Official Star Wars Thread

The radio in that video is a traffic report saying there has been an UFO crash on the Autobahn between Oberhausen and Arnhem. Just in case you're wondering. :P
 
Maturin said:
I'm baffled by how the 'prequels = bad' is treated as the general consensus among Star Wars-fans...How many times are we guilty of just accepting the opinion of others instead of taking the time and effort it takes to actually think for ourselves?
Click to expand...
Seriously? I'm pretty sure the reason why people think that is because they are bad. You're entitled to love them, and think they're masterpieces, but I, and every other Star Wars fan, is entitled to think whatsoever I want of them. And ridiculing the opinions of others as lead by the nose by the media excludes the very real possibility that your sensibilities do not appeal to the masses. Quite frankly, you're starting from the basis of "Maturin is right." Maturin is right, of course, but only on what appeals to Maturin.

My opinion is equally as valid to me as your opinion is to yourself. And, I hasten to add, that I have accepted the merits of many of your thoughts and arguments, considered them, and found them either lacking or specious, whereas my opinions have been dismissed as being influenced by the media, which apparently tells me what to think. I'll explain why I don't like the prequels: because I didn't like them. I didn't like them before I read anything from Roger Ebert or any critic, I didn't like them before I heard of Red Letter Media, and I didn't like them before I read about Ring Theory or whatever else. I approve of the RLM reviews because they put a finger on a lot of the things that I didn't like, but that's really irrelevant. I don't like those movies because they failed to connect with me on pretty much every level, because I was bored, because I physically cringed at some of the dialogue, and delivery. Because I didn't give a single fuck about any character. It's just that, to me, they failed.
 
I don't believe anyone was talked into thinking the prequels were rubbish, but if someone is making the assumption that that's what Star Wars fans think, I'd consider that overgeneralisation. I didn't enjoy them as much as the original trilogy, particularly Episode 3, but it still felt like Star Wars to me, and I'd like to think I understand why some elements of the plot were pursued.

The only character that I felt really fell short of the mark was Anakin. Which is a pity, because he is the central character.
 
I first saw the Plinkett reviews three years ago. I saw each prequel film when it came out in the cinema, after ten years of knowing each original film inside out. My initial thoughts about them were:

Phantom Menace - boring, confusing, I hated the kid and I hated Jar Jar. Everything was overdone. Too much CGI, too much plot, too many costumes, too much of everything.
Attack of the Clones - having been 17 when it came out, I admit that what I cared the most for was how hot Natalie Portman was. Other than that, it was an overlong and terribly melodramatic love story with everything around it having the flair of a cartoon. You could tell the actors did not interact with their environment, and it was obvious that it was all CGI. Christopher Lee was ridiculous, his character was just pathetic and laughable.
Revenge of the Sith - I was really underwhelmed. I hated Anakin because of his melodramatic performance, it was again too much of everything and too overblown while on the other hand being so incredibly crude and superficial. The points the film made were just too bloody simplistic and brought up with a sledgehammer. I saw it with a 17 year old at the time and saw that he was impressed, but I (at 20) already thought that it lacked any sort of subtlety.

Those were my thoughts then, and I saw them all again a few years ago - and I really didn't have much of a different impression. Only then did I do some research on other people's opinions on the net (including the Plinkett reviews), and felt confirmed.
 
Brigantium said:
The only character that I felt really fell short of the mark was Anakin.
Click to expand...

Really? I was just about horrified by Padme. Portman was apparently in a contest with Christiansen for "most wooden acting". We rightfully make fun of "I don't like sand" as the worst, but most of what those two said is just as cringe-inducing.

Mace Windu?? What was his purpose besides getting Samuel L. Jackson's famous face on screen? We never had any reason to care for that character. He's just Space Jules.

Even the two good acting jobs - Obi Wan and Palpatine - were hamstrung by the script they had to work with.
 
LooseCannon said:
Seriously? I'm pretty sure the reason why people think that is because they are bad. You're entitled to love them, and think they're masterpieces, but I, and every other Star Wars fan, is entitled to think whatsoever I want of them.
Click to expand...

