Star Wars: Episode 1 to gain depth.

[Fish and Chips]

It doesn't help that the Star Wars prequels were some of the most unnecessary movies of all time.

[Yamamaya]

I would enjoy watching Star War The Third Gathers, Backstroke of the West in 3D.

[TheSubtleDoctor]

I wonder why George Lucas is going through with this, considering he actually believes the world is going to end in 2012. He ought to be building a spaceship to escape the Earth instead.

[mod image snip: Let's avoid pictures with unsavory/inappropriate words on them, please]
Also, Lucasfilm will not be getting a single dime from me for this sad, desperate cash-grab.

[blkmage]

Wow, I didn't know they made a movie sequel to Knights of the Old Republic.
[SPOILER]lol[/SPOILER]

[Roy Mustang]

I wonder why George Lucas is going through with this, considering he actually believes the world is going to end in 2012.

Because he really doesn't believe it. Seth Rogen went on and on that Lucas really believe that, but in the end. The dope Seth Rogen couldn't tell that Lucas was joking, if it hit him in the face.

[Ante Bellum]

Man-dog.

I'm a Mog. Half man, half dog. I'm my own best friend.

Back on topic...I've got nothing. Milkin' the cash cow again and again, it seems.

[blkmage]

I'm a Mog. Half man, half dog. I'm my own best friend.

Ｈｕｍａｎ−ｌｏｖｉｎｇ，　ｆａｓｔ−ｔａｌｋｉｎｇ，　ｓｔｒｅｅｔ−ｓｍａｒｔ，　ＳＬＡＭ−ｄａｎｃｉｎｇ．．．　Ｍｏｏｇｌｅ．．．

[ShiroiHikari]

I'm a Mog. Half man, half dog. I'm my own best friend.

Spaceballs was a better movie than Episode I.

[Warrior 4 Jesus]

Maybe the Star Wars prequels should've been made into one really good, plot-rich movie, rather than three movies. There just wasn't enough material (story or character-wise) to warrant three movies.

[Nate]

THE PREQUELS DID NOT SUCK COMPLETELY!

That's true! The camera work was good. And uh...well that's pretty much it. But yeah! Good camera work means the prequels didn't suck completely! Just almost completely. I mean the plot, characters, dialog, effects, fight scenes, pacing, music, setting...all those were absolute garbage. Good thing the camera work was excellent or else the movie would have sucked completely!

I think the main problem is that the prequels aren't "old enough" yet. Give them more time to age, and maybe more people will stop saying they stink.

You've got it backwards. The more time passes, the LESS people like things. Remember how when Dark Knight came out and everyone was like "THIS IS THE BEST MOVIE EVER IN THE HISTORY OF TIME HOLY CRAP." And now, most people are like "Yeah it was a great movie, had a few flaws, but still great." Their opinion of it lessened, even a little, as time passed.

The only things that people like more as time goes on are pretty much cult hits...but to be a cult hit, it has to do extremely poorly when it first comes out. Donnie Darko, for example, did terrible in the box office, but became a cult hit later. Since the prequels were far too big and popular to have cult status, they'll always be crap. Always.

[rocklobster]

Here's something I want to know, why does the silly stuff in the originals get a free pass these days? (For example: Chewie's tarzan yell in Return of the Jedi or the Ewoks) You folks don't realize the movies are SUPPOSED to be silly! They're inspired by those serials from the 30's and such. Have you seen those? They are pretty silly at times too.
I actually like the prequels and here's why:
1. The battle between Qui-Con Jinn and Darth Maul was awesome, especially the music. I've always loved John Williams's scores for the movies and this is some of his best work.
2. I was always curious about how Palpatine came to power and how Vader became evil. I think the way it was portrayed worked.
3. Natalie Portman was pretty good as Amidala. I thought she did pretty well in the 2nd and 3rd movies, where her character was given more depth.
4. Samuel L. Freakin' Jackson as Mace Windu. Do I have to explain how awesome Windu was? Come on! He was just awesome!
5. Yoda vs. Palpatine. Another great battle. Yeah, you knew he was going to lose, but it was still great to watch. Besides, I always thought Yoda must've been a good fighter in his youth, it was great to see my suspicions confirmed.
Now don't get me wrong. I enjoy the originals immensely. They're the whole reason I'm a Harrison Ford fan. But I'm entitled to my opinion folks, and I think the prequels are great too. And no one's going to change my opinion. Why do I think they're good? Mostly because I didn't have nostalgia goggles on. I viewed them as they should've been, as independent works.

