If The Prequels Were Good

[jedimasterjac]

I recently stumbled across two YouTube videos by the YouTube channel Belated Media. They basically re-wrote the first two prequel movies, The Phantom Menace and Attack of the Clones. I thought his revised version of events would have been amazing to see on screen. What were your thoughts? What would you change about the prequels? (Videos linked below.)

 

 

 

[Wolfninjajedi]

Nothing because...you know my opinion, the Prequels were good. It's not fact that they were bad, people really need to stop making it out as it's fact that they were bad movies. They weren't bad movies, it's all opinion...just because someone or a group thing a movie is bad, doesn't mean there aren't those out there that see it the same way.

 

STOP WITH THIS NONSENSE.

Edited June 24, 2014 by Wolfninjajedi

[jedimasterjac]

Nothing because...you know my opinion, the Prequels were good. It's not fact that they were bad, people really need to stop making it out as it's fact that they were bad movies. They weren't bad movies, it's all opinion...just because someone or a group thing a movie is bad, doesn't mean there aren't those out there that see it the same way.

 

STOP WITH THIS NONSENSE.

 

I'm not sure where I ever stated my opinion as fact. I thought I made it pretty clear it was my opinion.

[Ventessel]

Nothing because...you know my opinion, the Prequels were good. It's not fact that they were bad, people really need to stop making it out as it's fact that they were bad movies. They weren't bad movies, it's all opinion...just because someone or a group thing a movie is bad, doesn't mean there aren't those out there that see it the same way.

 

STOP WITH THIS NONSENSE.

 

Perhaps it's not possible to declare a movie "bad" or "good". But you can attach some labels and make some objective judgements.

 

The prequels had choppy dialogue, with very repetitive editing and uninteresting camera angles. The fact that some scenes were carried by talented actors speaks only to the skill of those actors.

 

The plot was... questionable, at best. There have been lengthy explanations made via novels, expansions, and other outside works. That does wonders for the "historians" trying to piece together the jumble that came out of those films, but the fact that they cannot stand on their own without requiring lengthy and complex explanations in other media sources indicates some plot holes you could drive a bus through.

 

The special effects? To die for. Those films had great special effects and a fantastic score by John Williams. Which stands to reason because Industrial Light & Magic pretty much pioneered the creation of good film CGI.

 

I guess the main question to ask yourself as a fan is: "Did I enjoy watching those movies and would I watch them again?"

[tunewalker]

Perhaps it's not possible to declare a movie "bad" or "good". But you can attach some labels and make some objective judgements.

 

The prequels had choppy dialogue, with very repetitive editing and uninteresting camera angles. The fact that some scenes were carried by talented actors speaks only to the skill of those actors.

 

The plot was... questionable, at best. There have been lengthy explanations made via novels, expansions, and other outside works. That does wonders for the "historians" trying to piece together the jumble that came out of those films, but the fact that they cannot stand on their own without requiring lengthy and complex explanations in other media sources indicates some plot holes you could drive a bus through.

 

The special effects? To die for. Those films had great special effects and a fantastic score by John Williams. Which stands to reason because Industrial Light & Magic pretty much pioneered the creation of good film CGI.

 

I guess the main question to ask yourself as a fan is: "Did I enjoy watching those movies and would I watch them again?"

 

to which the awnser for me is yes... .though i feel the need to skip some portions of some scenes in episode 2 for a better flowing movie for myself. .

[OddballEasyEight]

Nothing because...you know my opinion, the Prequels were good. It's not fact that they were bad, people really need to stop making it out as it's fact that they were bad movies. They weren't bad movies, it's all opinion...just because someone or a group thing a movie is bad, doesn't mean there aren't those out there that see it the same way.

 

STOP WITH THIS NONSENSE.

 

Actually it is fact... they lack alot of the narrative cornerstones of good movies.

