NOOOOOOOO! George Lucas is at it again.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Null

Null

The one that bothers me, oddly, is the door to Jabba's Palace, replacing it with enormous CGI. Instead of thinking, "Wow, Jabba's fortress looks ancient, run-down, and spooky," I see that and think, "This looks like a cutscene from God of War."
 
Espy

Espy

Null said:
The one that bothers me, oddly, is the door to Jabba's Palace, replacing it with enormous CGI. Instead of thinking, "Wow, Jabba's fortress looks ancient, run-down, and spooky," I see that and think, "This looks like a cutscene from God of War."
Click to expand...
Man, I loved that old fortress. So cool looking.

Really the whole thing goes back to Jaws.
Jaws you say? Yes. Jaws, or at least the principle learned from Jaws. See, they didn't have a ton of money when they made Jaws. So they had these shark puppets that were... mediocre. They had lots of issues with them. They couldn't just CGI in some SUPERAWESOME shark, they had to make do with what they had. It made them work even harder to make the whole thing work. And it worked out for the best. We ended up with a movie that focused on tension rather than OMGSUPERCOOLCGITHING. Or in other words: Less is more.
That idea holds true for Lucas. When he has limitations he creates some great stuff. When he has no limitation we end up with some things that have a lot of flash but not a lot of substance because he doesn't really have to focus on the substance to make it work.
 
P

Philosopher B.

The reason the prequels get so much hate is they were lazily directed, clunkily written, and blandly (at best, except for maybe Ian Mcdiarmid) acted. Yeah, the originals weren't amazing in the acting category either, but you gave a shit as to what was onscreen, as opposed to the prequels' CGI vomit. Also, there was no excuse to squander a cast with that many talented members. I could go on for a bit, but few things I'd say can't be found in the Red Letter Media reviews.

As for Lucas' fucking about, I initially didn't believe the supposed changes were real, due to that krayt-dragon noise being one of the silliest goddamn things I have ever heard. I can't believe anyone could listen to that and honestly think it improved anything, therefore I am forced to conclude Lucas does these things simply to get off, wiping up the jizzum and nerd tears with hundred-dollar bills.
 
Just Me

Just Me

My greatest hate for the prequels simply comes from what Lucas did to the great enigmatic character of Boba Fett.
Not everything has to be explained. Not everyone needs a detailed background (an 3 comic books series, a Tv special and 3 novels plus 10 action figure variants).
Boba was the ultimate cool badass. Now all I can think when I see him in the originals is "Hello Boba, is your father here?".
Come to think about it, it's the same with Vader...
 
P

Philosopher B.

When I was just a lad (looking for my true vocation), I used to day-dream about Darth Vader traipsing about on different planets, hunting down grizzled Jedi and having it out with them, man with no name style. A prequel would be badass, I reasoned. You could show all kinds of cool shit.

What I got was angels, Jar-Jar, trade embargoes, and a lot of walking through corridors and sitting about on couches contrasted with OMG CGI EVERYWHERE battles.
 
Null

Null

The biggest problem, as has often been said, is that there was no one in a position to say, "I'm sorry George, but that's just not a good idea, and we're not doing it that way."

Likewise, you got this idea in the OT that the Jedi and Republic were good things, things worth saving or bringing back. In the Prequels, you find out that the Republic was a corrupt useless failing government; the Rebellion was more or less started by autocrats and disenfranchised politicians who wanted to return to power, not the common people of the galaxy; and that the Jedi were idiots who deserved what they got.

"According to our prophecies, this boy is literally the most important person in the galaxy. He sure seems to miss his mom, wasn't she a slave on some crime-riddled desert hellhole? Since he's not like the infants we usually take from their families, he's actually got a sense of attachment to her, which we should probably try and compensate for." "Eh, he'll get over it, it's really not worth the effort of sending someone to buy her freedom and start her off on a less hostile world. Still, he's going to need a wise hand to guide him, since he holds the fate of the galaxy as his destiny." "Well, how about the teenager that came in with him? You know, the kid who was just barely promoted to Knight after his first mission, and has absolutely no experience training anyone?" "Yeah, that should be good enough." "I don't see how any of this could possibly go wrong."
 
Espy

Espy

Philosopher B. said:
When I was just a lad (looking for my true vocation), I used to day-dream about Darth Vader traipsing about on different planets, hunting down grizzled Jedi and having it out with them, man with no name style. A prequel would be badass, I reasoned. You could show all kinds of cool shit.

