Enough Lucas Bashing Already!

[LordDeschain]

Bottom line is this, we are all here on this forum as SW fans (maybe not all some may be MMO ppl) for one reason or another. Does it really matter what portion of SW you love more: OT, PT, EU, TOR?

 

No it doesn't is Lucas perfect? No he's not but guess what I am sure as hell grateful for him because without him there is no SW, and that would be very sad indeed.

 

Personally I love it all, go ahead troll on me and call me a fanboy or whatever you want but I simply dont care. I love both trilogies, have read over 60 EU novels and pretty much thoroughly enjoyed every one of them, and love this game even with its flaws.

 

It gets so annoying and redundant to see people fighting and arguing about Lucas the prequels and such. I mean cmon people is SW really ruined for you lol? Did Lucas ruin your SW? Oh wait its not yours haha thats right its his.

[Jaavik]

Bottom line is this, we are all here on this forum as SW fans (maybe not all some may be MMO ppl) for one reason or another. Does it really matter what portion of SW you love more: OT, PT, EU, TOR?

 

No it doesn't is Lucas perfect? No he's not but guess what I am sure as hell grateful for him because without him there is no SW, and that would be very sad indeed.

 

Personally I love it all, go ahead troll on me and call me a fanboy or whatever you want but I simply dont care. I love both trilogies, have read over 60 EU novels and pretty much thoroughly enjoyed every one of them, and love this game even with its flaws.

 

It gets so annoying and redundant to see people fighting and arguing about Lucas the prequels and such. I mean cmon people is SW really ruined for you lol? Did Lucas ruin your SW? Oh wait its not yours haha thats right its his.

 

well said!

[Eillack]

I just feel like posting here to say Thank You George Lucas For Making Star Wars. Happy 35th B-day Star Wars.

[clearsighted]

Is anyone else tired of all the Lucas bashing? I'm tired of people automatically equating the entire prequel trilogy with bad movies. Including Episode III, the second best movie in the entire franchise. There's an article on Cracked.com that takes it to a whole new level of stupid. Actually going out of it's way to state that Lucas doesn't deserve much credit for the original trilogy. HIS OWN CREATION!

 

http://www.cracked.com/article_19576_6-pop-culture-visionaries-who-get-too-much-credit.html?wa_user1=5&wa_user2=Movies+%26+TV&wa_user3=article&wa_user4=recommended

 

The article might as well have said that Lucas doesn't deserve any credit because he didn't do the special affects, act out all of the scenes, or write the movie score himself. The bottom line is, Lucas wrote all of Star Wars. The entire story was his brainchild.

 

Personally, I don't think there's been enough Lucas bashing. That guy's been coasting since 1979.

 

Even if he had nothing to do with Star Wars, Red Tails would still have qualified him for bashing.

Edited May 25, 2012 by clearsighted

[Captain_Zone]

I bet that slap-shot to the head would make that "seagull pouch" under his chin wobble for like an hour...

 

I sure hope so.

[lordofdamornin]

It seems we have someone in this thread who styles themself as a really good movie and story critic whose opinions should be taken as fact...I just have to ask, RDeanOU, were you sad at the end of Titanic? I mean, you knew the boat was going to sink, and that Jack wasn't going to survive. One you know from history, the other is made fairly plain early in the movie. I wasn't sad, there wasn't any way for James Cameron to make me sad about it, and that isn't James Cameron's fault.

 

Everyone who has seen Episodes 4-6 knows who Darth Vader is, and who Anakin Skywalker was. Just in case your *critical eyes* missed it, this means you go into Episodes 1-3 knowing what is going to happen. See the Titanic example, if you aren't following me as to why this doesn't have a lot of impact. I would think that this would be fairly plain, but perhaps it was too subtle for your critical eyes of awesomeness.

 

Harrison Ford, his portrayal of Han Solo, and the imagery/voice of Darth Vader carried the Original Trilogy. Luke, Leia, lightsabers, and space battles played their part, for sure, but without the version of Han Solo and Darth Vader that we grew up with, Star Wars goes nowhere. That might sound like opinion, but I really don't think so. Dialogue...although it does get better in 5 and 6, the dialogue in the Original Trilogy is no better, overall, than that of the prequels. It really, really, isn't. Episode 4 is one of the most over-acted movies I have ever seen. Take off your rose-colored glasses, man, or do your *critical eyes* need them to see?