I could go on about it, but I'll just let Mr. Plinkett explain it (ignore the "I'm stupid" skit he is doing... he actually has alot of good points and knows alot about movies):

[CaulderBenson]

Nothing because...you know my opinion, the Prequels were good. movies.

 

I actually just rewatched the Phantom Menace all the way through from beginning to end for the first time in, I think, nine years.

 

You know, I enjoyed it quite a bit. I never really hated like some did, and in fact I consider it to be the best of the prequels for several reasons.

 

It does have a lot of room for improvement though.

 

They weren't bad movies, it's all opinion...just because someone or a group thing a movie is bad, doesn't mean there aren't those out there that see it the same way.

 

I'll disagree on the AOTC. It is a pretty bad movie objectively. I think it's easily the worst of the saga, for a litany of reasons. I will say Obi Wan was good, Jango was awesome, and I love Count Dooku for all of his 6 minutes of screen time.

 

ROTS was an improvement over AOTC, but that's not saying much since Clones is so bad.

 

But yeah, I don't hate the prequels, and with the exception of Clones, there are much worse movies out there.

Edited June 24, 2014 by CaulderBenson

[Ventessel]

I actually just rewatched the Phantom Menace all the way through from beginning to end for the first time in, I think, nine years.

 

You know, I enjoyed it quite a bit. I never really hated like some did, and in fact I consider it to be the best of the prequels for several reasons.

 

What are those reasons, if I may ask? (Excluding the obvious answer of "Liam Neeson!"

[Wolfninjajedi]

Actually it is fact... they lack alot of the narrative cornerstones of good movies.

I could go on about it, but I'll just let Mr. Plinkett explain it (ignore the "I'm stupid" skit he is doing... he actually has alot of good points and knows alot about movies):

 

Yeah and guess what? I don't see what he sees so...again, he isn't doing anything for me. He has his own thoughts, I have mine.

[Canino]

I think we need to stop calling them bad in the first place. The only reason people call them bad is because they were let down. When Lucas stated he was going to make another trilogy, everyone suddenly had grand visions of the perfect star wars film. To them.

 

Not to Lucas. They aren't bad, just not what everyone wanted. People wanted what they envisioned, and wanted it to perfect in every aspect. But that's not how films are made. And that's why you have a director- to give the film vision. Their vision.

 

That said, Jar Jar is horrible

[CaulderBenson]

I think we need to stop calling them bad in the first place.

 

No, people can actually voice their opinions and call them bad if they want. I find AOTC to be a bad movie. Nor do I need to stop saying that.

 

 

The only reason people call them bad is because they were let down.

 

There are many legitimate and well reasoned arguments for why people find them bad. The Red Letter Media review in particular uses legitimate film arguments to detail why he finds them bad; even if I still find some enjoyment in the prequels.

 

You should probably stop attributing reasons and motivations to other people; it's not polite to do that. You are in no place to do so, and in point of fact, you have no earthly idea why a specific person finds them bad unless they state their reasons.

 

 

 

Yeah and guess what? I don't see what he sees so...again, he isn't doing anything for me. He has his own thoughts, I have mine.

 

Correct. To each their own.

Edited June 26, 2014 by CaulderBenson

[OddballEasyEight]

Yeah and guess what? I don't see what he sees so...again, he isn't doing anything for me. He has his own thoughts, I have mine.

 

I'm willing to guess you didn't even watch the entire review.

 

But since I am not willing to waste time formulating my opinion on it and putting it to words that is condensed to anything less than an essay (because there is oh so much to say about why the prequels are actually bad movies, not just compared to the originals but compared to movies in general), I'll just quote some people who have already done so and with whom I share the opinion.

 

"In all seriousness, I imagine that the kids who grew up with the prequels and liked them just fine are sick and tired of my generation continually ranting about how much better the original trilogy was. So maybe there's some value in having this discussion; It is for you young'uns that I dredge up this argument. Also, because I still want to rant about about how much better the original trilogy was.

