Please upgrade your browser for the best possible experience.

Chrome Firefox Internet Explorer

Why The Original Trilogy Wasn't Much Better Than The Prequels

STAR WARS: The Old Republic > English > STAR WARS Discussion
Why The Original Trilogy Wasn't Much Better Than The Prequels

AbelMorvant's Avatar

02.11.2012 , 10:55 PM | #1
Edit: I had to post the actual text from the article because the link contains profanity in the address, but this was not written by me and was taken from a different site.

So the first of the Star Wars movies to be released in 3D is Episode I: The Phantom Menace, the first in the new prequel trilogy. I'm an ultra-Star Wars geek, I'm the type of guy who reads the books that explains a lot of the back drops to the Star Wars universe (Nerds call this the Expanded Universe, EU for short). Episode I is the least of my favorite movies, but it's still an entertaining movie. However, there is a huge fan base of prequel haters that bring up relevant points as to why the prequels were **** such as this guy:

If you didn't watch the video (and I don't blame you or expect you to, think of me posting that link more as citing a source) it's a hour and a half *********** review of why The Phantom Menace sucks. Although it's an entertaining review, holds some rather valid points, and is also absolutely *********** hysterical - it also holds the original trilogy in a position of being flawless compared to the prequels. This guy has one of these types of review for each prequel film by the way.

The reason why I cite this is although he points out some creative observations, he ignores that some of the things he complains about can very well be said about the original trilogy. Now prequel haters holds his reviews as some sort of bible for hating prequel trilogies.

I play the latest Star Wars game "The Old Republic" frequently and occasionally look at the forums asnd whenever anything in the prequels is mentioned this dude's reviews are mentioned. Why am I saying this? Because some of the points he says, although funny, have become common arguments fvor prequel haters.

I'm not going to recap all of the points made, so I will try to generalize these complaints the best that I can:

Plot holes
There are several plot holes through out the Phantom Menace, what does the Trade Federation want with Naboo? Why is the Trade Federation working with a Sith Lord? My question is, does any of this **** matter? Can't you just accept that these are greedy *********** ******es that wanty Naboo under their control, does it really have to be more detailed than that?

The thing that bothers me about it is although those are logical points, they're subtle ones that I really don't give a **** about the details. However, the original trilogy even though it had fewer ones, it had larger more aggravating ones and were thrown right into this at the beginning of A New Hope. The empire just captured a rebel ship and are looking for stolen plans, an escape pod is released and an imperial officer gives the command "don't fire, there's no life signs". This had me aggravated for years and screaming inside my head "mother ****er, the thing you're looking for ISN'T a life form, why the **** are you letting that go!?" It's aggravating because the Empire are supposed to be an elite organization of cold but logical men. It's not even about them being too arrogant, it's about these officers being utterly *********** stupid.

Then lets not forget how the death Star just slowly moves along to blow up the rebel base rather than just rushing in from light speed and firing at the mother *********** thing, or how about a moon sized battle station not carrying enough fighters to take on a small rebel fleet? Or how about Ewoks going toe to toe with storm troopers? Or how about the Emperor being stupid enough to bait in a rebel fleet when his battle station is only halfway complete?

One plot hole that the cited review mentions is how "stupid" it is that Yoda allows Obi-Wan to train a boy who he isn't so sure of. Yet, he did the same... exact... mother *********** thing in Empire and you know what? It's less reasonable for Yoda to give in in Empire Strikes Back, why the **** should Yoda listen to Obi-Wan? You don't even need to watch the prequels to see the ******** because it was already claimed in A New Hope that Obi-Wan trained the most dangerous mother ****er in the universe and Yoda is going to let him talk him into this **** AGAIN?

The Fighting
Another major complaint is how flashy the fighting is, to further this more they complain about how angry Obi-Wan gets and then goes into almost a break dance style of fighting with Darth Maul. It's about the emotion but if I gave a **** about emotion when watching movies I'd just read the books so I can get more details about what the characters are thinking. Movies have one sole purpose - To be eye catching.

The fighting in the older trilogy was entertaining for its time because "HOLY *********** **** LASER SWORD FIGHTS!" and of course they were usually the climax. When I go to see a movie I want to see action, but I don't want to see "realistic" action because if that was the case, I'd just watch the UFC. When you have a movie that has things like moving **** without touching it then it's perfectly ok to twist the realities of other elements.