 

I was not sad when Anakin fell, but that sequence isn't designed to generate that emotion in the first place. I was moved, however, during the final duel, when Anakin says *This is the end for you, my Master,* and Obi-wan realizes that he has failed, and that he must kill the one person in the galaxy that means the most to him. This anguish is very plain on his face, and no words are necessary...or used. Speaking of this, if you are unable to pick up how close they have become from Episodes 2 and 3, then maybe your critical eyes need some new lenses.

 

You have your Opinion - you seem to think that your opinion is fact, and you repeatedly try to push it onto others, both in this thread, and another recent one like it. You even keep repeating the same lines. Do you have this stuff premade, so you can just copy-paste it? I would, if I were you. It would save a lot of time. It might do you a lot of good to watch them without using your critical eyes of opinion, and I think you might find that a lot of what you have posted that you feel is lacking (including subtleties), are actually there. Also, looking at what you have posted in this thread, and the other, you might want to start this new look without being under the premise that Anakin is the main character/protagonist of The Phantom Menace. He isn't. The Phantom Menace is the story of Obi-wan, his Master, and his/our introduction to Anakin Skywalker. Since you were wrong about that...fairly basic...point, you might very well find that you were wrong on other, more subtle ones.

 

Neither George Lucas, nor Hayden, nor anyone else, have ruined Star Wars. Fans that have/had ridiculous expectations, however, probably did ruin it for themselves. I feel sorry for them.

 

Riôt

[Velaran]

1. Nobody is saying the PT ruined Star Wars. They just weren't good movies.

 

2. You lost all credibility the moment you said the end of Titanic had no emotional impact.

[Captain_Zone]

1. Nobody is saying the PT ruined Star Wars. They just weren't good movies.

 

2. You lost all credibility the moment you said the end of Titanic had no emotional impact.

 

1. You beat me to it.

 

2. I didn't like Titanic very much, though.... well, except for Kate Winslet nekkid. That was hot.

[passio]

1. Nobody is saying the PT ruined Star Wars. They just weren't good movies.

 

2. You lost all credibility the moment you said the end of Titanic had no emotional impact.

 

Spot on.

 

I call for a vote of no confidence.

[RDeanOU]

1. Nobody is saying the PT ruined Star Wars. They just weren't good movies.

 

2. You lost all credibility the moment you said the end of Titanic had no emotional impact.

 

Exactly this.

 

The Titanic example kind of makes the point. Titanic was sad to 95% of the people who watched it even though we knew the boat was going to sink. I heard people sobbing in the theater during that movie. Just because the outcome of the story is inevitable it doesn't mean you can't tell it in a way that connects people emotionally. I didn't hear anyone sob in the theater during Revenge of the Sith.

 

There are plenty of other examples. Movies like Glory, Braveheart, Black Hawk Down, and many many others that I could go on listing for hours were based on historical events that had inevitable endings and still affected their viewers emotionally. Those movies actually bothered to make us care about the characters so that when the inevitable happened we would be affected. That is the key difference. The prequels didn't make us care about the characters plain and simple.

[RDeanOU]

Also, I'm not treating my opinions as fact.

 

You are allowed to like the prequels if you so choose. I am allowed to think you have awful taste in movies if you choose to like them.

 

The difference is that I provide really specific tangible reasons why I think they are bad movies and you respond by telling me that my opinion doesn't equal fact.

 

Okay, fine. Except you didn't actually refute any of my points. You say that Anakin's fall wasn't supposed to make us feel sad. It's a movie....it's supposed to make us feel something right? What the heck are we supposed to be feeling during that scene? All I was feeling was something like, "Man I wish Obi Wan would chop him up and knock him into the volcano already." I'm pretty sure that's not what we were supposed to feel during that scene.

 

I don't know anyone who cared when Padme died or when Anakin fell and regardless of the inevitability of these scenes we could and should have cared about them because they were the main characters for 3 freaking movies.

[SoonerJBD]

It doesn't take a film major to realize that that the prequels were vastly inferior to the original trilogy in terms of character and story development. A New Hope was on Spike tonight and I re-watched it again. It's almost hard to believe the same person who made that movie was responsible for the prequels.

 

The original trilogy opens by establishing Darth Vader as the bad guy, and it's done by showing him board the rebel vessel and interrogate/choke the captain, lifting him off his feet. We immediately know what is happening. Rebels stole plans, Empire is searching for them. Then we meet Luke, our main protagonist, and his character is built, a young man who wants something bigger than the family farm. He's torn between his obligations to his family and his desire to strike out on his own. We get that great scene of him staring off into the double sunset while the music swells, and we know even with no dialogue what he is thinking. We identify with him.

