies were remotely tolerable were because they carried the Star Wars name, and that's it. They're terrible movies, and not just because I'm an angry Star Wars fan are they terrible; they're terrible by any critical standard.


----------



## Droidsteel (Mar 22, 2012)

lonelyjew said:


> you clearly are demonstrating your extremely shallow judgement of movies.
> 
> TL;DR - just because we have critical opinions, and actually care about the substance of the movie, and not fancy flashing lights (unlike you apparently), doesn't mean that we're impossible to please.


Why is my judgement of movies shallow?

And yeh I like the fancy flashing lights, I also like substance - I just have a wide variety of tastes thats all.

And why are people saying the originals had more 'substance' anyway!? The overall conflict of the films is basically 'rebels = good, empire = evil, they fight and stuff' whereas the prequels have a lot more of a grey and grey morality going on.

If someone could _explain_ why the writing is so terrible or so 'lifeless' that would be great. Just stating these things isn't doing anything!


----------



## Adversary (Mar 20, 2012)

Droidsteel said:


> Why is my judgement of movies shallow?
> 
> And yeh I like the fancy flashing lights, I also like substance - I just have a wide variety of tastes thats all.
> 
> ...


It all comes down to preference. A big issue is that fans of the original Star Wars enjoyed the focus more on the story and less on the action, partly because special effects weren't as impressive as they are now. The reason the prequels lacked any substance was because of the far less developed story, weak Characterism and an overall dumbing down for the masses.

The Originals built up the story of a powerful Jedi who turned to the Dark side and hunted down and killed all of the Jedi. They made us actually believe that Vader was evil, and powerful and unmerciful. They gave us a sense of doom whenever he was near, and the only thing that could save him was the love for his son. The whole ambiguity of his origin story made it have more substance. Its more than just a good vs. evil story you make it out to be.

The grey and grey morality was poorly executed in the prequels. First of all, it was only really present in Episode II and briefly in Episode III. Anakin's protest about Grey and Gray Morality when he had fallen to the Dark Side was ironically empty, as he decides to join the group that was behind it from the start. Also, there were no good separatists ever shown on-screen. This is why they had to make The Star Wars: The Clone Wars series.


----------



## lonelyjew (Jan 20, 2010)

Droidsteel said:


> Why is my judgement of movies shallow?
> 
> And yeh I like the fancy flashing lights, I also like substance - I just have a wide variety of tastes thats all.
> 
> ...


Think of these movies like women: the fancy special effects, and light saber battles, ] etc. are superficial. They're what make the girl look good, and the prequels looked very good. The "substance" is the girls intelligence, personality, charisma, etc, and this is what the prequels seriously lacked. The original trilogy still holds up pretty well in looks, even today, but substance is, while imperfect (who's perfect?), is pretty damn amazing.

Ok, so now with that established, think of the two movies as sisters. You had went on 3 dates with the old trilogy girl before, and while she wasn't drop dead gorgeous, you had tons of fun with her. She wasn't necessarily the smartest girl, but damn was she charming, funny, serious when appropriate, and overall very fun. Moreover, she's a die-hard romantic, and it's something that needs to be said; you can feel her passion, and can feel genuinely connected emotionally to almost everything she has to say. After each date, you feel super happy and excited, and can't wait for the next (except for that third date, where she was a bit too silly for your tastes, but even then, she was still pretty awesome).

She's got a younger sister, and she's even ok with you going on a few date with her because they're that close. You see pictures of her and think OMG, she's ****ing beautiful. I mean, the original sister is pretty, but this girl is a knockout. You're so excited when the date, which you'd been looking forward to since you first got to see her pictures, but when you finally get together the conversation is just awful. The girl is stupid, the crap she says barely makes any logical sense, she's boring, and she's got many things she does that are just flat out annoying. She tells you how romantic and passionate she is, but you don't feel it, and it honestly seems like her idea of love is a caricature that you'd see in some teen drama. As you leave each date, you don't feel that bad, and you really want to feel good, but as you think more about her, and how it went, you can't help but look at all the things she's lacking that her sister has.

To me, the prequel sister may be great on the eyes, but she's not someone you would actually want to spend time with, but original sister, you could hang out with her again, and again, and again. Maybe you can't pick up on the fact that the things she says are stupid and make little sense, so you are just fine with her company, or you value her looks more than I personally do, but even so, to people who do pick up on that stuff, she'll never be as charming as her sister.

And as for specific examples, seriously, just watch the reviews I posted. They're very well done, and the dude is funny. He also does an awesome Avatar review that's a great deal shorter, where he explains why it is a terrible movie as well. What it basically comes down to is that the complexity of the plot is irrelevant, it's how it call comes together through writing, directing, and acting. A great movie has a person gripped and connected, while a crappy one constantly shoves the viewer out of the movie, and back into reality, by the above things not coming together well.


----------



## Brad (Dec 27, 2011)

I think the prequels were necessary for the story, really completed the series. 3 was my favorite, 2 was ok, and I think everyone can agree episode 1 was bad. I don't really understand people who rail against the prequels as a whole though.


----------



## lonelyjew (Jan 20, 2010)

Mr Dude said:


> I think the prequels were necessary for the story, really completed the series. 3 was my favorite, 2 was ok, and I think everyone can agree episode 1 was bad. I don't really understand people who rail against the prequels as a whole though.