I'm referring to the fact that there is no general consensus, even among the most die-hard fans, of that the prequels are bad. It's just reported over and over again in media and by people, and no one thinks for themselves. 7,7 om Imdb is quite good for a "bad" film. Come on, the opinion is quite divided with quite a lot of people loving the films.
 
I like the prequels, but then again, I've seen them before the original trilogy plus I generally think Star Wars are overrated.
 
My favorite character in the 'new' trilogy was Obi-Wan. He was the one I cared the most about/thought cared the most in the whole thing. Wish the story had been more about him and how he saw the fall of the Jedi, instead of Anakin.
 
Maturin said:
Come on, the opinion is quite divided with quite a lot of people loving the films.
Click to expand...
I think you'll find the general opinion is that the films were disappointing or not as good. I don't think the average joe on the street cares much one way or the other. And finally, I think the harder into the fandom you go, the more it is disliked.
 
I don't hate the prequels that much. They're definitely a huge missed opportunity and a bit of a mess as far as storytelling goes, but I think they had some good qualities too. So they're not all bad. And I actually really liked Revenge of the Sith. It's still nowhere near the level of the OT but for a summer action flick I think it gets the job done. Basically, watching them on their own they're fine, but when in context with the entire saga they're a disappointment.

The prequels definitely have their moments. I really liked the way they handled Palpatine, for example. Not only did McDiarmid give a fantastic performance, but I think he was actually pretty well written too. His role gradually became more prominent as the films progressed and they added a mythos to his character that made him even more interesting.

I also liked the lightsaber battles. It's true there wasn't enough emphasis on the force and too much lightsaber stuff (the battle on Geonosis is amazingly dull), but there are some seriously awesome sword fights. The final battle in Phantom Menace springs to mind as well as Anakin vs Obi Wan. I understand the criticism that they're not as powerful as the OT battles, but going back to what I said about summer action flicks, they're cool action sequences.

The problem is that these great moments are way too far in between. I remember watching The Phantom Menace as a kid and being bored out of my mind and only really watching to see Darth Maul at the end. Unfortunately, with the exception of RoTS imo, the negatives far outweigh the positives and ruin the movie and in some instances they ruin things about the OT.
 
There were annoying elements in the prequels (e.g. the ridiculously acrobatics by Yoda, Jar Jar, the exaggerated portrayal of anger by the main character), but overall I enjoyed them, especially the last one. Compared to the other Star Wars films (and I bet this is what a lot of people do: compare) I found them way less enjoyable. But I don't think that these elements make the films bad. I have already read others saying that they liked these films, so saying that these "are" bad is simply not correct.
Maturin said:
7,7 on Imdb is quite good for a "bad" film.
Click to expand...
It sure is.
 
Last edited:
SinisterMinisterX said:
Really? I was just about horrified by Padme. Portman was apparently in a contest with Christiansen for "most wooden acting". We rightfully make fun of "I don't like sand" as the worst, but most of what those two said is just as cringe-inducing.

Mace Windu?? What was his purpose besides getting Samuel L. Jackson's famous face on screen? We never had any reason to care for that character. He's just Space Jules.

Even the two good acting jobs - Obi Wan and Palpatine - were hamstrung by the script they had to work with.
Click to expand...

I never really paid much attention to Padme. She's a pawn in the plot, although being the ruler of the Naboo she ought to have come across as mature. I don't think she was ever intended to be the Leia of the prequels. Mace, again, I saw more as scene setting. The Jedi Council come across as cold and out of touch, which works well in the context of the plot, only Yoda really has personality. As for Obi-Wan, he's meant to be slightly duty bound and uncaring too, isn't he? I found Qui-Gon had more personality, not unlike the older Obi Wan in the original trilogy, even if he could be unemotional too. Palpatine works, imo, plays it very straight, hiding his true character. Knowing what comes next, Palpatine is irritatingly courteous and mock-caring.

But what would have worked much better is if Anakin was the only character there who generated great audience empathy. If it had been possible to really identify with him and share his pain, he would have presented a great contrast to a cold and unfeeling galaxy.
 
Glorified fan fiction.

Although there's some good stuff. I liked Shadows of the Empire and Darth Bane was pretty cool.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top