 

Very early in the movie, we know our protagonist is Luke, our antagonist is Darth Vader and we clearly see why one is good, why the other is bad and what is at stake. This is only heightened as an ENTIRE PLANET is blown to bits a bit later. The stakes couldn't be higher.

 

In the prequels, the opening scene takes place on the Trade Federation vessel. I still don't understand why the Trade Federation was blockading Naboo, which seems to have little to no strategic value and has no resource which the trade federation might want to exploit. And I don't really care. It's never explained why the Trade Federation getting the deal they want will be that bad for Naboo anyway. I mean, if they are forced to pay an additional 10 percent on imports, is the world going to end? We never see any suffering or anything to establish the Trade Federation as evil other than their bumbling attempt to kill the Jedi. The main conflict is boring as hell and has no consequences.

 

More importantly, who is the protagonist? Is it Anakin? We don't meet him until a third of the way into the movie. Is it Obi Wan? He disappears for the middle third of the movie. I guess it's Qui Gon. Do we identify with him? I don't know anything about him. I don't know his hopes and dreams. He's not a real person. He never shows any personality. He is an emotionless monk. There is nothing personally at stake for him. I'm not entirely sure what he is trying to accomplish. It seems like the plan is to free the Queen and get her off the planet, but once they get her to Coruscant, she flies right back. So why did they leave in the first place? What was the point of the first two thirds of the movie?

 

Who is the antagonist? Is it the Trade Federation guys? Again, they seem more bumbling and foolish than anything. Their droid army isn't intimidating in the slightest. I suppose it's the Emperor, but we only see him in a short hologram, and we know nothing about what makes him a bad guy. We're never shown anything that establishes him as truly evil. We don't know what he is trying to accomplish. What's his master plan? Even after seeing the entire prequel trilogy, I have no idea where Naboo fits into the Emperor's grand vision. If he'd gotten his way there, he never would have become Chancellor because Padme never would have made it to the Senate.

 

This isn't even a question of movie-making. It's about story-telling. Establish characters. Establish conflict. Basic stuff. And it is completely lacking. It only gets worse as the prequels move on and we get long scenes in the Galactic Senate. In the original trilogy, we aren't forced to watch as the Senate devolves and eventually is disbanded. We get one line saying the Empeeror has dissolved them. Know why? Because watching a Senate is BORING. If you don't believe me, I dare you to watch an hour of C-Span without falling asleep or zoning out completely.

[SoonerJBD]

A couple of other things that have been touched on but apparently need to be spelled out for those who don't get it.

 

- In the original trilogy, the humor comes primarily from Han Solo. He's saracastic and quick-witted. In the prequels we get Jar Jar. He steps in poo.

 

- In the original trilogy the romance plotline is accomplished with subtlety and is believable. Han and Leia are both strong people and we see the sexual tension build as they snipe at each other. We see their relationship grow into something more in Empire. Leia tries to resist the obviously charming Han. The bad boy who is a good guy deep-down and slowly shows more of his soft and caring side. In the prequels, we get Anakin and Padme frolicking in a field while the galaxy is going down the crapper. I have no idea what Padme sees in him. Seriously, what makes her fall in love with him? The constant whining? The confession of genocide? His desire for a military-backed dictatorship that is contrary to everything she believes in? Their dialogue is like something you'd see in a bad bit of Twilight fan-fiction. "You are so... beautiful." "It's only because I'm so in love." "No, it's because I'm so in love with you."

 

What's so frustrating is that none of this was necessary. Living up to the standard set by the original trilogy was going to be difficult, but making us care about the characters and giving us a basic story that we can care about was not a tough task in the slightest.

[SoonerJBD]

There is a large period of time that takes place between Episodes II and III (The Clone Wars) that further develops their relationship as more brotherly, once Anakin graduates as a Knight, Obi-Wan is no longer personally responsible for Anakin and their relationship develops more as friends.

 

Believing that their relationship as "friends" is not properly portrayed, you may not be including the element that even though Jedi have what may pass as "friendships", they are encouraged at the same time to "not have attachments", therefore the relationships would probably not appear to be as warm as you would expect it to be.

