this

 

this

 

and this

this ALL true ... and I laughed so hard ... that review is awesome totaly professional and totaly f*ucki*ing you up at the same time ... genius ^^

I hated the fact that Anakin went to the dark side not because of his love of Padme which was not a convincing enough reason for it on any level, nor because of the plotting of Palpatine which any blind deaf and dumb man should have seen right through let alone one with the Force behind him.

No he went to the dark side simply because he was a petty, self centered, greedy snot nosed punk who thought he knew it all and deserved to get it all too.

Plus Haydens bad acting and Jar Jar.

If you could edit out Jar Jar and Anakin they would be good movies.

I LOVED the Phantom Menace. Mainly cause of the end battles (Darth maul VS Qui-gon and Obi-Wan -- Gungans vs Droids) and offcourse Jar Jar.

 

The Clone Wars was "meh...", had a few good moments, but overall coudl've been better.

 

I hated The Revenge of the Sith purely cause of the actor who played Anakin Skywalker, Hayden Christopher. His acting was sub-par in The Clone Wars and in this movie was absolutely DISMAL! Also, his terribad acting dragged Ewan McGreggor's acting down.

 

The only good thing about The Revenge of the Sith was Obi-Wan vs Anakin, but it ended to abruptly by Obi-Wan utilizing the Sokan combat style (using the environment itself to gain a tactical advantage in combat.) and cutting Anakin's legs off.

 

I was like; "What the flux? That's it?"

I hate Hayden Christensen, but I have GOT to correct this post.

First, Jar Jar was stupid and meaningless.

Second, Hayden Christensen did not voice Anakin Skywalker in The Clone Wars. Anakin Skywalker in The Clone Wars is voiced by Matt Lanter.

A character's story is much more compelling when there is nothing special about them, and through the course of their arc, they BECOME special (ala Luke Skywalker).

Whereas with Anakin Skywalker, it's pretty much crammed down our throats that he's some super special "Chosen One" right from the start. "Midiclorians", the "Prophecy of the One Who Will Bring Balance to the Force", at least George Lucas had the good sense to listen to his editor and take out the part where it was revealed that Anakin had no father, and was immaculately conceived by the Force, just like Jesus or something.

Before he fired him, that is.

The editor, not Jesus.

It could be argued that there WAS something special about Luke all along, but that isn't revealed until much later on. And it's still more of a coming-of-age, learning-about-the-Force story, rather than a this-guy-is-destined-for-destiny type of story, which bypasses the part where we're supposed to identify with them.

Hello,

My biggest problem with the Prequels was in the first Prequel movie. I will not belabor Jar jar binks except to say that I did not enjoy his character.

1) Child actor playing Anakin was not enjoyable to watch. Scenes with him felt leaden.

2) Jedi allowing a young Child to participate in deadly race for their benefit felt irresponsible. One of the Jedi should have performed the race, if we wish to believe that Jedi are wise and responsible adults.

3) Child 'accidentally' launching his fighter and destroying orbiting station is an unsatisfying comedic development amidst scenes of otherwise escalating tension.

4) Darth Maul suddenly becomes a rather poor fighter with slow reflexes just so Obi-Wan can defeat him in the final moments of their battle. This was quite a let-down. It made me feel the fight choreographer couldn't come up with a convincing solution for Obi Wan to win the fight, or perhaps he wasn't given enough leeway in planning the fight more believably. Either way, an anticlimactic end to an interesting battle. This final inexplicable blow also served to rob the villain of much of his 'cool factor.'

Why does everyone hate the prequels? Well, they wasted a lot of time trying to tell the back story of Star Wars and secondly, the script was absolutely horrible! Very bad lines and I can never forget the Anakin Padame kiss scene...hilarious!

lol was remembering that cheese fest erlier. It seems like it was litterily made for comedy. xD

I thought they were great.

The originals didn't have great acting. I thought the newer ones had better acting, and I thought Hayden Christensen was excellent, not to mention liam neison and natalie portman.

They had good depth and character studies, on all fronts including windu.

The effects etc were really good. The Phantom Menace felt a bit flat, but the Revenge of the Sith really was excellent.

The originals might have been loved by 'lore lovers' and people who grew up on them and sci-fi minded folk, but the newer movies were better imo. The older ones were too large scale for proper acting and character studies and stuff. Han Solo was just somewhat fun, but no room for an actor like Harrison Ford to truly shine.

I thought jar jar binks was excellent but overused.

I think most people can agree on what it is about the prequels that make them pretty poor films. I would say that they are not terrible films, it is not as if they are the worst films ever made, but they are pretty poor attempts at film making. The other question is, how was this allowed to happen?

Several people point to the fact that Lucas had too much power. He was surrounded by people too affraid to tell him that he was making a total mess of the first prequel. Personally I find it very hard to believe that Star Wars (episode 4) and The Phantom Menace were made by the same director. Then it hit me;

Lucas directed Star Wars, which was released in 1977. Before that he had made several short films and documentaries, as well as two feature films (THX 1138 and American Graffiti). The very next thing he directed after Star Wars was ...... The Phantom Menace released in 1999. Twenty two years later. Twenty two years. If you were hiring anybody to do anything, would you hire somebody who hadn't done it for twenty two years?

