(First: If you love the prequels, post somewhere else. This thread is for those of us who were epically disappointed)

 

Now, of course I cope by just being all "**** it" but from a story standpoint, the prequels still need addressing. The story was bad, and inconsistent with things said in ep4, 5, and 6. So which wins when inconsistencies and contradictions hit?

 

This is how I figure it. If we pretend that these things actually happened (which they didn't) and that the stories we've been told were passed down through history, the original trilogy is likely the more accurate, because it was witnessed by Luke, Han, and Leia who won at Endor and passed the story on to their children.

 

The prequels were witnessed by Obi-Wan who hid in a desert for 20 years and we've already heard all he passes on to Luke about what happened (which is inconsistent in facts and tone with the filmed prequels). This means to flesh out the story of the prequels historians would have needed hearsay accounts, and indirect witnesses. Probably the most accurate parts of the prequels are the political bits because those would have had public records, but the story of Anikan's fall was personal and the people involved were either unavailable or dead when a record was made. Since I don't see Luke and Leia making up a story to fill the gap, I have to believe that some storyteller or record keeper fictionalized the fall of AS (made up the details) which is why it's so inconsistent and bad.

 

This explains how you get ridiculous elements like Anikan being concieved by the force, midi-chlorians, Obi-Wan not wanting to train the boy, then for weak reasons training him anyway, the council not wanting to train him, then for no reason whatsoever deciding to allow training him, the ridiculously unbelievable love story in which Anikan acts like a creepy douche 99% of the time yet still convinces Padme to marry him after 3 days, Mace Windu and all the Jedi's epic stupidity, etc.

 

So...that's how I deal. The prequels are a poor record of what happened and the original trilogy is an accurate historical account.

 

How do you cope? (and if your response is "I just don't care" then I just don't care )

Actually, someone once pointed out to me and I kind of agree with her after the prequels were done that the history is actually coming from R2. Prequels and OT. At the end of Episode III, notice that Senator Organa said to wipe the protocol droid and didn't say do the same to R2?

 

Now that means R2 never gets a memory wipe which I thought was a maintenance thing but oh well.

That's based on information gathered from the aforementioned poorly sourced prequel trilogy

Just reading the books fix almost everything. Theres still midichlorians and jar jar (sorry, those are as canon as ewoks, just gotta accept it and move on) but all the poor characterizations and **** disappear. Especially in Ep3, the difference in that book is staggering. I've come to realize the real reasons the movies are terrible is not the story, not at all, its the execution of telling that story in the movies. Bad acting and bad directing. Those are both swept under the rug what you read the novelizations.

 

(Yeah I've pretty much been spamming this forum with book endorsements lately, deal with it)

If you're interested in some outstanding and hilarious reviews of the Prequels, look up Red Letter Media on YouTube. There are reviews for each of the PT movies, and they're quite good.

1. I saw Star Wars in the movie when it first came out

2. I was completely disappointed with all three story lines with movies 2 and 3 being the worst;

A. could Anakin be made a bigger sissy?

B. I was sad there wasnt a bigger issue made of the Clone Wars

C. Anakin transformation to the Dark Side had huge gaps

3. To this date, I dont know which are worse, The Twilight movies or Star Wars, Episodes 1-3

disclaimer - I have only watched twilight for a few minutes when the wife had it on, the acting/story was so bad I had to go to the bathroom and throw up

 

cal

U mad?

Well problem is, Lucas films focused more on the lightsaber work and special affects instead of acting, and it shows.

I cope, by just ignoring the whole mess..

I too, saw "Star Wars" when it first came out, in a theater and it marked my memory. I can still remember walking out of the theater thinking, "Wow..".

Darth was the coolest "bad guy" I'd ever seen or have ever seen since.. He's the benchmark ALL try to live up to. Who the heck is the whiny, (no talent) kid on the screen in "Daddy's Big Boots"? That ain't Darth.. Obi 1, starts acting like an old man, long before he's an old man.. And Windu, he's just an idiot with a cool stick. In the whole mess, not one character acted like a leader..

 

Granted, Lucas had a lot to live up to, but come on.. not even close!

(And no one ever seems to mention how creepy it was for Padma to fall in love with a little kid.. Ewww...Or reverting the Force to some little bugs inside someone? That's a disgrace.)

Always liked the prequels, were bad parts yes, but perfection is overrated

I cope, by just ignoring the whole mess..

I too, saw "Star Wars" when it first came out, in a theater and it marked my memory. I can still remember walking out of the theater thinking, "Wow..".