You CAN see that Anakin appears to be more attached to Obi-Wan (shown through his passions) than Obi-Wan is to Anakin because one of Anakin's MAJOR problems is that he develops attachments he isn't supposed to.

 

Can you give me an example of a Master/Apprentice relationship in this period that was more warm? The best example would bee Anakin and Ahsoka, which is warmer because of Anakin's attachment problem. Ahsoka takes notice of this when she observes the relationships of othe Masters with their Padawans.

 

Obi-Wan has been shown (in the Clone Wars) to have developed attachments, and even romances, which show he may have struggled himself with attachments (having lost his master to Maul), and Obi-Wan may be purposefully distancing himself in developing new ones. His attachment to Anakin is without question at the end of "Revenge of the Sith" when he and Anakin are fighting.

 

If you think that is the response of a "coworker", then you must be really fun to work with...

 

See, here is the problem. Most people who saw the movies didn't watch the Clone Wars cartoons or read the comics or novels about what happened between the movies. Lucas seems to assume we did, and thus he leaves a lot of important stuff out of the movies. And it isn't just the character development. It's basic plot. General Grievous is never explained in Revenge of the Sith even though the first half of the movie revolves around taking him out. He's a droid that somehow is a general, and he coughs? ***? Droids get respiratory infections? I'm sure there is some explanation, but for the 99 percent of viewers who don't pay attention to the EU stuff, it's kinda important to explain main characters and things like that.

[Allagnar]

Including Episode III, the second best movie in the entire franchise. .

Well that gave me a chuckle. And it dismissed any other thoughts you may have presented in your post.

[Jaavik]

Exactly this.

 

The Titanic example kind of makes the point. Titanic was sad to 95% of the people who watched it even though we knew the boat was going to sink. I heard people sobbing in the theater during that movie. Just because the outcome of the story is inevitable it doesn't mean you can't tell it in a way that connects people emotionally. I didn't hear anyone sob in the theater during Revenge of the Sith.

 

Using your own example, in the Original Trilogy, did you hear people "sobbing" when Ben Kenobi died? When Luke lost his hand? Discovered who his father was? Saved his father only to have him die in front of him? I didn't. Although these are all dramatic and emotional events in the Original Trilogy, and by your own praise of the OT (should be examples of SUCCESSFUL dramatic impact), the audience felt them, possibly shed a tear and watched the film. Not hearing "Sobbing in the theater" isn't really a measure of emotional impact.

 

Plus, your statement implies that NOBODY felt ANY emotional impact at the end of "Revenge of the Sith" simply because YOU didn't.

 

There are plenty of other examples. Movies like Glory, Braveheart, Black Hawk Down, and many many others that I could go on listing for hours were based on historical events that had inevitable endings and still affected their viewers emotionally. Those movies actually bothered to make us care about the characters so that when the inevitable happened we would be affected. That is the key difference. The prequels didn't make us care about the characters plain and simple.

 

You are missing the fact that Titanic "historically" had survivors If there were NO survivors, the point would be different. The main characters in Titanic were FICTIONAL, so their fates were still unknown and they could either survive, drown, be shot by the villain, etc. The emotional impact comes from Leo Dicaprio dying (*snicker*) or the fact that Rose lost the love of her life, etc. The emotion is about PEOPLE. Nobody is sad just because the BOAT sank.

 

The average person does not know the fates of every character in a historical drama. What happens to them can still be VERY impactful. I would wager to guess that the VAST majority of people who paid for tickets to the prequels knew the fate of Anakin Skywalker.

 

But once again, knowing the fate of the character is a factor in the impact of how you feel about their ultimate fate. We would technically need to speak to someone who doesn't really know anything about Star Wars, or the Original Trilogy in order to get a better idea about the emotional impact of Anakin's turn to the Dark Side, Padme dying in child birth, Obi-Wan having to fight his friend to the death, the Clone Troopers gunning down the Jedi, etc.

 

If YOU didn't like it, there's nothing we can really say that's going to change your mind. I personally found the scenes emotional and impactful (sprinkled with occasional awful dialogue). We can argue all day that the Prequels were good or bad, but ultimately we're discussing opinions.

Edited May 26, 2012 by Jaavik

[Captain_Zone]

RotS had a lot of emotional impact for me...

 

Confusion: WTH just happened there????

Anger: You have GOT to be kidding me... "Luke... Leia..." *croaks*

Embarrassment: On behalf of Hayden Christensen and James Earl Jones with "NOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!" in the Frankenvader scene.