What I got was angels, Jar-Jar, trade embargoes, and a lot of walking through corridors and sitting about on couches contrasted with OMG CGI EVERYWHERE battles.
Click to expand...
So very much this.
 
fade

fade

Staff member
And honestly, that kind of sums up my point, too. The prequels were doomed to look worse subjectively to fans. The problem with analyzing what's wrong with the prequels is many-fold. My point isn't that there isn't anything wrong with the prequels. Oh, most definitely there is. My dislikes are actually pretty much the same as everyone else's in this case. My problem is that I just don't think they lag so far behind the original trilogy. I could go through the same exercise of pointing out plot stupidity in the OT, too. I guess my point is that that was everyone's first inclination with the prequels. They were doomed to be picked apart. A lot of arguments against the prequels are biased heavily as "here's what's wrong with the prequels, but what's right with the OT", which is kind of apples and oranges in a way.
 
Shegokigo

Shegokigo

Took the words I was looking for, right out of my mouth fade.

That's why as kids so many people were in awe of the OT, while today's children find them boring, yet find the NT as exciting and prefer them.

It's really a generational thing and Lucas is pretty successfully finding a way to meld the two generations together.
 
Espy

Espy

You know, the discussion is kind of pointless when any real criticism based on narrative, story and character is dismissed as "oh you guys are so subjective and you just rely on nostalgia, etc".

But, eh, who really cares I suppose. Enjoy the prequels if they rock your boat the right way :)
 
fade

fade

Staff member
That's not what I said at all if you're talking about me. I haven't dismissed a thing. In fact, as I've explicitly said I agree with the objective criticisms. What I don't agree with are what I feel are subjective ones. The discussion also becomes pointless if no one will acknowledge prejudice either. It kind of feels like my argument is being, well, waved off as a wave off. My point is, sure, there's a lack of character arc for most of the characters in the prequels, but really, there is in the OT, too. What do we have in the OT? A couple of tired, done hero tracts of several varieties. Better than the prequels? Certainly, but not exactly stellar, if you want to be objective.

EDIT: In fact, objectivity was what I was asking for when I said that saying "Prequels are bad because X and OT is good because Y" isn't a valid, objective comparison. It's inherently biased, and inherently biasing.
 
Null

Null

But the difference is that in the OT, the actors work well together. You accept the aliens as being part of the environment, even if more than a few of them are objectively silly, because for the most part, they don't break your suspension of disbelief. The plot is general enough that you can get away with more. Moreover, even if the characters are standard stock characters, they meshed well. You believe in Han and Leia because they have chemistry - he's an independent loner and she's strong-willed and smart enough to challenge him; his intentional lack of courtesy, facade of disinterest, and improvised heroics intruige her. It works.

On the other hand, the actors in the prequels generally have very little chemistry. Obi-Wan always looks vaguely annoyed with Anakin, and every discussion devolves into "You were right," "No, you were also kind of right." Anakin acts like a creepy stalker to Padme, and she seems dully surprised at his every action. Then he has a murderously psychotic episode resulting from grief, and that apparently equals love. Then there's the aliens from the stupid bucket. Sure, some of the OT aliens look goofy, but none of them look as stupid as the Courderoy Faces (Utapau?), Two-headed Dipshit Announcer, Blue Burrito (one of the Senators), Conehead (Ki-Adi-Mundi), or Pinhead (the Jedi with the long neck and tiny head).

The characterization may be shallow in the OT, but the actors were good enough or the direction was good enough to make it live. In the prequels, it's worse, and if the characters are boring, the adventure falls flat.
 
checkeredhat

checkeredhat

Null said:
The biggest problem, as has often been said, is that there was no one in a position to say, "I'm sorry George, but that's just not a good idea, and we're not doing it that way."

Likewise, you got this idea in the OT that the Jedi and Republic were good things, things worth saving or bringing back. In the Prequels, you find out that the Republic was a corrupt useless failing government; the Rebellion was more or less started by autocrats and disenfranchised politicians who wanted to return to power, not the common people of the galaxy; and that the Jedi were idiots who deserved what they got.

"According to our prophecies, this boy is literally the most important person in the galaxy. He sure seems to miss his mom, wasn't she a slave on some crime-riddled desert hellhole? Since he's not like the infants we usually take from their families, he's actually got a sense of attachment to her, which we should probably try and compensate for." "Eh, he'll get over it, it's really not worth the effort of sending someone to buy her freedom and start her off on a less hostile world. Still, he's going to need a wise hand to guide him, since he holds the fate of the galaxy as his destiny." "Well, how about the teenager that came in with him? You know, the kid who was just barely promoted to Knight after his first mission, and has absolutely no experience training anyone?" "Yeah, that should be good enough." "I don't see how any of this could possibly go wrong."
Click to expand...
Also, lets hide the most dangerous man in the universe's twin children with his family, and one of the leaders of the rebellion he hopes to crush. He'll never find them there!
 