Darth was the coolest "bad guy" I'd ever seen or have ever seen since.. He's the benchmark ALL try to live up to. Who the heck is the whiny, (no talent) kid on the screen in "Daddy's Big Boots"? That ain't Darth.. Obi 1, starts acting like an old man, long before he's an old man.. And Windu, he's just an idiot with a cool stick. In the whole mess, not one character acted like a leader..

 

Granted, Lucas had a lot to live up to, but come on.. not even close!

(And no one ever seems to mention how creepy it was for Padma to fall in love with a little kid.. Ewww...Or reverting the Force to some little bugs inside someone? That's a disgrace.)

 

She didn't fall in love with Anakin when he was a kid. He grew up and then it happen. Padme was a cougar.

If you're interested in some outstanding and hilarious reviews of the Prequels, look up Red Letter Media on YouTube. There are reviews for each of the PT movies, and they're quite good.

 

Everyone should watch these. Film students especially as they very precisely detail how the prequels fail as films, stories, arcs, characters, etc.

 

Lightsaber fights is great example someone else mentioned. Every fight in the original trilogy was between characters who had a mountain of history or connection. Obi-Wan fights his apprentice who turned to the darkside in ANH. In ESB Luke fights a man who has hunted him, hurt his friends to draw him out, a man who turns out to have a very real connection to him. In Jedi Luke battles his father for his soul (both their souls really).

 

In TPM, bad *** as Darth Maul looks, he's nothing. He has no history, no function beyond being the super ninja assassin sent after the good guys. But man was that some fancy fencing...zzzzzzzz. Honestly, the only way they could impress me with choreographed saber fights is if they performed them live. Cut up in film they could make an invalid look like they move with grace and agility. And frequently, the choreography got in the way of the acting...like when Obi-Wan seems to get upset that his master has been murdered, he fights with the same lack of feeling as the rest of the choreographed junk.

 

And it's just kind of shocking. After having every saber battle full of meaning in the original trilogy, for them to turn into sound and fury, signifying nothing in the prequels was just a huge miss. And they repeat their mistake over and over after that. We fight Grievous, the will-it-blend of saberists, snore. Then we fight Count Dooku, who again, no one cares about at all. He's never even shown doing anything particularly bad from what I recall. None of them are. The first time we see Vader in ANH, he's choking some guy to death. None of the bad guys in the prequels ever DO anything except Palpatine.

Edited March 7, 2013 by calypsissmexy

There's another, very similar discussion going on in another thread like this, so I forget where what has been said. However, the point about lightsaber duels in the two trilogies is one that I raised in the other discussion. I feel that it gets at the heart of the prequels' flaws, which is that the audience is never made to care about anything that's happening onscreen.

 

The closest they came to eliciting emotion from me was when the Clones are slaughtering the Jedi, because the sense of betrayal on the face of Ki-Adi Mundi summed up what the Jedi must have felt, to have their own troops gun them down.

 

Contrast this with the originals, when Luke is trying to destroy the Death Star before it wipes out the Rebel base on Yavin. Or Leia and Chewie racing to catch Boba Fett before he takes Han to Jabba the Hutt. All of the tension and conflict in the originals had emotional depth to it.

 

In the prequels, the anonymous Clones are battling the emotionless droids. Woo-hoo. Look at the explosions, isn't it exciting?

(First: If you love the prequels, post somewhere else. This thread is for those of us who were epically disappointed)

 

Now, of course I cope by just being all "**** it" but from a story standpoint, the prequels still need addressing. The story was bad, and inconsistent with things said in ep4, 5, and 6. So which wins when inconsistencies and contradictions hit?

 

This is how I figure it. If we pretend that these things actually happened (which they didn't) and that the stories we've been told were passed down through history, the original trilogy is likely the more accurate, because it was witnessed by Luke, Han, and Leia who won at Endor and passed the story on to their children.

 

The prequels were witnessed by Obi-Wan who hid in a desert for 20 years and we've already heard all he passes on to Luke about what happened (which is inconsistent in facts and tone with the filmed prequels). This means to flesh out the story of the prequels historians would have needed hearsay accounts, and indirect witnesses. Probably the most accurate parts of the prequels are the political bits because those would have had public records, but the story of Anikan's fall was personal and the people involved were either unavailable or dead when a record was made. Since I don't see Luke and Leia making up a story to fill the gap, I have to believe that some storyteller or record keeper fictionalized the fall of AS (made up the details) which is why it's so inconsistent and bad.