Annoying Characters
I wouldn't dare defending Jar Jar Binks, even though kids love him. But does anybody remember how gay you thought C3PO was before watching Episode I? Do you remember the Ewoks? Do you remember "bad ***" Boba Fett getting knocked down into a sarlaac pit Three Stooges style? I mention that because I loved the concept of Boba Fett up until I watched that scene. Right when you think you're about to see an epic fight between the galaxy's last Jedi and its best bounty hunter the mother ****er gets his jet pack bumped and flies into a wall and slides down into a pit Wyle E. Coyote style.

I don't mind people who hates the prequel trilogy, I'm just saying you're hating them for reasons which is the most annoying part about it. I love the Original Trilogy far more than the prequels but not because of plot holes and other dumb ****, but because it was entertaining eye candy that I grew up with. That is the most annoying thing about these arguements. Loving the Original Trilogy while hating the prequels because you think the prequels make less sense is the equivalent of a meth head saying crack is bad for you: It may be a lot worse, but meth is still pretty *********** bad.

Although I like the Original trilogy far more the prequels actually compliments them and make them better. The prequels show the proper training of a Jedi, Luke's training seems all the more rushed and much more raw. It gives Luke's training a sense of "I need to hurry up and become a bad ***". The prequels start out very clean and big, with too much **** going on, and this is one of the biggest complaints about the prequels. To me it compliments the originals in a sense that when you get to ANH after the **** hit the fan and the Empire took over, it's so raw and has an almost post-apocalyptic essence to it. Watching how this universe progresses from being very clean, shiny, and beautiful to raw, grainy, and even a sense of isolation only empathizes what the Empire has done to the galaxy since Palpatine rose to power.

If you're going to dislike the prequels, dislike it for the real reasons which is that it's simply not the movies you grew up with.

eadnams's Avatar

02.11.2012 , 11:14 PM | #2
Original Trilogy has nostalgia, tha'ts about it. Other than that, Lucas continued where he left off in 3-6, but the audience had grown up/changed expectations.

Gantoris_Aym's Avatar

02.11.2012 , 11:21 PM | #3
The original Trilogy only changed the way movies were made for the next 30 something years, and it was completely Original for it's time...can you say that about the prequels?

and this thread doesn't support the title...It only supports not hating the prequels, and I don't hate them.

JDTC's Avatar

02.11.2012 , 11:21 PM | #4
Quote: Originally Posted by eadnams View Post
Original Trilogy has nostalgia, tha'ts about it. Other than that, Lucas continued where he left off in 3-6, but the audience had grown up/changed expectations.
4-6 and 1-3 are pretty different from each other in style and composition. better or worse aside, the prequels arent just a continuation. the direction and writing is not entirely comparable.
i support powertech

Amalice's Avatar

02.11.2012 , 11:27 PM | #5
I remember when Star Wars first came out. I saw it 29 times the first week. For that era it was greater than even Avatar was for this modern time. If you are not old enough to have seen the movies when they first came out you will not understand.

AbelMorvant's Avatar

02.11.2012 , 11:29 PM | #6
Quote: Originally Posted by Gantoris_Aym View Post
The original Trilogy only changed the way movies were made for the next 30 something years, and it was completely Original for it's time...can you say that about the prequels?

and this thread doesn't support the title...It only supports not hating the prequels, and I don't hate them.
No and your absolutely right, and that's the whole point of the post.

The original series is better because it was the original, not because it didn't have plot holes and crappy acting - Because it did. but it was original and great for its time and like you said, changed film making, but by the time the prequels were released that style of film making was no longer original, it had already been done.

The reason why newer movies aren't as "good" as older ones is because those bars had already been lifted. They don't live up to the older ones because more and more things have already been done over the years. In other words, I don't think we'll see another film that pushes the bar because I think the bar has already been pushed very close to its limit.

Edit: and yes, it does support the title, there are various points about the original trilogies plot holes that are made that are almost or just as bad as the flaws that people point out in the prequels.

Munashe's Avatar

02.11.2012 , 11:30 PM | #7
All dope points

Wolfninjajedi's Avatar

02.11.2012 , 11:45 PM | #8
If that guy really did read books, he should know the legion on Endor were killing the Ewoks and forcing them to retreat and only by Chewie hijacking an AT-ST did the battle turn around. The movie didn't really do a good job on portraying that.
"There is one lesson you've yet to learn. How to become one with the Force!"
―Cin Drallig to Darth Vader

Maucs the Tauntaun King, former SWG player.