 

The original trilogy is not perfect. We old people like to pretend it is, but it isn't. The dialogue, especially in the first movie, is terrible. The performances in the first movie are also terrible. Luke is a whiner. Obi-Wan Kenobi is kind of a dick. There's the whole Luke-Leia weirdness. There are the Ewoks (although if you compare Chewbacca to Jar Jar again I will cut you). The three movies have issues.

 

But the prequels have those issues, and then some. The reason A New Hope has such performance and dialogue problems is because it was written and directed by George Lucas on his own, while in ESB and RotJ he had collaborators for both screenwriting and the directing gig. But Lucas wrote and directed all three of the prequels, so they all had these flaws. Plus, there is nothing in the original trilogy that comes close to the wretchedness of Anakin's attempt to romance Padme, or his terrible "I hate sand" rant.

 

And while Luke and Anakin are both whiners, Luke grows out of it by RotJ, while Anakin journey goes from insane child who thinks a clearly human girl might be an angel to a sullen crybaby to an even more sullen brat. It's not a very captivating character arc, and it does not compare to Luke's.

 

And yes, I hated the childishness of the primitive teddy bears who managed to defeat a Galactic empire in Return of the Jedi, but at least they did some actual fighting and had some conflict to overcome. Jar Jar was pure comic relief, used for no other purpose but to step in ****, be socially inappropriate, and scream. Jar Jar might have been fine if he had served the plot in some way, or been genuinely funny, but he was neither.

 

Most of all, the setting presented in the original trilogy was one I wanted to visit: one of infinite possibilities, of heroes and villains, of never-before-seen sights and experiences. I wanted to see more of this galaxy, I wanted desperately to learn about the Jedi, I wanted to know the backstory that led to the momentous events of ANH, ESB and RotJ. But then the prequels came, and took us right back to Tatooine and shoehorned in as many characters we already knew as possible; the Jedi are ******es who outlaw love and can't see the biggest threat in the galaxy even when he's sitting 20 feet away; and then Lucas didn't even bother to rewatch the first three Star Wars movies to make sure the continuity lined up.

 

There are other problems; the prequels' lack of a strong central villain like Darth Vader, the focus on evil political maneuvering over a scrappy band of heroes trying to save the galaxy, and the inherent problems of prequels and trying to tell a story whose confines are pre-existing."

 

Or this one:

 

"Firstly, the hamfisted cramming in of elements from the original films for no good reason, while at the same time ignoring the continuity.

 

Secondly, the characters. The original Star Wars was popular, IMHO, in large part due to great characters. Sure they were all archetypes/stereotypes, but done well. The prequels didn't have anyone as likeable as Han Solo, anyone so menacing as Vader, anyone so creepy as the Emperor or as wise, yet scary as Yoda. Sure, they might have (nominally) brought some of the same characters back (often shoehorning them in)...in the originals Yoda has some great moments, suddenly becoming terrifying and telling Luke he will be afraid, or explaining how the Force connects everything. In the prequels he...well, he's rendered in CGI.

 

Thirdly, the acting. You had great, powerful bits in the originals, such as Luke's confrontation with the Emperor, and Vader choosing to change sides. As an aside, the Lightsabgre fights weren't OtT choreographed waffle, they were about the rage and anger taking hold of Luke and allowing him to batter Vader into submission. In the prequels...did anyone care at all about what they were doing?

 

Fourth, there's no restraint, no cleverness. Just because you've got lots of fancy CGI to throw at the screen all the time doesn't automatically mean it is the best idea.

 

Fifth, the comic relief characters in the original were bad at times. They were painfully hard to watch in the prequel."

[CaulderBenson]

What are those reasons, if I may ask? (Excluding the obvious answer of "Liam Neeson!"

 

Apologies, I was busy yesterday and did not have time to respond to this.

 

I'm not going to lie, nostalgia plays a part for sure. I'm old enough that the first movie I saw in theaters was ROTJ. It was always, and is my favorite. Even though I can freely admit Empire is the better overall film, when Jedi is good, it's better than anything else in all six films. Given the choice of watching any of the SW movies, it's Jedi every time for me.