 

This explains how you get ridiculous elements like Anikan being concieved by the force, midi-chlorians, Obi-Wan not wanting to train the boy, then for weak reasons training him anyway, the council not wanting to train him, then for no reason whatsoever deciding to allow training him, the ridiculously unbelievable love story in which Anikan acts like a creepy douche 99% of the time yet still convinces Padme to marry him after 3 days, Mace Windu and all the Jedi's epic stupidity, etc.

 

So...that's how I deal. The prequels are a poor record of what happened and the original trilogy is an accurate historical account.

 

How do you cope? (and if your response is "I just don't care" then I just don't care )

 

Honestly? I just don't consider them to be canon. I don't care that they technically are. GL contradicted his own story so many times that I just consider them the true prequels. They are cinematic trash.

Everyone should watch these. Film students especially as they very precisely detail how the prequels fail as films, stories, arcs, characters, etc.

 

Lightsaber fights is great example someone else mentioned. Every fight in the original trilogy was between characters who had a mountain of history or connection. Obi-Wan fights his apprentice who turned to the darkside in ANH. In ESB Luke fights a man who has hunted him, hurt his friends to draw him out, a man who turns out to have a very real connection to him. In Jedi Luke battles his father for his soul (both their souls really).

 

In TPM, bad *** as Darth Maul looks, he's nothing. He has no history, no function beyond being the super ninja assassin sent after the good guys. But man was that some fancy fencing...zzzzzzzz. Honestly, the only way they could impress me with choreographed saber fights is if they performed them live. Cut up in film they could make an invalid look like they move with grace and agility. And frequently, the choreography got in the way of the acting...like when Obi-Wan seems to get upset that his master has been murdered, he fights with the same lack of feeling as the rest of the choreographed junk.

 

And it's just kind of shocking. After having every saber battle full of meaning in the original trilogy, for them to turn into sound and fury, signifying nothing in the prequels was just a huge miss. And they repeat their mistake over and over after that. We fight Grievous, the will-it-blend of saberists, snore. Then we fight Count Dooku, who again, no one cares about at all. He's never even shown doing anything particularly bad from what I recall. None of them are. The first time we see Vader in ANH, he's choking some guy to death. None of the bad guys in the prequels ever DO anything except Palpatine.

 

Fan boys of the prequels refuse to watch red letter media because....well, they don't want to admit how bad the prequels really are. I never understood people blind love of the prequels.

(First: If you love the prequels, post somewhere else. This thread is for those of us who were epically disappointed)

 

Now, of course I cope by just being all "**** it" but from a story standpoint, the prequels still need addressing. The story was bad, and inconsistent with things said in ep4, 5, and 6. So which wins when inconsistencies and contradictions hit?

 

This is how I figure it. If we pretend that these things actually happened (which they didn't) and that the stories we've been told were passed down through history, the original trilogy is likely the more accurate, because it was witnessed by Luke, Han, and Leia who won at Endor and passed the story on to their children.

 

The prequels were witnessed by Obi-Wan who hid in a desert for 20 years and we've already heard all he passes on to Luke about what happened (which is inconsistent in facts and tone with the filmed prequels). This means to flesh out the story of the prequels historians would have needed hearsay accounts, and indirect witnesses. Probably the most accurate parts of the prequels are the political bits because those would have had public records, but the story of Anikan's fall was personal and the people involved were either unavailable or dead when a record was made. Since I don't see Luke and Leia making up a story to fill the gap, I have to believe that some storyteller or record keeper fictionalized the fall of AS (made up the details) which is why it's so inconsistent and bad.

 

This explains how you get ridiculous elements like Anikan being concieved by the force, midi-chlorians, Obi-Wan not wanting to train the boy, then for weak reasons training him anyway, the council not wanting to train him, then for no reason whatsoever deciding to allow training him, the ridiculously unbelievable love story in which Anikan acts like a creepy douche 99% of the time yet still convinces Padme to marry him after 3 days, Mace Windu and all the Jedi's epic stupidity, etc.

 

So...that's how I deal. The prequels are a poor record of what happened and the original trilogy is an accurate historical account.

 

How do you cope? (and if your response is "I just don't care" then I just don't care )

 

It's 2013... Get Over It.

It's 2013... Get Over It.

 

Yeah, it's not like people are making games based on these properties today, or planning to film movies in this series, clearly there's no current relevance to this...wait.

Edited March 8, 2013 by calypsissmexy

(First: If you love the prequels, post somewhere else. This thread is for those of us who were epically disappointed)

 

Now, of course I cope by just being all "**** it" but from a story standpoint, the prequels still need addressing. The story was bad, and inconsistent with things said in ep4, 5, and 6. So which wins when inconsistencies and contradictions hit?