AbelMorvant's Avatar

02.11.2012 , 11:57 PM | #9
Quote: Originally Posted by Wolfninjajedi View Post
If that guy really did read books, he should know the legion on Endor were killing the Ewoks and forcing them to retreat and only by Chewie hijacking an AT-ST did the battle turn around. The movie didn't really do a good job on portraying that.
That doesn't really make their presence any less annoying

Seisaan's Avatar

02.12.2012 , 12:27 AM | #10
-The motivations of the Trade Federation are important. George added a complexity to Star Wars that the characters needed to follow as well. The Trade Federation was not just a generic evil Empire, their motivation was to get space taxes changed. And, yes it is possible they're just greedy, but greedy people don't risk their entire investments on the word of someone they don't know.

- I agree on the "no life signs" thing. If anything, George should remove the scene as it just causes unnecessary confusion and really serves no purpose anyway.

- The Death Star not immediately wiping out the rebel base was just to add tension to the scene. Or perhaps the Death Star's trajectory didn't allow it to come out of hyperspace on the other side of Endor and, rather than wasting resources on bouncing around the planet, they just said, "Screw it, close enough. Lets just move around." After all, Tarkin was very confident they would win and probably wanted to savor their "moment of victory".

- Ewok thing already pointed out.

- The Emperor didn't count on a bunch of Ewoks to come in and fight for the Rebellion. Hell, it was pretty lucky the Rebels found the Ewoks in the first place. If Leia hadn't crashed her speeder, the assault group would have been captured and the rebel fleet destroyed.

- Anakin was to undergo training as a Jedi which they all sensed was dangerous (which brings up a plot hole in of itself) while Luke was trained to be a weapon. Yoda and Obi-Wan wanted to use Luke to kill Vader and the Emperor to wipe out the Sith once and for all. They even had a contingency plan to use Leia should Luke fail and either be killed or fall to the Dark Side.

- Yes, the fights in the original trilogy were impressive for the time because "ZOMG LAZER SWORDS", but the fights also had an emotional impact as well. Ben vs Vader was master and apprentice fighting with Ben ultimately sacrificing himself so he could continue Luke's training. The Cloud City Duel was Luke confronting the man he thought killed his father only to realize Vader was his father. The duel on the Death Star was about Luke trying to save his father from the Dark Side and, once Vader begins to taunt him, Luke snaps and gives in to his emotions. He just wails away at Vader, but eventually realizes his actions are making him follow his father's path and overcomes his anger.

The duel at Phantom Menace used a villain we knew nothing about who's sole purpose was to move the plot along. There could have been a moment where Obi-Wan overcomes his anger after Qui-Gon dies (you do see a brief moment of anger), but you don't see him overcome it. He just goes out and fights. Really, if the scene of Obi-Wan overcoming his anger had been a bit longer and explored that more, it would have been fine. The duel at Episode 2 really had no emotional attachment at all. It was really just the Jedi trying to stop who they thought to be the mastermind behind the war. Again, Yoda and Dooku's fight could have had more emotional weight behind it, but Dooku's past as a Jedi and apprentice to Yoda was never really explored and they only mentioned each other in one or two throw away lines. The duel between Anakin and Obi-Wan certainly had more going for it. Really, if the acting had been better, the emotional attachment would have been more profound, but ultimately, it just becomes a cool fight scene with nice special effects.

- Saying movies are meant to be eye candy is purely opinion. There are a ton of excellent movies out there that have no eye catching features about them because they tell a good story or have interesting characters.

- C3PO is pretty annoying, but I still think Jar Jar takes the prize on that one.

- Again, Ewok thing already mentioned.

- Boba Fett was never really a bad *** until the EU fleshed him out. Before that he just stood around, said a couple lines, and took some pot shots at Luke. He was never meant to be a beloved character. Like Maul, he was just a tool to get the plot going and was thrown away once his job was done.

- When it boils down to it, the prequels do make less sense than the original movies. The overall plot for the original trilogy was very simplistic in nature. The prequels tried to add complexity and add in politics and actual motivations for characters which didn't work as well because of poor writing, acting, directing, etc. Its the reason why the novelizations of the prequels are so much better and are able to be understood with no difficulty.

- Luke's training was rushed.

- The look of each trilogy argument makes sense. Still doesn't excuse why every frame needs to be a cluster **** though.

- I do dislike them for real reasons. Those being George cant direct or write to save his life and failed to realize film making is a collaborative process. When you create something you take pride in, you often overlook the flaws you may have created. This is why editors exist. They can point out things you overlook and help to make you realize why certain things need to be removed or changed. Apparently, George didn't like this concept, but that was his call to make.