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.

Epilogue

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

-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.

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.

I don't think you read the books.

If you read RotJ novilization you would see that the Storm Troopers never have them in retreat.

Here are a couple of exerts that take place before Chewbacca gets on the ATST

The little bears were hanging on the legs of the Imperial Walkers, hobbling the appendages with lengths of vine, or injuring the joint mechanisms by forcing pebbles and twigs into the hinges. They were knocking scouts off their bikes, by stringing vine between trees at throat level. They were throwing rocks, jumping out of trees, impaling with spears, entangling with nets. They were everywhere.

 

 

 

On Endor, the battle of the bunker continued. Stormtroopers kept irradiating Ewoks with sophisticated weaponry, while the fuzzy little warriors bashed away at the Imperial troops with clubs, tumbled walkers with logpiles and vine trip-wires, lassoed speeder bikes with vine-ropes and net-traps.

Meanwhile the Ewoks had erected a primitive catapult at the other side of the field. They fired a large boulder at one of the walkers - the machine vibrated seriously, but did not topple. It turned, and headed for the catapult, laser cannon firing. The Ewoks scattered. When the walker was ten feet away, the Ewoks chopped a mass of restraining vines, and two huge, balanced trunks crashed down on top of the Imperial war wagon, halting it for good.

 

The next phase of the assault began. Ewoks in kite-like animal-skin hang-gliders started dropping rocks on the stormtroopers, or dive-bombing with spears. Teebo, who led the attack, was hit in the wing with laser fire during the first volley and crashed into a gnarled root. A charging walker clumped forward to crush him, but Wicket swooped down just in time, yanking Teebo to safety. In swerving out of the walker's way, though, Wicket smashed into a racing speeder bike - they all went tumbling into the dense foliage.

 

And so it went.

 

The casualties mounted.

That's really the only line that would indicate that the Ewoks even lost anyone. Other then that the Ewoks kick even more *** in the Book then they do in the Movie.

They felled trees on their foes. They dug pits which they covered with branches, and then lured the walkers to chase them until the clumsy armored vehicles toppled into the dug-outs. They started rockslides. They dammed a small, nearby stream, and then opened the floodgates, deluging a host of troops and two more walkers. They ganged up, and then ran away. They jumped on top of walkers from high branches, and poured pouches of burning lizard-oil in the gun-slits. They used knives, and spears, and slings, and made scary war-shrieks to confound and dismay the enemy. They were fearless opponents.

 

Their example made even Chewie bolder than was his wont. He started having so much fun swinging on vines and bashing heads, he nearly forgot about his laser pistol.

 

He swung onto the roof of a walker at one point, with Teebo and Wicket clinging to his back. They landed with a thud atop the lurching contraption, then made such a banging racket trying to hang on, one of the Stormtroopers inside opened the top hatch to see what was happening. Before he could fire his gun, Chewie plucked him out and dashed him to the ground - Wicket and Teebo immediately dove into the hatch and subdued the other trooper.

 

Ewoks drive an Imperial Walker much the way they drive speeder bikes - terribly, but with exhilaration.

 

 

 

Yeah pretty clear that the Ewoks own the Stormtroopers.

Thing is, almost all the plot holes people ***** about in all the movies can be rectified simply by aiming a little brainpower at them. Instead of saying "oh my God, he didn't take twenty minutes to hold my hand through a bunch of boring exposition to explain exactly what's going on," take the data he did give you and draw some conclusions.

It's a disturbing trend I've noticed in a lot of (mostly bad) modern storytelling. The writers seem to think (and sadly, they seem to be right, for the most part) that their audiences are drooling idiots who need every single step of the story spelled out for them in brutal clarity with pie charts and graphs and tables and step-by-step instructions, and a bouncing ball over the subtitle would help, if people could be bothered to expend the effort to read. Instead of engaging the audience and making US think about why things happened, who did what, what someone's motivation was, and all those things that add complexity and interest to a story, they feel the need to not only make everything glaringly obvious, but point out that they're making it glaringly obvious just in case you missed and LOOK OVER HERE THIS IS IMPORTANT YOU'LL NEED TO KNOW THIS FOR LATER BUT WE'LL BRING IT BACK UP THEN ANYWAY JUST IN CASE YOU FORGET BETWEEN NOW AND. . . NOW!

Sorry, I think I was channeling Yahtzee there for a moment.

Now, that's not to say that "there's no such thing as a plot hole." There certainly is, and I've seen some glaring ones. But there's a HUGE difference between "plot hole" and "audience-input mystery." Good - nay, great storytellers know how and when to leave things mysterious. Do we need to know where the Alien came from for it to be scary? Hardly. Do we enjoy Lyta Alexander's journey any less because Babylon 5 doesn't tell us exactly how her war against the Psi Corps. turns out? I didn't. For that matter, do we need to know where Justin came from? Such mysteries can deepen a connection to a story, make it feel more real (after all, in real life, how often to do all your questions get answered?), and sometimes even spin off completely new and exciting stories.