Disappointment: The entire ending of the movie felt rushed, and didn't even hit close to the "believable" mark.

[RDeanOU]

Using your own example, in the Original Trilogy, did you hear people "sobbing" when Ben Kenobi died? When Luke lost his hand? Discovered who his father was? Saved his father only to have him die in front of him? I didn't. Although these are all dramatic and emotional events in the Original Trilogy, and by your own praise of the OT (should be examples of SUCCESSFUL dramatic impact), the audience felt them, possibly shed a tear and watched the film. Not hearing "Sobbing in the theater" isn't really a measure of emotional impact.

 

Plus, your statement implies that NOBODY felt ANY emotional impact at the end of "Revenge of the Sith" simply because YOU didn't.

 

I wouldn't compare Obi Wan dying at the end of Episode IV to the end of ROTS. I would compare that to Qui Gon dying and I wouldn't expect that kind of reaction since we barely knew either of the mentor characters at that point. I would say that people were probably more upset by Obi Wan's death than by Qui Gon's and that also tells you something about storytelling between the two movies because Qui Gon had way way more screen time before his death than Obi Wan did.

 

A fair question is whether people would have sobbed if Luke had fallen to the darkside and then force choked Leia before trying to kill Han and then ultimately being maimed by his best friend and left for dead. I can guarantee that I would have been crying as a little kid if the movie had ended this way. I would have been inconsolable because I cared about the characters.

 

I am not simply gauging my own reaction to these moments and claiming that is representative of how everyone felt. I have asked numerous people defending the prequels if they were upset and frankly I haven't even seen any of the people defending the films even claiming they felt this way. No one that I have ever discussed the films with contends that they were even a little upset when Anakin fell to the dark side. I think that experience is representative of how the majority felt based on the fact that it's the only experience I have ever had shared with me. Are you claiming that scene affected you?

 

Certainly there are degrees between feeling nothing and loudly sobbing in the theater. The problem is that the end of ROTS should have been tilted toward the sobbing end and instead it was nearly all the way down at the feel nothing end.

 

 

You are missing the fact that Titanic "historically" had survivors If there were NO survivors, the point would be different. The main characters in Titanic were FICTIONAL, so their fates were still unknown and they could either survive, drown, be shot by the villain, etc. The emotional impact comes from Leo Dicaprio dying (*snicker*) or the fact that Rose lost the love of her life, etc. The emotion is about PEOPLE. Nobody is sad just because the BOAT sank.

 

The average person does not know the fates of every character in a historical drama. What happens to them can still be VERY impactful. I would wager to guess that the VAST majority of people who paid for tickets to the prequels knew the fate of Anakin Skywalker.

 

But once again, knowing the fate of the character is a factor in the impact of how you feel about their ultimate fate. We would technically need to speak to someone who doesn't really know anything about Star Wars, or the Original Trilogy in order to get a better idea about the emotional impact of Anakin's turn to the Dark Side, Padme dying in child birth, Obi-Wan having to fight his friend to the death, the Clone Troopers gunning down the Jedi, etc.

 

If YOU didn't like it, there's nothing we can really say that's going to change your mind. I personally found the scenes emotional and impactful (sprinkled with occasional awful dialogue). We can argue all day that the Prequels were good or bad, but ultimately we're discussing opinions.

 

You are the first person I have ever heard even claim that these scenes were emotional to any significant extent. That either means that you are lying in order to support your point or you are the most easily affected person I have ever met. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume it is the second option. I'll just go ahead and tell you that your reaction doesn't match up with that of the people I talk to.

[Jaavik]

It doesn't take a film major to realize that that the prequels were vastly inferior to the original trilogy in terms of character and story development. A New Hope was on Spike tonight and I re-watched it again. It's almost hard to believe the same person who made that movie was responsible for the prequels.

 

Once again, I can't think of anyone on here that is saying the Prequels were BETTER or even EQUAL to The Original Trilogy. The debate on here is mostly about story elements, characters, etc. And comparing the two trilogies being like comparing apples and oranges. A prequel has to follow different rules from a standard film. If the ultimate fate of characters and major events have already been established, you aren't going to be able to create "life or death" tension using the majority of the main characters. Prequel storytelling is more about how the events unfolded. New characters can be introduced where you don't know their fate and that form of tension can be used there. For example, the battle between Maul and Qui-Gon. We know nothing about these characters and either (or both) can die at any time in any way.