 

That being said, I remember when TPM was released in theaters and the actual build up to it. I remember the magazines with a teaser photo here and there, the tv specials, etc.

 

When it was released there was SW stuff everywhere for the first time since...ever really. The OT was big in the 80s, but two years after Jedi was out, SW was basically forgotten until the Zhan novels; and the only thing they did was really launch the EU which gave us some video games, comics, and books.

 

Outside of those venues, you would still not see SW in Walmart, the mall, etc. That changed after TPM. SW has never not been on the shelves of department stores since.

 

Anyway release of TPM was exciting for sure. I had just graduated highschool, and I remember a lot of my class mates were there to see it. It really was a communal event, and It was a blast.

 

I still remember that. Those kinds of events don't happen often. Overall it still didn't compare to the release of the OT Special editions in 97; those theater experiences were insane.

 

-----------------

 

Beyond that, TPM isn't that bad of movie, honestly. It feels like a SW film to me at least. SW is myth, and TPM has a mythic feel to it.

 

The wise, veteran jedi warrior, the queen trying to save her people, the slave boy who ends up saving everyone, the prophecy, the sith vs jedi religious battle for the soul of the galaxy, etc.

 

The SW saga is about visuals as well as story telling, and TPM is the most visually distinct of the prequels by far - arguably the entire saga.

 

You could watch TPM with the sound off, and still understand the story. I think you'd have a harder time with AOTC and ROTS.

 

The score by John Williams is of course superb. The Duel of Fates is a good as anything in the OT, it's hard to imagine SW without it now. The Sith theme is also a notable entry into the franchise.

 

The plot and the timeline (for the most part) flow logically.

 

Take Empire for instance: How long did Luke train with Yoda? A day? Two? A week? A month? Because for almost the entire time of his training Vader is chasing Han and Leia through an asteroid field.

 

The whole movie falls apart if you think about it logically. I think TPM holds up.

 

Palpatine's performance in TPM is made even better after the fact since we've seen all the films now.

 

Darth Maul is a villain who is one of the most popular and enduring characters of the entire saga and he's in the movie for five minutes. He's an impressive visual design that's worthy of Darth Vader in the OT.

 

The podrace was fun then, and it's fun now. I like that it has a story contained within it. Anakin stalls, then he's behind, he catches up, he takes the lead, he falls behind, power coupling comes loose, Sebulba tries to cheat, Anakin wins, etc.

 

The enter atmosphere of the podrace feels like a regular everyday activity. That's SW at its best to me.

 

The vendors selling drinks and snacks, the excitement of the crowd, it's televised, the announcer felt real, he was funny, the gambling, etc.

 

Those kinds of "real" activities are what made the OT connect with people way back in the day.

 

Liam Nesson's character was the only truly competent jedi in the entire saga. We know that he would be on the council except for the fact that he doesn't play political games. He feels the jedi have lost their way, and he's more concerned with righting actual wrongs and helping real people as opposed to just sitting in the council chambers.

 

He was a rebel, and he wanted to do the right thing regardless of his personal prestige in the jedi order.

 

Qui Gon was right that jedi are supposed to be helping people first and foremost.

 

In the ROTS novelization ( I think) Yoda even says "Qui Gon you were a great jedi and I was too blind to see it" or something to that effect.

 

The blu ray version of TPM is stunning. The colors are so vivid and clean, it's a wonderful visual experience.

 

-----------------

 

The final scene is the best in the saga after ROTJ.

 

It's very poetic, it's literally the end of the beginning, and the beginning of the end.

 

It's very bright, sunny, and happy. The musical score is one of my favorites in the saga.

 

All the characters, Anakin, Kenobi, Padme, Yoda, the Naboo, the Gungans, nobody will be happier than they are at that moment in time.