Dei

Dei

I like the story behind the Prequels. I hate the bad acting and the horrific dialogue from Anakin. (Holy fuck do I want to drown the 2nd prequel in a vat of acid.)
 
Hailey Knight

Hailey Knight

I'll say Attack of the Clones is not only the worst of the movies in execution, but also in concept. We've been over the bad acting, action scenes with no plot significance, confused plot, bad love story, etc. in the past, but my next big gripe is this movie happens before the actual war--it's a boring build-up to a war, not even a politically intriguing or emotional build-up like in Final Fantasy Tactics or A Game of Thrones, but just a series of non-events leading to a war being secretly engineered. If it weren't for the cartoon, you'd see none of it--the next movie begins with the end of that war. I don't see why Lucas felt people would want to see the boring nothing happening rather than the conflict that actually led to the downfall of the Republic. That's just stupid.

And then when someone does show those events, very well, he brings about a hammy, horrible series of his own to show them his way. Which is what he should've done with the second prequel in the fucking first place.
 
B

Biannoshufu

Shego and fade agree and once again, I will politely sit on the other side of the argument. I pretty much think a fan should recut the prequels into a single film. Because really.
 
B

Biannoshufu

I really think most of I is useless, and that any film would be mostly a blend of II and III
 
Null

Null

Quotemander Prime said:
True.
Click to expand...
Actually, I think that's the biggest problem with the prequels - massive amounts of them are spent on characters or events that ultimately are irrelevant, especially in Episode I. The largest amount of time is spent following Liam Neeson, who doesn't really do much except be a kind of racist asshole and stubborn prick; trade federation baddies who were incompetent cowards; and Darth Maul, who looked really badass for all 7 and 1/2 minutes he was in the movie. Anakin being an immaculately conceived, messianic figure? Terrible. And oh yeah, a half-hour of podrace, where the plot says, "I'm going to pick up a six pack and some smokes, here's some speedy CGI to watch while I'm gone."

C-3PO shouldn't have been in the prequels at all.

Compare that to Episode IV: it establishes the characters and their roles, it shows the stakes of the conflict - destroying a wealthy, populated planet as a demonstration of Imperial might, and it uses great action scenes to further the story or underscore the characters' nature. The only "unnecessary" scene in Episode IV is the trash compactor scene, and it's thankfully brief.
 
fade

fade

Staff member
I thought Qui-Gon was crucial. Even when I was a kid, I read Yoda and especially Obi-Wan as basically telling Luke to be a gray sort of Jedi. Lines in the OT like, "Your emotions do you credit" wouldn't have flown in the old Jedi Order. Luke brought balance to the Force because he didn't walk the extreme path of (old) Jedi or Sith. I loved when Qui-Gon showed up, because he was almost a confirmation of this theory. He was a rebel within the order. He wasn't afraid to tell the rest of the Council to fuck off. His charges, Obi-Wan and Anakin, clearly very powerful Force users slip to either side of the central path he espouses, and then Luke gets it right. He brings balance to the Force, and in a way, centers Obi-Wan and Anakin in the process, too.
 
Shegokigo

Shegokigo

fade said:
I thought Qui-Gon was crucial. Even when I was a kid, I read Yoda and especially Obi-Wan as basically telling Luke to be a gray sort of Jedi. Lines in the OT like, "Your emotions do you credit" wouldn't have flown in the old Jedi Order. Luke brought balance to the Force because he didn't walk the extreme path of (old) Jedi or Sith. I loved when Qui-Gon showed up, because he was almost a confirmation of this theory. He was a rebel within the order. He wasn't afraid to tell the rest of the Council to fuck off. His charges, Obi-Wan and Anakin, clearly very powerful Force users slip to either side of the central path he espouses, and then Luke gets it right. He brings balance to the Force, and in a way, centers Obi-Wan and Anakin in the process, too.
Click to expand...
Perfectly said. Couldn't agree more. Would like it twice if I could.
 
B

Biannoshufu

Qui Gon was wasted throughout much of the film, and his best scenes could be whittled down to a five minute dialogue at the Jedi Temple and subsequent death scenes if that. See "Watto." He was inserted into the film to schlim schlam the Force through a handwavium rectum, gather the sympathy of the kiddies seeing the film for Jar Jar, and then surprise, he's killed at the end to give the film some emotional heft. It's like George used the spinning wheel of plot to write it. Maybe Velcro darts.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top