 

The original trilogy opens by establishing Darth Vader as the bad guy, and it's done by showing him board the rebel vessel and interrogate/choke the captain, lifting him off his feet. We immediately know what is happening. Rebels stole plans, Empire is searching for them. Then we meet Luke, our main protagonist, and his character is built, a young man who wants something bigger than the family farm. He's torn between his obligations to his family and his desire to strike out on his own. We get that great scene of him staring off into the double sunset while the music swells, and we know even with no dialogue what he is thinking. We identify with him.

 

Very early in the movie, we know our protagonist is Luke, our antagonist is Darth Vader and we clearly see why one is good, why the other is bad and what is at stake. This is only heightened as an ENTIRE PLANET is blown to bits a bit later. The stakes couldn't be higher.

 

Once again, you are ignoring the fact that you are viewing a prequel. We go into the movie EXPECTING to find out about Obi-Wan, Anakin, Padme, etc. But the character that carries you throughout the film is Qui-Gon Jinn. If the films were not a PREQUEL, if you remove the OT from the equation, establishing Qui-Gon as the main protagonist is a no-brainer. But because we go in knowing about so many other characters, we begin to make the ASSUMPTION that our main character was going to be Obi-Wan or Anakin.

 

In the prequels, the opening scene takes place on the Trade Federation vessel. I still don't understand why the Trade Federation was blockading Naboo, which seems to have little to no strategic value and has no resource which the trade federation might want to exploit. And I don't really care. It's never explained why the Trade Federation getting the deal they want will be that bad for Naboo anyway. I mean, if they are forced to pay an additional 10 percent on imports, is the world going to end? We never see any suffering or anything to establish the Trade Federation as evil other than their bumbling attempt to kill the Jedi. The main conflict is boring as hell and has no consequences.

 

To begin this, I will have to explain what a Trade Embargo is. It is a method of isolating another nation (or planet) from food, goods and war materials in order to stranglehold a foreign power in an attempt to achieve a political end result (such as removing someone from power). When supplies are low, and the people of a society are in need of it, eventually, the people will turn on their leaders. The precise REASONS for the trade embargo are not explored because it isn't really relevant. We eventually know (from paying attention to the story and not expecting EVERYTHING to be explained up front) that the embargo was a tool being used by Darth Sidious who was pulling the strings of the Trade Federation. He was USING the Nemoidians to bring sympathy to Naboo and it's Senator (Palpatine). He's "playing both sides". The main conflict DOES have consequences as the entire scenario put Palpatine into the role of Supreme Chancellor. It was the entire point of the plan.

 

More importantly, who is the protagonist? Is it Anakin? We don't meet him until a third of the way into the movie. Is it Obi Wan? He disappears for the middle third of the movie. I guess it's Qui Gon. Do we identify with him? I don't know anything about him. I don't know his hopes and dreams. He's not a real person. He never shows any personality. He is an emotionless monk. There is nothing personally at stake for him. I'm not entirely sure what he is trying to accomplish. It seems like the plan is to free the Queen and get her off the planet, but once they get her to Coruscant, she flies right back. So why did they leave in the first place? What was the point of the first two thirds of the movie?

 

The protagonist of the film is Qui-Gon Jinn, of course. He is the one that guides you through the entire film and introduces all of the characters. If you pay attention to the film, you learn a LOT about Qui-Gon, what kind of person he is, what kind of master, what kind of warrior he is, his kindness in attempting to rescue Jar Jar, The Queen, Anakin, etc.? You learn that he is both powerful and crafty. He can scheme his way into getting what he wants. He tricks Watto into gambling in order to get the parts he needs and even frees Anakin by using Watto's gambling weakness. His wisdom in determining that Anakin is the prophetical "chosen one" that the Jedi are expecting to "bring balance to the force". And the fact that he occasionally butts heads with the jedi Council, so he's not an entirely "by-the-book" Jedi Knight. Saying that they didn't develop his character is ridiculous.

 

As far as the "rescuing of the Queen" goes, Qui-Gon's initial mission was to oversee a treaty negotiation. This mission changed when the Nemoidians tried to kill him. From here, he escapes and discovers that the Trade Federation broughtan "invasion army", so he goes to find the Queen to tell her. He convinces her to leave Naboo because he's not there to fight a war. He helps her get back to the Senate to inform them what is happening so they can get help. The QUEEN is the one who decides to return because she doesn't believe that the Senate is going to help her, so she wants to go back and try to get the Gungans (whom Jar Jar tells her they have a "grand army") to help her. It's all explained so long s you actually pay attention.