 

This is how I figure it. If we pretend that these things actually happened (which they didn't) and that the stories we've been told were passed down through history, the original trilogy is likely the more accurate, because it was witnessed by Luke, Han, and Leia who won at Endor and passed the story on to their children.

 

The prequels were witnessed by Obi-Wan who hid in a desert for 20 years and we've already heard all he passes on to Luke about what happened (which is inconsistent in facts and tone with the filmed prequels). This means to flesh out the story of the prequels historians would have needed hearsay accounts, and indirect witnesses. Probably the most accurate parts of the prequels are the political bits because those would have had public records, but the story of Anikan's fall was personal and the people involved were either unavailable or dead when a record was made. Since I don't see Luke and Leia making up a story to fill the gap, I have to believe that some storyteller or record keeper fictionalized the fall of AS (made up the details) which is why it's so inconsistent and bad.

 

This explains how you get ridiculous elements like Anikan being concieved by the force, midi-chlorians, Obi-Wan not wanting to train the boy, then for weak reasons training him anyway, the council not wanting to train him, then for no reason whatsoever deciding to allow training him, the ridiculously unbelievable love story in which Anikan acts like a creepy douche 99% of the time yet still convinces Padme to marry him after 3 days, Mace Windu and all the Jedi's epic stupidity, etc.

 

So...that's how I deal. The prequels are a poor record of what happened and the original trilogy is an accurate historical account.

 

How do you cope? (and if your response is "I just don't care" then I just don't care )

 

Why do you even care?Luke ,Solo,Anakin and all those people are terrible and boring anyway,

Forget all this movies nonsense and focus on the *OLD* Republic.Revan,Malak Freedon Nadd,old Sith Empire,this Sith Empire,Exar Kun,Malgus ,ect,ect,ect,jedi Exile,Darth Nox,Emperor's Wrath,Kreia,Baras,Thanaton and so many others.

These characters are so much more epic and interesting than the melodrama carebear Luke,Anakin,Leia,Obi-Wan nonsense.

 

Everything before the Ruusan Reformation is so much better in terms of characters,story,events,ect.Don't know what all this SW movies hype is.They are bad... all of them .The prequels are a joke and the sequels are a joke.

The movies have life lightsaber action,jedi and sith in them and they started it all(the franchise),that is all they are good for.

Edited March 9, 2013 by Kaedusz

The prequels were not good movies. I still enjoyed them.

 

Can't wait for 7-9.

The prequels were incredibly terrible, but all of the "inconsistencies" I've ever heard of turn out to be hair splitting silly reasoning garbage, so I'm curious as to what you all consider to be inconsistent. Edited March 9, 2013 by DarkDisturbed

If you're interested in some outstanding and hilarious reviews of the Prequels, look up Red Letter Media on YouTube. There are reviews for each of the PT movies, and they're quite good.

 

Oh god no, don't get me started on him.

Yeah, it's not like people are making games based on these properties today, or planning to film movies in this series, clearly there's no current relevance to this...wait.

 

Yeah, and the Clone Wars Rocks....so ?

The prequels were incredibly terrible, but all of the "inconsistencies" I've ever heard of turn out to be hair splitting silly reasoning garbage, so I'm curious as to what you all consider to be inconsistent.

 

TBH I'm much less concerned with the inconsistencies as I am the general ****tiness of the prequels. But there are some glaring ones, like Leia knowing her mother. You can call that hairsplitting, but the scene where she mentions it was touching, and then in the prequels her mom dies a second after she has the babies...kinda messing that up. And that's the inconsistency that bugs me the most...tonal inconsistency. Original trilogy has emotional depth. Prequels are like a little kid telling a story..."And then, and then, and then..."

 

A possible implication was that Luke and Leia's mother had lived on Alderaan with her for a short time before succumbing to either and illness or grief or whatever. That's why Leia has memories of her and Luke, who was sent to Tattooine, doesn't. Maybe she was from Alderaan and that's why she went there with her baby? Maybe she was a queen or a member of the royal family and that's why Leia is a princess? I find this a much more interesting connection to the original trilogy than some random planet where some random queen is trapped by a trade embargo that serves no purpose and then and then and then...meh.

You people ***** and moan about the prequels so often, but the fact of the matter is that they're not going away at all, better to accept them than to continue complaining about something you'll never be able to get rid of or change. I love all six movies, the OT has problems just like the PT, seems that more people whine about some bs in the prequels, those same things (or at least similar) existed in the OT as well.

Oh god no, don't get me started on him.

 

Do you dislike the reviews for their style, or do you actually disagree with the content of the review's criticisms of the films?