Ugh, 2 was the worst, and while 3 was the "best," that was only because it had tons more action, and a superficially cooler (and less annoying) set of characters. I remember watching episode 2 in the theaters and repeatedly being in disbelief at just how awful the dialogue was and how terrible the overall plot was. Thankfully I was too young to do this when I saw episode I, so I enjoyed it a bit more, but even as a kid I never really loved it, or cared to see it again because I didn't need to analyze it to not connect with it. Episode 2 came out when I was only 14 though, and even then, without having a very developed movie snobbery, I could see it for the stinking pile of crap it was. Come episode III, I let myself enjoy the good action scenes, but then found myself groaning even harder with the rest, and the terrible, terrible, terrible, TERRIBLE, romance elements...


----------



## Noca (Jun 24, 2005)

Jar jar and having the script dumbed down for preschool children is what they are guilty of. Trying to ***** itself out to the masses instead of a fan base.


----------



## erasercrumbs (Dec 17, 2009)

Larger point: does it really matter if other people don't enjoy the prequels? I mean, we can't help it.


----------



## gorbulas (Feb 13, 2004)

i kind of liked ep. 1 the best out of the prequels. theres not much of the terrible romance drama in it. it might be because it was a return to the star wars universe. or maybe it was darth maul being awesome.


----------



## Droidsteel (Mar 22, 2012)

Adversary said:


> It all comes down to preference.


The preferance comment is good, people should of said that from the start 

So anyway I actually looked up the phantom menace's rotyen tomato's score, and it actually comes out as fresh? 57% of critics liked it, which kinda makes all the hate seem really exaggerated.


----------



## PickleNose (Jul 11, 2009)

Droidsteel said:


> Ok, so I loved the star wars prequels, having grown up with them and all, and I'm just wondering if anyone can give me a legit reason why they were so 'terrible.' Because literally every time I hear someone give any reasons why they hated them, Its always something that was also present in the original three.
> 
> So, can anyone give a reason why the prequels 'sucked' that wasn't also a fault in the original trilogy?


 First I have to say that I loved the prequels too. Frankly, I found them much more immersive and intelligent than the originals.

But I also have to say that I didn't see the originals until I was in my 20s. I never had that experience in the theater in the 1970s when the first Star Wars movie must have seemed larger than life. A lot of the people who hate the new ones were probably young kids then. Most people will always retain that sense of awe they had when they were a kid and they saw something that just blew them away.

Anyway......

The same thing always happens (or nearly always) when a director goes back to a well-loved classic and tries to redo it, redefine it or continue the story. There was nothing really all that wrong with the prequels. If there had never been an original Star Wars trilogy, they might have been better received.

There were some areas of bad acting or where the story could have been told a bit smoother but really, those are minor blemishes. On the whole, these were great movies. Those who want to hate them will always find reasons. Real or imagined.


----------



## lonelyjew (Jan 20, 2010)

Droidsteel said:


> The preferance comment is good, people should of said that from the start
> 
> So anyway I actually looked up the phantom menace's rotyen tomato's score, and it actually comes out as fresh? 57% of critics liked it, which kinda makes all the hate seem really exaggerated.


Bah! You ask us why we don't like the movies, then seemingly don't bother to read the many lengthy posts that people went through the trouble of typing to answer your question (given your responses, or lack thereof), then you call us whiny for having our opinions, and now you're seriously trying to make a point about tolerating other people's preferences? Are you kidding me? I can care less what movies people do and don't like, or what their personally enjoy in movies, but if you're going to be critical of our views, you should be prepared for people to be critical of your views.


----------



## Adversary (Mar 20, 2012)

Droidsteel said:


> The preferance comment is good, people should of said that from the start


No. This is something that you should have thought about before creating this thread. We give you legit reasons for why we did not like the movie or why we think the original trilogy is better and you pass them all off as some kind of childish complaints. Completely misinterpreting what was really said and ignoring every point that was being made.



> So anyway I actually looked up the phantom menace's rotyen tomato's score, and it actually comes out as fresh? 57% of critics liked it, which kinda makes all the hate seem really exaggerated.


Your whole point was that all the originals had many of the same problems that people claim the prequels suffer from. Not just whether the movies were good on their own right. The 57% on rottentomatoes is actually considered a rotten score and many of those critics that gave it a fresh score usually flat out say its not as good. Also, didn't you say that posting other reviews does not count towards your own opinion? What makes you so special that you are able to point to other reviews, but others can't?


----------



## burrito (Aug 29, 2012)

lonelyjew said:


> Bah! You ask us why we don't like the movies, then seemingly don't bother to read the many lengthy posts that people went through the trouble of typing to answer your question (given your responses, or lack thereof), then you call us whiny for having our opinions, and now you're seriously trying to make a point about tolerating other people's preferences?





Adversary said:


> What makes you so special that you are able to point to other reviews, but others can't?


I didnt want to say it, but hes a 17 year old = still thinks the world revolves around him + cant have a rational debate. I shouldve known lol :b. Probly just trolling at this point anyway, sure doesnt have any legitimate arguements.. probly best to just let this thread die.


----------