 

They have their entire futures ahead of them. They're all happy and optimistic, and they're all doomed to death and sadness.

 

It's a wonderfully poetic and beautiful moment.

 

-------------------------

 

Now of course I have a lot of issues with TPM, and it could have been five times better with only a few small changes, but as I stated, it was an entertaining experience when I re-watched it.

Edited June 26, 2014 by CaulderBenson

[tunewalker]

Does any one know the meaning of matters of taste.... IE no one is wrong for liking or disliking something they are all matters of taste. We can talk about what we like/ dislike about it, but I want to make sure every one knows no one is actually wrong for liking or disliking.

[OddballEasyEight]

Does any one know the meaning of matters of taste.... IE no one is wrong for liking or disliking something they are all matters of taste. We can talk about what we like/ dislike about it, but I want to make sure every one knows no one is actually wrong for liking or disliking.

 

Of course not.

 

But I'm saying that the movies are actually poorly made. From a purely craftsman perspective.

 

Let me put it like this: I like the Sex Pistols. I love their music.

But I cannot say that their music is well made... that would be a lie. Their music is pretty poorly made. It's still something I enjoy listening to.

 

And the prequels are not well made. And I don't like them.

But the two are separate.

Even IF I liked them, I would have to admit that they are pretty poorly made movies.

 

Conversely, The Godfather is a genuinely well made movie. A masterpiece some would say.

I still don't like it.

I've seen it and kinda enjoyed it simply because of its craftmanship, but I don't like the movie.

Probably because I don't like mobster movies very much in general.

Same with Boardwalk empire. Arguably a really solid and well made TV-series.

I still don't like it.

I LOVE Bad Taste by Peter Jackson. There is no way anyone can claim that it is a well made movie.

But I love it anyway.

 

So while Bad Taste is a bad movie, I still love it. And while the Godfater is a good movie, I still don't like it.

 

So the Prequels are, in fact, bad movies.

Doesn't mean you can't like them.

But at least embrace them and accept them with their flaws and don't just stick your head in the sand and pretend there's nothing wrong with them.

Edited June 25, 2014 by OddballEasyEight

[CaulderBenson]

Does any one know the meaning of matters of taste.... IE no one is wrong for liking or disliking something they are all matters of taste. We can talk about what we like/ dislike about it, but I want to make sure every one knows no one is actually wrong for liking or disliking.

 

This should go without saying, however liking or disliking a movie can be quite separate from whether or not it's well made.

 

There are some objective criteria based on story telling and film techniques in which you can measure films regardless of personal taste or opinion, believe it or not.

 

The romance between Padme and Anakin is simply not believable and is very badly written - whether you enjoy it and can ignore its failing is still subjective.

 

In Walt Disney's Beauty and the Beast, you actually do believe Belle could have loved the Beast at the end. It was well written and the character arc was there.

 

Luke has a very logical and well crafted arc in the OT. He goes from idealistic, annoying, impatient, to seasoned war vet, to a fully matured, patient, reserved, and in control man by the time we get to Jedi.

 

He suffered though the loss of friends, family, hard training, was instructed in the philosophical teachings of the Jedi from Obi-Wan and Yoda, dealt with the Emperor and Vader.

 

The endpoint of Luke's journey makes sense. It's good story telling.

 

Anakin's character arc from AOTC on was simply not developed well.

 

People get tired of them being brought up, but the Plinkett reviews are exceptionally well done, and detail their faults using film school techniques and story telling 101 basics.

 

As Oddball stated, and I'll reiterate, I enjoy quite few bad movies, one difference is I can freely admit they are bad.

 

Jaws IV, Friday the 13th Part 5, all bad movies I enjoy unabashedly.

 

And as stated, I don't feel TPM is particularly "bad" movie despite it's flaws, however I don't consider to be a particularly well made movie either, and there is a difference.

Edited June 26, 2014 by CaulderBenson

[that_Spartan_IV]

http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=mr+plinkett+phantom+menace

 

 

http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=mr+plinkett+attack+of+the+clones

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ABcXyZn9xjg

 

I'll just leave these here....