Who is the antagonist? Is it the Trade Federation guys? Again, they seem more bumbling and foolish than anything. Their droid army isn't intimidating in the slightest. I suppose it's the Emperor, but we only see him in a short hologram, and we know nothing about what makes him a bad guy. We're never shown anything that establishes him as truly evil. We don't know what he is trying to accomplish. What's his master plan? Even after seeing the entire prequel trilogy, I have no idea where Naboo fits into the Emperor's grand vision. If he'd gotten his way there, he never would have become Chancellor because Padme never would have made it to the Senate.

 

You have GOT to be kidding me if you don't realize that Darth Sidious is the antagonist. Aside from the fact that you already know him as the Emperor in the OT, you think they still NEVER establish him as "truly evil"? His first appearance in the film shows him giving Nute Gunray the order to kill the Jedi "immediately". What more do you require to envision him as "a bad guy"?

 

You don't know what he is trying to accomplish? You know that there is an established Republic and in the Original trilogy, he is the Emperor of a vast Galactic Empire. I would think his "master plan" was obvious, as well as Naboo's role in it. Palpatine was playing both sides. He was using the Trade federation as a tool to make the Senate sympathetic to Naboo (him being Naboo's senator), and influencing the Senate to no longer believe in Chancellor Valorum as a leader, knowing that he would be next in line. It was a political power play. You see that Sidious wanted Amidala out of the equation, but since he couldn't stop her, he USED her. He's a tactician. If one part of a plan break, there are always contingency plans and improvisations. He manipulated Padme into being the one to blame Valorum of insufficient leadership, hoping that whomever replaced him would help her. Even after Padme went back to Naboo, Sidious made comment that the play was "too aggressive for her". Once Padme retook naboo with the Gungans, Palpatine was already the new Supreme Chancellor. He got what he wanted.

 

This isn't even a question of movie-making. It's about story-telling. Establish characters. Establish conflict. Basic stuff. And it is completely lacking. It only gets worse as the prequels move on and we get long scenes in the Galactic Senate. In the original trilogy, we aren't forced to watch as the Senate devolves and eventually is disbanded. We get one line saying the Empeeror has dissolved them. Know why? Because watching a Senate is BORING. If you don't believe me, I dare you to watch an hour of C-Span without falling asleep or zoning out completely.

 

Lacking how? Characters were established and Conflict was DEFINITELY established. Just about everything you complained WASN'T established, explained or represented absolutely WAS. If you didn't like it, you didn't like it. But trying to say there was no story, plot structure, etc goes beyond opinion. The Prequels do not try to be a carbon copy of the original trilogy. The prequels are about Politicial Intrigue, schemes and manipulations. It's too bad that you find political intrigue to be boring. For me, it's what made the Prequels stand out on their own and why I don't TRY to compare them to the OT.

 

The Original Trilogy is my favorite as well. I think they are better acted and have better dialogue, but I don't look at them as a measure of what a "good movie" is. That's all opinion. Hell, before the PT was released, people couldn't agree that Return of the Jedi was sufficiently "Star Wars" because of the Ewoks. It's difficult to explain what "sufficiently Star Wars" even means, The original Episode IV would have to be the measuring stick for that and MOST people agree that "The Empire Strikes Back" was the best film. The story structure and character motivations were completely different from "A New Hope", because it was a different story in a different time.

[Maaruin]

You are the first person I have ever heard even claim that these scenes were emotional to any significant extent. That either means that you are lying in order to support your point or you are the most easily affected person I have ever met. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume it is the second option. I'll just go ahead and tell you that your reaction doesn't match up with that of the people I talk to.

 

Well, I wrote right in this thread that there were two moments in ROTS that really made me sad.

 

Order 66

Obi-Wan: "You were my brother, Anakin."

 

I also said ROTS had more emotional impact on me then ANH. (But it fails in creating a fluent story line and suspense.)

[Lt_Latency]

I think the first 3 are way better.

 

If you take out the Special effects from both movies. You are just left with a better story and better characters from the last 3.