[Shao Feng-Li]

The funny thing is, I heard the Clone Wars show is actually pretty good.

It's ok. What I don't get is why they never like... use the Force when someone's about to die. You can stop that assassination without even being the room. WHY DON'T YOU??? Ashoka's newest character design is really really cool though.

My favorite thing is the Clone Wars micro series made by Genndy Tartakovsky.

[TheSubtleDoctor]

Kupo.

[Mr. Hat'n'Clogs]

3. Natalie Portman was pretty good as Amidala. I thought she did pretty well in the 2nd and 3rd movies, where her character was given more depth.

Anakin, you're breaking my heart!

Also, citing Ewoks probably isn't the best way to convince people that the prequels are quality.

[Nate]

how Vader became evil. I think the way it was portrayed worked.

...what? The way Vader became evil was the stupidest, most nonsensical thing with some of the worst writing in the history of the world.

"I really don't know what to do!" Anakin says to Palpatine.

"HEY I'M ACTUALLY A SITH!" Palpatine says.

"Oh no I don't know what to do killing people is wrong!"

"HA HA DIE SAMUEL L. JACKSON!"

"Even though I just said killing someone is completely wrong and Palpatine just straight up murdered a dude in front of me I'm going to join him anyway! Also I'm worried about my wife being pregnant except not really because I'm going to force choke her and try to kill her but then when I wake up in my suit I'm going to ask if she's okay because really I care about her which is why I tried to murder her!"

I could come up with a better plot for how Anakin turned evil writing on a greasy napkin at Denny's at 4 AM while drunk.

[Fish and Chips]

Spaceballs was a better movie than Episode I.

It's also more subtle in its marketing.

Here's something I want to know, why does the silly stuff in the originals get a free pass these days? (For example: Chewie's tarzan yell in Return of the Jedi or the Ewoks) You folks don't realize the movies are SUPPOSED to be silly! They're inspired by those serials from the 30's and such. Have you seen those? They are pretty silly at times too.

Yep. These are some of the silliest scenes in the series!

I actually like the prequels and here's why:
1. The battle between Qui-Con Jinn and Darth Maul was awesome, especially the music. I've always loved John Williams's scores for the movies and this is some of his best work.

Have you ever seen the Princess Bride, Rock? I'm going to assume not, or I wouldn't have to tell you this story.

Back when they were preparing to shoot the scene where Inigo Montoya fights the Man in Black, William Goldman told them they were going to shoot, "The second greatest swordfight in film history." When they asked what the first was, he said, "We'll get to that."

The greatest swordfight, of course, being between Inigo Montoya and Count Rugen. Not as flashy as the fight with the Man in Black, or as complicated, but greater in its emotional depth, its weight. No matter how good an opponent the Man in Black was, he was still just some guy Inigo was going to waste simply because he was told to.

But Count Rugen! The six-fingered man! The man who killed Inigo Montoya's father! The man he'd been chasing for twenty years, not to be stopped by something as insignificant as death. Now that's the stuff of the greatest swordfight in cinema history, or at least one of the contenders.

The duel between Qui-Gon Jinn, a Jedi we don't know much about, and Darth Maul, a Sith we know even less about, while certainly technically proficient, was completely devoid of soul and meaning. Who are these men? Why are they fighting except to give us a lavishly (and obviously) choreographed fight scene? The scene in Casino Royal where Bond fights some random dude on a staircase with a machete has more depth than Jinn and Maul's ten minute waste of time.

That music was pretty sweet though, I'll give you that.

2. I was always curious about how Palpatine came to power and how Vader became evil. I think the way it was portrayed worked.

Remember when I said the Star Wars prequels were some of the most unnecessary movies of all time? This is exactly what I was talking about.