Now, here I'm going to say something that will get a WHOLE lot of nerd-rage directed at me. The opposite can also happen, where a storyteller so obsessively fills in every perceived plot that he buries his work under tons of useless and boring information. The greatest offender here, (braces himself) is JRR Tolkien. Recall in Fellowship of the Ring, the. . . what was it? FOUR AND A HALF some pages of exposition, history, culture, etc., etc., etc. of a town that pretty much only exists in the story to have Frodo meet Aragorn and then leave? NONE of that information was at all important to the plot, none of it became important later, and it was all completely irrelevant to the story at hand. And Tolkien does this ALL THE TIME.

Now, I won't deny that all the Star Wars films have plot holes. Some of them can't really be easily ironed out with a little mental exercise. But there are a lot of things in the movies that really do make sense if you spend the time to ponder them a little bit. As a writer, that's what I want. . . I want you to think about my story after you're done reading it, work your brain some understanding what I was doing, and how, and why. The BEST stories I've ever experienced have surprised me with new insights years, even decades after I first read/saw/heard/wrote them, new things falling into place and making me appreciate them that much more.

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.

This is like saying The Old Repbulic (or whatever new game you want) is nowhere near as influential as pong was, and is therefore worse.

Also, thread does support the title, the title pretty clearly states it's going to be about showing how the new movies are really not that much worse than the old ones were, and then the thread details several reasons.

Also, on a side note, I remember reading somewhere before that there was some other guy who worked with George on the old ones, and that originally it was planned to take the series up to episode 9 and with a much darker tone (Palpatine lives at the end of 6, but Vader was still supposed to die); and then the merchandising profits exploded to astronomical amounts beyond their initial projections, George got a big head and decided to turn episode 6 into happy fun time hour. What should have been wookies became Ewoks (little pig-latin there), Luke and Anakin get to have a little heart to heart as they bask in the glow of having helped one another (in some way) to save the galaxy, and everyone goes around hugging each other.

Which reminds me, before Jar Jar came about, the Ewoks were generally regarded as the biggest Star Wars tragedy in the series. I know that's another mark against the new movies, but the point is that Lucas (Luke...Lucas...I wonder) has a track record of self indulgence as a story teller, and if not for a bunch of moron kids from the 70s demanding that their parents spend money on this stuff, people would look at him as more or less a hack.

Please please please, correct me if I'm wrong on any of this, wish I could remember my sources to cite them but hey, it's been a while.

This is like saying The Old Repbulic (or whatever new game you want) is nowhere near as influential as pong was, and is therefore worse.

 

Also, thread does support the title, the title pretty clearly states it's going to be about showing how the new movies are really not that much worse than the old ones were, and then the thread details several reasons.

 

Also, on a side note, I remember reading somewhere before that there was some other guy who worked with George on the old ones, and that originally it was planned to take the series up to episode 9 and with a much darker tone (Palpatine lives at the end of 6, but Vader was still supposed to die); and then the merchandising profits exploded to astronomical amounts beyond their initial projections, George got a big head and decided to turn episode 6 into happy fun time hour. What should have been wookies became Ewoks (little pig-latin there), Luke and Anakin get to have a little heart to heart as they bask in the glow of having helped one another (in some way) to save the galaxy, and everyone goes around hugging each other.

 

Which reminds me, before Jar Jar came about, the Ewoks were generally regarded as the biggest Star Wars tragedy in the series. I know that's another mark against the new movies, but the point is that Lucas (Luke...Lucas...I wonder) has a track record of self indulgence as a story teller, and if not for a bunch of moron kids from the 70s demanding that their parents spend money on this stuff, people would look at him as more or less a hack.

 

Please please please, correct me if I'm wrong on any of this, wish I could remember my sources to cite them but hey, it's been a while.

Wouldn't happen to be this would it?

Wouldn't happen to be this would it?

No it all came from some interview somewhere from the person in question who worked with Lucas on the writing and direction of the original movies, main reason why i bring it up is in the hopes that someone more informed as to the intricacies of the originals' production could shed some light on the topic, so that we could all learn more about why the movies are the way they are (sorry if that's a little off topic I suppose). Especially in reference to how some of them are...."different" from the others stylistically.

For all I know, the guy who did the interview could have just been disgruntled about getting short-changed at the end of the day and was just talking some smack. I do know that I didn't make any of that up myself at least, haha.

Although I suppose whatever the case, the factual truth of any of that doesn't make too big a difference as to whether or not Lucas is a hack as a writer, the fact that KotOR1 was a better Star Wars story than the entire collection of 6 movies is proof of that.

Take science fiction, throw in the most cliche fantasy tropes around (magic powers and "swords", some exotic creatures) and bam you have Star Wars.

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.

Do you actually understand movies? Serious question. Either you just don't like them or you don't understand them. I suggest you stop right now and never watch another feature film again if this is your attitude to them.

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.

'cept Avatar is worse off for plot than the Phantom Menace

'cept Avatar is worse off for plot than the Phantom Menace

Nah, the Avatar plot is simple and plain, and a rehash of several stories like it before.

Phantom Menace plot is a mess. I know it aims kinda high, with all the Palpatine double-cross stuff and all. But aiming high isn't enough, you have to actually hit.