[Timarick]

Personally anybody who uses that butthurt whinefest that is Red Letter Media in my personal view, their opinion is officially moot because they can't formulate their own opinions, and like RLM, they TOO come off as butthurt. Sorry kiddies, but face it: the prequels were alright and no different than the original trilogy, the only difference being one was new, simplistic to the point of insanity, and caked in the deepest layer of nostalgia that no amount of watching it til you know it verbatim would dispell the goofiness and stupidity that is everpresent in the original trilogy, we just forgive them because OH LOOK! Han Solo! Darth Vader is kewwwwl! Boba Fett!!! CHEWIE! SLAVE LEIA!!

 

The prequels are a bit more fresh in people's minds and because of Jar Jar, he magnified everybody's problems that they forgave in the Original Trilogy, and never let go of that. I've noticed that nearly 9/10s of the butthurt population peg all the issues of the prequels on Jar Jar. IS Jar Jar responsible for the clunky dialogue that was there in all 6 movies? Was he responsible for the Ewoks? Was he responsible for the films being light hearted when everybody wants it to be Game of Thrones? Nope! But everybody looks at him as the jumping off point. So basically the OT didn't have a Jar Jar to unravel everything. I mean **** he's in a combined 15 seconds of Episode III and he doesn't even speak but NOPE! Episode III gets lumped with the bunch because of "Jar Jar"

 

So seriously, all of you can have some cheese with your whine, take some Preparation H for your butthurt, duct tape your mouths shut, cut your fingers off, and have a nice day

[OddballEasyEight]

Personally anybody who uses that butthurt whinefest that is Red Letter Media in my personal view, their opinion is officially moot because they can't formulate their own opinions, and like RLM, they TOO come off as butthurt. Sorry kiddies, but face it: the prequels were alright and no different than the original trilogy, the only difference being one was new, simplistic to the point of insanity, and caked in the deepest layer of nostalgia that no amount of watching it til you know it verbatim would dispell the goofiness and stupidity that is everpresent in the original trilogy, we just forgive them because OH LOOK! Han Solo! Darth Vader is kewwwwl! Boba Fett!!! CHEWIE! SLAVE LEIA!!

 

The prequels are a bit more fresh in people's minds and because of Jar Jar, he magnified everybody's problems that they forgave in the Original Trilogy, and never let go of that. I've noticed that nearly 9/10s of the butthurt population peg all the issues of the prequels on Jar Jar. IS Jar Jar responsible for the clunky dialogue that was there in all 6 movies? Was he responsible for the Ewoks? Was he responsible for the films being light hearted when everybody wants it to be Game of Thrones? Nope! But everybody looks at him as the jumping off point. So basically the OT didn't have a Jar Jar to unravel everything. I mean **** he's in a combined 15 seconds of Episode III and he doesn't even speak but NOPE! Episode III gets lumped with the bunch because of "Jar Jar"

 

So seriously, all of you can have some cheese with your whine, take some Preparation H for your butthurt, duct tape your mouths shut, cut your fingers off, and have a nice day

 

And in my view anyone who calls people who don't agree "kiddies", tells them to take some Preparation H for their butthurt and to duct tape their mouths shut and cut their fingers off, loses any sense of having a valid opinion on anything.

[Lackofhope]

I use to firmly be in the "Prequel's Suck Camp" but after a combination of recently rewatching the whole saga through with my first timer wife AND watching truly **** movies like the Transformers series... I have grown to appreciate the prequels and the saga as a while.

 

Did they have issues? Yeah, just like every movie ever.

Did Jar Jar suck? Most definitely, thank god he is only really prominent in the first.

 

The Prequels gave us "Duel of the Fates", Darth Maul, Order 66, Massive ground battles, RoTS opening, Ewan McGregor as Obi Wan and Ian McDiarmid. as Palpatine.