So George Lucas gets worried everyone's going to forget Star Wars and churns out the prequels on an assembly line so we can finally see how the universe fell into darkness. We get to see Palpatine manipulating all of everyone into eating out of his palm, including Anakin Skywalker who becomes his Number One Dude, Darth Vader. Shocking!

Except they don't tell us anything we don't already know.

There's this idea in the creative process that, sometimes, less is more. A good writer will show, not tell, but a great writer knows how to minimize the extent to which he has to show (not tell).

In a theatrical production I caught of Alfred Hitchcock's Dial M for Murder, there is a scene at the end wherein the chief conspirator of the story's events is discovered by his own mistake. In the film he rattles off several lines about this, but in an interview for the play, the actor playing him said, notably, "I can say all that with one look." And he did.

I hold that theatrical adaptation in higher regard than Hitchcock's own original film, solely because of that actor's delivery of that one shot, that split second expression that had more to say than a minute of snappy dialogue.

So Obi Wan tells us Darth Vader was a young Jedi seduced by the power of the Dark Side, and years later George Lucas releases an expensive cinematic trilogy to tell us...Darth Vader was a young Jedi seduced by the power of the Dark Side.

B-but, he was in love!

Knew that too.

And you knew it.

"No...I am your father."

There is so much information jam-packed in that line, I don't know how you could have missed it. If Luke (and Leia!) are Vader's children, it stands to reason that, at some point, a man loved a woman, and a child, it was born. It's not like there's immaculate conception in the Star Wars universe.

...Oh wait.

As for Palpatine, okay, so he's this super political manipulator guy]http://i285.photobucket.com/albums/ll71/BattleTendency/Palpatineman.jpg[/IMG]

This isn't the face of a man who controls his minions through respect, or vision. It's the face of a man who controls his minions through fear, false-promise, and decadence. He's a seducer and a deceiver and we knew this from day one.

And to cap it off, George Lucas pours millions of dollars into telling us how Palpatine took control of the universe, but not one, single, solitary cent into WHY Palpatine took control of the universe.

3. Natalie Portman was pretty good as Amidala. I thought she did pretty well in the 2nd and 3rd movies, where her character was given more depth.

While Natalie Portman does have the distinction of delivering the only Actually Good Line in the prequels, her acting doesn't save George Lucas' terrible, terrible dialogue. That's okay though]4. Samuel L. Freakin' Jackson as Mace Windu. Do I have to explain how awesome Windu was? Come on! He was just awesome![/QUOTE]Give me one reason to be excited about anything Mace Windu says or does that doesn't relate to him secretly being Samuel L. Jackson.

He does nothing in the first movie. He kills one dude in the second. He gets killed by two dudes in the third. He has no history, no personality, almost no scenes where he isn't just someone for Yoda to talk to about stuff, and then dies and gets thrown out a window (spoilers).

But man, that Samuel L. Jackson! Samuel L. Jackson!

5. Yoda vs. Palpatine. Another great battle. Yeah, you knew he was going to lose, but it was still great to watch. Besides, I always thought Yoda must've been a good fighter in his youth, it was great to see my suspicions confirmed.

"Wars not make one great."

Why do I think they're good? Mostly because I didn't have nostalgia goggles on. I viewed them as they should've been, as independent works.

How do you watch a clearly definied extension of a pre-existing work separate from that work?

[ShiroiHikari]

Thank you Andrew.

I am now going to further discuss the topic of LOL YODA FIGHTING.

George Lucas ruined his own mythos and I will tell you why. In the original movies, being a Jedi wasn't about swinging around a lightsaber and killin' dudes. Jedi were supposed to only use the Force "for knowledge and defense, never for attack". Yet what are the Jedi doing in the prequels? Effing people up. And not only do they run around with their swords all the time, EVEN YODA DOES IT. But Yoda said that wars don't make one great, and that a Jedi Knight should only fight when he needs to defend himself (and presumably others)! So why is he fighting? Why does a Jedi Master like Yoda even need to fight when there's like a whole army of Jedi Knights that could do that? Because George Lucas wanted to see Yoda "go to town", and apparently so did everyone else. Everyone, including the creator, missed the whole freaking point.