I thought they were great.

 

The originals didn't have great acting. I thought the newer ones had better acting, and I thought Hayden Christensen was excellent, not to mention liam neison and natalie portman.

 

They had good depth and character studies, on all fronts including windu.

 

The effects etc were really good. The Phantom Menace felt a bit flat, but the Revenge of the Sith really was excellent.

 

The originals might have been loved by 'lore lovers' and people who grew up on them and sci-fi minded folk, but the newer movies were better imo. The older ones were too large scale for proper acting and character studies and stuff. Han Solo was just somewhat fun, but no room for an actor like Harrison Ford to truly shine.

 

I thought jar jar binks was excellent but overused.

i would like to respect you opinion, except you said they had good depth. can you explain the character studies too? I know the original trilogy weren't perfect, but they were good movies. The prequels were just action scenes put on top of vague political agendas, with a side of almost interesting characters.

Ok, how come everyone hates the prequals? Everywhere I go you someone saying the same thing. Heck, if you went to Celebration VI you'd see people outside of the convention center with signs yelling "JOIN THE DARKSIDE, HATE THE PREQUALS, HATE THE PREQUALS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" Quite honestly I don't see whats wrong with them. I like both the prequals and the original trilogy. I don't think they are corny (ok, maybe a few very small spots), I don't think it was bad acting, and I loved the characters (except Jar Jar)!

 

So, to get to the point, what is wrong with the prequals?

 

EDIT: My oppinion has completely changed since the beginning of this thread. But there are many interesting comments here discussing the prequals.

I'm sure they've been posted already but:

http://redlettermedia.com/plinkett/star-wars/

There you go. Watch all of these. Not only do they take the films apart piece by piece, and identify every single aspect that sucks, but it does so intelligently. These videos are actually more entertaining than the films. They are also very funny.

No one has been able to put into words, exactly why the prequels are such bad films until Red Letter Media.

i would like to respect you opinion, except you said they had good depth. can you explain the character studies too? I know the original trilogy weren't perfect, but they were good movies. The prequels were just action scenes put on top of vague political agendas, with a side of almost interesting characters.

The depths that the various actors gave to their characters is what I mean. Darth Sidius, for example, had an excellent character portrayal of complete corruption - sucking him bone dry of any humanity - the sense of inner weakness and exterior power that comes with it. Ananakin as completely out of his mind and attached and lost, and his portrayal of a 'do good' jedi with a deep, prideful and troubled interior prior to his 'going dark'. Natalie portman didn't have much to work with but she was good. General grievous was excellent.

Its just revenge of the sith that I am talking about actually. Attack of the clones and the phantom menace sucked balls ultimately, unfortunately. Its true I never paid attention to it.

I'm sure they've been posted already but:

 

http://redlettermedia.com/plinkett/star-wars/

 

There you go. Watch all of these. Not only do they take the films apart piece by piece, and identify every single aspect that sucks, but it does so intelligently. These videos are actually more entertaining than the films. They are also very funny.

 

No one has been able to put into words, exactly why the prequels are such bad films until Red Letter Media.

So true. And it WAS more entertaining than the Prequals.

Butthurt mainly. They're average movies that aren't that good but aren't that bad. Unfortunately, this failed to meet the expectations of fans, who had been waiting for these movies for 2 decades. They're definitely not the worst films ever made.

If you disagree with that sentiment, go and watch "The Room".

The depths that the various actors gave to their characters is what I mean. Darth Sidius, for example, had an excellent character portrayal of complete corruption - sucking him bone dry of any humanity - the sense of inner weakness and exterior power that comes with it. Ananakin as completely out of his mind and attached and lost, and his portrayal of a 'do good' jedi with a deep, prideful and troubled interior prior to his 'going dark'. Natalie portman didn't have much to work with but she was good. General grievous was excellent.

 

Its just revenge of the sith that I am talking about actually. Attack of the clones and the phantom menace sucked balls ultimately, unfortunately. Its true I never paid attention to it.

lol. sidious did steal the show, no arguments from me there. And if all you're talking about is RotS, then i do agree with you 100%. It was the best of the three and even had a plot!

1) The lines of dialogue were literally painful.

2) It was targeted at 5 year old viewers.

3) None of the characters were memorable or even likable by themselves.

4) Watch plinkett's reviews.

 

Watch all of those. They will make you hate George Lucas, for GOOOOOD reason.

I thought the prequals were ok, but after watching this, he has a huge point. Plus it was pretty hilarious, especially when he discusses 'why they shouldn't split up'.

First off the only one that was remotely decent was episode III. If i had to i could sum it up with a few things. 1. Jar Jar and the gungans. 2. Very childish compared to the originals. 3. Lucas got the bright idea to remaster the old ones. 4. Darth vaders garbage NOOOOOO scream. and the list could go on........Having said that episode I best part darth maul final fight scene, episode II Clone vs Droid battle, episode III vader vs. obi wan.

I could stomach the NOOOOOOOOO if instead of coming off as QQ, it looked more like he went into psychotic rage and virtually demolished everything around him, even trying to choke Palpatine (like in the novel iirc). Transformation into heartless butcher would be that much more believable.