[Jaavik]

You are the first person I have ever heard even claim that these scenes were emotional to any significant extent. That either means that you are lying in order to support your point or you are the most easily affected person I have ever met. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume it is the second option. I'll just go ahead and tell you that your reaction doesn't match up with that of the people I talk to.

 

Okay I've been pretty diplomatic in this debate and never resulted to trying to insult you. After reading that last ridiculous post of yours claiming you didn't understand what made Sidious a "bad guy", and then seeing this one, calling me either a liar or "over-sensitive", I can only assume you're trolling or aren't capable of supporting your own points and are now trying to end the debate by just being a twit.

 

We were having a discussion about a work of fiction. If it's upsetting you this much. Maybe we can see who the "over-sensitive" one actually is. Grab some tissues and take a few deep breaths. Nobody is going to make you watch those nasty ol' Prequels ever again...

Edited May 26, 2012 by Jaavik

[Jaavik]

I think the first 3 are way better.

 

If you take out the Special effects from both movies. You are just left with a better story and better characters from the last 3.

 

I agree.

[Jaavik]

See, here is the problem. Most people who saw the movies didn't watch the Clone Wars cartoons or read the comics or novels about what happened between the movies. Lucas seems to assume we did, and thus he leaves a lot of important stuff out of the movies. And it isn't just the character development. It's basic plot. General Grievous is never explained in Revenge of the Sith even though the first half of the movie revolves around taking him out. He's a droid that somehow is a general, and he coughs? ***? Droids get respiratory infections? I'm sure there is some explanation, but for the 99 percent of viewers who don't pay attention to the EU stuff, it's kinda important to explain main characters and things like that.

 

There is a difference between the cartoons and the comics/novels. The cartoons are considered "canon", not EU. They are officially recognized as part of the main story. The original Tartakovsky (animator of Samurai Jack) Clone Wars cartoons were a series of short hand-drawn cartoons and they were all released BEFORE "Revenge of the Sith" was released. The end of the series is where Grievous kidnaps Chancellor Palpatine and the movie picks up right at that moment.

 

And actually, General Grievous is a cyborg, not a droid. You can see the skin around his eyes and Obi-Wan shoots him in his organic heart. He's Kaleesh (you'll find them in this game, especially if you are a Sith inquisitor). And the cough had a specific purpose of showing the imperfection of the technology that eventually is used on Anakin (who wheezes).

 

I'm not sure how much explanation every character in a movie requires. In all fairness, you don't get anything of Vader's back story until you find out he's Anakin in the follow-up movie. So the entire original movie that hooked ALL of us, had a primary villain that you knew hardly ANYTHING about. we simply accepted that he was THE bad guy of the movie and moved on. How much back story did you get on Jabba? or Boba Fett?

 

Sometimes,a film introduces a character, gives you his name and his purpose (and the sense of importance to defeat him) and the story moves on.

 

 

[SoonerJBD]

There is a difference between the cartoons and the comics/novels. The cartoons are considered "canon", not EU. They are officially recognized as part of the main story. The original Tartakovsky (animator of Samurai Jack) Clone Wars cartoons were a series of short hand-drawn cartoons and they were all released BEFORE "Revenge of the Sith" was released. The end of the series is where Grievous kidnaps Chancellor Palpatine and the movie picks up right at that moment.

 

And actually, General Grievous is a cyborg, not a droid. You can see the skin around his eyes and Obi-Wan shoots him in his organic heart. He's Kaleesh (you'll find them in this game, especially if you are a Sith inquisitor). And the cough had a specific purpose of showing the imperfection of the technology that eventually is used on Anakin (who wheezes).

 

I'm not sure how much explanation every character in a movie requires. In all fairness, you don't get anything of Vader's back story until you find out he's Anakin in the follow-up movie. So the entire original movie that hooked ALL of us, had a primary villain that you knew hardly ANYTHING about. we simply accepted that he was THE bad guy of the movie and moved on. How much back story did you get on Jabba? or Boba Fett?

 

Sometimes,a film introduces a character, gives you his name and his purpose (and the sense of importance to defeat him) and the story moves on.

 

 

 

Sorry, but you are just completely wrong here. Obi Wan explains Vader's character. Jedi seduced by the dark side. More machine than man now. The stuff about him being Anakin is a plot twist later. It is not essential to establishing his character as the bad guy. I didn't know grievous was a cyborg until you just told me because it is never explained. He looks completely like a droid. Never is it explained that he is anything other than a droid. We never get anyone explaining what Grievous is or where he came from.