[Atria35]

And to cap it off, George Lucas pours millions of dollars into telling us how Palpatine took control of the universe, but not one, single, solitary cent into WHY Palpatine took control of the universe.

I"m going to say right off, you've actually hit on things that I knew but didn't conciously realize about those movies- and completely agree.

I posed the question of 'why' to my brother since he's a fan of the series and reads the books, and he said that Palpatine's reason WAS actually answered in the movies- he's in it for the power. All through the series, all the Sith want is power for power's own sake.

[Nate]

I was always curious about how Palpatine came to power and how Vader became evil.

I viewed them as they should've been, as independent works.

How do you view it as an independent work if you were thinking about stuff from the first movies?

George Lucas wanted to see Yoda "go to town"

The funny thing is I have a friend who swears that in the supplementary material (including the pen and paper RPG) for Star Wars, it is said repeatedly that Yoda never used a lightsaber. I know that these aren't completely canon (being that they were produced by companies that aren't Lucasarts) but to just completely ignore all that is pretty lame.

Besides Yoda sucked at fighting. He fought Count Dooku...and lost. I suppose you could make the argument that Yoda would have won if he wasn't trying to save Anakin, so okay, we'll ignore that one. Then, Yoda fights Palpatine...and loses. He didn't have anyone to protect in that fight, and he got the crap kicked out of him. Good job, Yoda, maybe if you didn't SUCK COMPLETELY at fighting, you could have won at least one fight. But nope!

[blkmage]

Thank you Andrew.

I am now going to further discuss the topic of LOL YODA FIGHTING.

George Lucas ruined his own mythos and I will tell you why. In the original movies, being a Jedi wasn't about swinging around a lightsaber and killin' dudes. Jedi were supposed to only use the Force "for knowledge and defense, never for attack". Yet what are the Jedi doing in the prequels? Effing people up. And not only do they run around with their swords all the time, EVEN YODA DOES IT. But Yoda said that wars don't make one great, and that a Jedi Knight should only fight when he needs to defend himself (and presumably others)! So why is he fighting? Why does a Jedi Master like Yoda even need to fight when there's like a whole army of Jedi Knights that could do that? Because George Lucas wanted to see Yoda "go to town", and apparently so did everyone else. Everyone, including the creator, missed the whole freaking point.

I wouldn't say it's inconsistent. We know that Jedi are supposed to be defenders and stuff, but that's clearly not how they were acting during the Clone Wars. It could be argued that it's at least part of the reason why the Jedi fell. So the prequels show that, yeah, Yoda was right when he said that in ESB. Also just because Yoda says they shouldn't fight doesn't preclude him from being good* at it. Consider a comparison with a martial artist.

* Yes, yes, he lost to Dooku and Palpatine, but it'd be silly goosery to extrapolate based on his performance against two guys who are also good at duelling. Those fights give us only an upper bound on his skill.

[Mr. Hat'n'Clogs]

Besides Yoda sucked at fighting. He fought Count Dooku...and lost. I suppose you could make the argument that Yoda would have won if he wasn't trying to save Anakin, so okay, we'll ignore that one. Then, Yoda fights Palpatine...and loses. He didn't have anyone to protect in that fight, and he got the crap kicked out of him. Good job, Yoda, maybe if you didn't SUCK COMPLETELY at fighting, you could have won at least one fight. But nope!

I don't get how you could call the fight against Dooku a loss. Dooku was pretty obviously trying to get away from Yoda when he threw the column at Anakin, and spent most of the fight on the defensive.

Also, Anakin beat Dooku, and Yoda sent Obi-Wan to fight Anakin because Anakin was the weaker opponent, so I'd assume from that that Yoda is stronger than Dooku.

[ich1990]

I don't get how you could call the fight against Dooku a loss. Dooku was pretty obviously trying to get away from Yoda when he threw the column at Anakin, and spent most of the fight on the defensive.

Also, Anakin beat Dooku, and Yoda sent Obi-Wan to fight Anakin because Anakin was the weaker opponent, so I'd assume from that that Yoda is stronger than Dooku.