I don't think you read the books.

 

If you read RotJ novilization you would see that the Storm Troopers never have them in retreat.

 

Here are a couple of exerts that take place before Chewbacca gets on the ATST

 

 

 

 

 

 

That's really the only line that would indicate that the Ewoks even lost anyone. Other then that the Ewoks kick even more *** in the Book then they do in the Movie.

 

 

 

Yeah pretty clear that the Ewoks own the Stormtroopers.

So then where did this come from?

Despite being outnumbered by the natives, the Stormtroopers with their armor and advanced weapons forced the Ewoks back, and Imperial AT-ST scout walkers decimated Ewok holdouts. The Ewoks tried, but were unsuccessful with a number of tactics, such as using gliders to drop stones on top of the walkers, and trying to trip them with ropes.

Had to have come from some source of valid information, otherwise I really doubt it would be there. But then again I should have been more clear, the AT-STs were the ones that were wrecking the Ewoks.

Very well written post man, I completely agree with you.

I love Starwars, including the prequel trilogy. Yes some of it's campy but that's the whole appeal in my eyes. Starwars is about epic Jedi, smarta** sharpshooters, enigmatic villains, bad a** bountyhunters and quirky aliens. If someone doesn't like it, ignore it.

I think we can all agree that the less George Lucas has to do with a Star Wars franchise, the better it is. (ex: Clone Wars TV show, KOTORs, et al).

I do LOVE the Prequels production design tho. Naboo Fighters are still my all time favs.

Originals are way better.

Forget storylines, dialogue, acting, special effects, camerawork...forget all that for a moment. Think about what the originals have that the prequels do not. The originals are fun and the actors/characters have great chemistry. Moreover it has the one truly great movie of the entire series: The Empire Strikes Back. While it retains little-kid appeal, it is also the most adult drama of the series, and it's this serious, effective, and dramatic approach that the 4 movies after it seemed to mostly lose that has most Star Wars fans grumbling. After all, even original trilogy fans like Return of the Jedi the least of those 3 movies.

Think about the best-received of the prequels: Revenge of the Sith. Why? Because it dumped most of the kiddie elements of the first two and tried to be a more adult drama. But it still lacks the chemistry between actors and characters that the originals had. Obi Wan and Anakin never have the buddy chemistry of Han and Chewie, or Han and luke. Anakin and Padme don't have a romance with the kind of appeal that Han and Leia had. The revolving door of bad guys can't hold a candle to the orginal trilogy's Darth Vader.

When it comes to writing and story, the originals are much simpler and IMO much more effective because their simplicity doesn't crush the movies under their weight like it does in the overly-complex prequels. With complex stories you need to tell those stories very well. The prequels weren't even close to the level needed. In terms of moviemaking, the originals were also better because they used physical sets and used the space they had more effectively. The green screen really seems to have limited the actors and the director in the prequels. Instead of worrying about important things like getting good composition, it looks like he just shot stuff thinking that he could fix it up with the SFX.

And the dialogue...ugh. Originals aren't exactly Shakespeare or even Tarentino, but the dialogue is mostly kept sparse and witty, and works quite well. In the prequels they talk and talk and talk and it gets so boring, not to mention often cringeworthy ("I'm haunted by the kiss you should never have given me"), laughable ("Unlimited powerrrrrr!" "Noooooo!") or even downright insulting to our intelligence ("A Sith LORD?"...yeah, the one you've been looking for all this time while simultaneously suspecting the Emperor of being up to no good, you dingbat).

Honestly, the prequels don't hold a candle to the likability and the fun of the originals. The originals are for the most part decently well-made. The prequels are awful moviemaking, saved only by big budgets and the Star Wars IP.

Put in the hands of a more skilled or a more focused director and the prequels could have actually been very good. The bond between Obi-Wan and Anakin being broken and Anakin's fall to the darkside could have been incredible drama. Instead we get...this.

So then where did this come from?

 

 

 

Had to have come from some source of valid information, otherwise I really doubt it would be there. But then again I should have been more clear, the AT-STs were the ones that were wrecking the Ewoks.

I don't know where did you find it?

edit: Oh I should have known you got it from Wookipedia.

yeah Wookipedia isn't held up to the same standards as Wikipedia. That is one guys fanboy interpretation of what happened.

For example he calls the troops on Endor part of Tempest squad. Do you know where they got the info from that they where Tempest Squad?

It's not from the movies or the books it's from the Collectible Card Game.

The passages I posted on the previous page are every part of the Battle of Endor where the Ewoks are involved. I left out the parts with Han and Leia, The space Battle, and Luke and Vader.

So it's clear from the movie and the official novelization that at no point did the Storm troopers kick the Ewoks butt. The Ewoks kicked the crap out of the storm troopers it even says they kicked so much butt that CHEWBACCA was inspired BY THEM. They where taking AT-ST's down left and right.

So yeah wookiepdia tends to feed fanboys that article was clearly written by some fan boy who had a Hard on for stormtroopers and the empire and couldn't accept that they got beat by a bunch of teddy bears.