I will also throw in that losing to Dooku carries little shame. In the extended universe Dooku was often made fun of for his anachronistic saber fighting style which was extremely good in a saber fight but almost useless against blasters. As blasters are the weapon of choice for most of the galaxy, this seemed like a foolish choice.

[Yamamaya]

One thing we can say, the book Revenge of the Sith was better than the movie.

@ich.

Dooku seems to fight like a fencer.

[Nate]

Also, Anakin beat Dooku, and Yoda sent Obi-Wan to fight Anakin because Anakin was the weaker opponent, so I'd assume from that that Yoda is stronger than Dooku.

So Anakin beat Dooku when Yoda couldn't, which means Yoda is stronger than Dooku.

Uh...what?

If Anakin hadn't easily and effortlessly defeated Dooku in III, then I would accept the theory that Dooku was a really great and powerful warrior and Yoda was still extremely strong, just not a match for Dooku. However, Anakin DID easily and effortlessly defeat him, and Anakin had nowhere near the level of training that Yoda supposedly had.

Just doesn't add up to me.

[GrubbTheFragger]

I'll say without a doubt that Fanboys is easily the best star wars movie since Return of the Jedi. And the final line works great "but what if it sucks"

Star wars used to be all about story,unique creatures, weird love triangles, and very little light saber duels. And the prequals where all "Wow shiney! Look way more lightsaber duels then needed! and....and.....SAND......SANDY SAND" Ugh anakins sand line is what killed it for me

[Nate]

While the prequels have lots of problems, I don't think "way more lightsaber duels than needed" is really one of them. Especially if you consider that a fair criticism of the original movies would be "way more flying/dogfighting sequences than needed."

[uc pseudonym]

I would argue that the original films benefit a great deal from nostalgia. I've seen the same people who called The Phantom Menace a mindless theme park ride talk about how much they liked The Empire Strikes Back because it showed them such a variety of new worlds. Or call Darth Maul a pointless addition while praising how awesome Boba Fett was. Or talk as if Han Solo is the greatest character study in the history of film. Or... mention Ewoks and Gungans at all, really.

Having said that, I think there's no question the original trilogy is superior to the prequels. Episode IV creates a setting with a backstory that is effective because it is not directly told, then Episode I tells that backstory with a setting that doesn't have much depth and doesn't really live up to what we knew about it. I could go into why I think the originals are superior, since no one has ever done that before, but this is enough Star Wars talk for me at the moment.

Basically I just wanted to get a slightly different perspective into the thread. I have no real nostalgia for the original trilogy and think it has a wide variety of issues, but nothing compared to the haphazard prequels. Both trilogies are about special effects with some drama on the side, but one does it effectively and the other poorly.

And to cap it off, George Lucas pours millions of dollars into telling us how Palpatine took control of the universe, but not one, single, solitary cent into WHY Palpatine took control of the universe.

DARK SIDE.

If Anakin hadn't easily and effortlessly defeated Dooku in III, then I would accept the theory that Dooku was a really great and powerful warrior and Yoda was still extremely strong, just not a match for Dooku. However, Anakin DID easily and effortlessly defeat him, and Anakin had nowhere near the level of training that Yoda supposedly had.

Yeah, but Anakin is Jedi Jesus, he doesn't need training. I'm more inclined to call this one Lucas throwing Dooku under the bridge, because the alternative is to pretend that Star Wars was created with internal consistency.

[rocklobster]

Actually, Fish, I have seen (and enjoyed immensely) The Princess Bride. And I agree that fight was well-choreographed. Cary Elwes did a great job there, of course he had help from the same guy who coached Errol Flynn. (At least I think I heard that somewhere)
Look, can't I disagree with public opinion without being treated like a moron?

[battletech]

Look, can't I disagree with public opinion without being treated like a moron?

No you cannot. That is why a few people on these forums have stop coming.
I"m sure I have acted all high and mighty some times too. I'm sorry for those times. Some people on this site do it habitually. They are almost always negative about subjects. Then when someone is positive about the subject they degrade that person for having a different opinion. I am really getting sick and tired of seeing it.:?::shake:

[Nate]

Please show me where someone called him stupid for liking the prequels.