Jump to content

Episode I better than II or III


SeannyDuke

Recommended Posts

Not that I like the prequels all that much, but this isn't 1950 and you don't need a single protagonist. A New Hop is also a massive cliche of the stereotypical hero story that has been done to death a million times over in the thousands of years literature has existed. It's why that movie was panned when it came out.

 

There's no single protagonist in the LOTR movies either, and those are all excellent.

 

I always thought the main hero in LOTR was Frodo.

 

It's not that it has to be traditional, but there has to be conflict with characaters; some overal thing that causes the character to change in some way.

This is supposed to be done for all characters really and no matter how small must be overcome by the end.

 

I put a little link here about types of conflict its pretty neat IMO. I am just sharing this link because it's interesting.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conflict_(narrative)

 

Conflict was my over all issue in the prequels.

Han for instance over comes a conflict; When you first meet him on Tatooine, he is all about the credits, not saving some princess (unless he gets a reward), but in the end he risked his life to save a person he hardly knew.

 

I felt that Anakin was too heroic from the get go and he never changed, same for all the characters. They just did not have the growth.

 

In fact overall the most heroic and developed character in Phantom iMenace, is probally, and i hate to say this...

Jar Jar, he was bansihed from his home and his people, went on a long quest and retuned with the Naboo to help defend his home.

 

IMO had Jar-Jar not been slap-stick comedy they could have done a lot with him. He could have still be comedic and young in the first film but 10 years later, he could have become a general and matured as a character. Instead he was unaffected by time completly, which is odd.

Edited by kirorx
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I always thought the main hero in LOTR was Frodo.

 

It's not that it has to be traditional, but there has to be conflict with characaters; some overal thing that causes the character to change in some way.

This is supposed to be done for all characters really and no matter how small must be overcome by the end.

 

I put a little link here about types of conflict its pretty neat IMO. I am just sharing this link because it's interesting.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conflict_(narrative)

 

Conflict was my over all issue in the prequels.

Han for instance over comes a conflict; When you first meet him on Tatooine, he is all about the credits, not saving some princess (unless he gets a reward), but in the end he risked his life to save a person he hardly knew.

 

I felt that Anakin was too heroic from the get go and he never changed, same for all the characters. They just did not have the growth.

 

In fact overall the most heroic and developed character in Phantom iMenace, is probally, and i hate to say this...

Jar Jar, he was bansihed from his home and his people, went on a long quest and retuned with the Naboo to help defend his home.

 

IMO had Jar-Jar not been slap-stick comedy they could have done a lot with him. He could have still be comedic and young in the first film but 10 years later, he could have become a general and matured as a character. Instead he was unaffected by time completly, which is odd.

 

Frodo is ONE of the protagonists in LOTR. The movies are as much about Aragorn, Gimli, and Legolas as they are about Frodo, Sam, Merry, and Pippen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is just stupid. Why do you feel the need to compare them to the originals.

 

If we compared every movie we've ever watched and will watch to the best movies that were ever made, nothing would be considered good. But that's simply not true.

 

And the movies made enough sense that a kid could follow it, so if you couldn't make sense of it's barebones plot/characterization, I dunno what to tell you.

 

 

Oh I don't know...

 

BECAUSE THEY ARE DIRECT PREQUELS. It's not about the plot, that's only part of the mess. I can't do it any better than red letter media and if I try to repeat it all here I'm just going to typing a lot.

 

Go do yourself a favor and watch the red letter media clips. It pretty much covers every angle. Nothing in the prequels makes any damn sense when paired against the original movies.

 

 

Please describe Mace Windu to me. Go ahead, describe him. And I'm not talking about the robes or his skin.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not that I like the prequels all that much, but this isn't 1950 and you don't need a single protagonist. A New Hop is also a massive cliche of the stereotypical hero story that has been done to death a million times over in the thousands of years literature has existed. It's why that movie was panned when it came out.

 

There's no single protagonist in the LOTR movies either, and those are all excellent.

 

Story telling uses basic elements again and again. When those elements aren't used, the story has to be extremely compelling and interesting to keep the viewer engaged.

 

The plot and story telling are a mess in the prequels. And since Star Wars is just a basic hero's journey in space (GL confirms that) the absurd brokenness of the plot and characters in 1,2 and 3 kills the entire trilogy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh I don't know...

 

BECAUSE THEY ARE DIRECT PREQUELS. It's not about the plot, that's only part of the mess. I can't do it any better than red letter media and if I try to repeat it all here I'm just going to typing a lot.

 

Go do yourself a favor and watch the red letter media clips. It pretty much covers every angle. Nothing in the prequels makes any damn sense when paired against the original movies.

 

You don't need to have seen either trilogy to understand or watch the other. There is no reason to compare them.

 

And I have watched all the Plinkett reviews for the prequels and they're funny as hell, but alot of his complaints stem from comparing the two trilogies.

 

 

Please describe Mace Windu to me. Go ahead, describe him. And I'm not talking about the robes or his skin.

 

Easy.

 

Bad a s s mutha fuc ka.

 

I'll do one better and describe all the other major characters too.

 

Padme - brave, devoted, and curious

Qui-Gonn Jinn - defiant, rogueish, and dashing

Obi-Wan - disciplined, reliable, and honorable

Anakin - whiny, avaricious, and brilliant

Palpatine - genius, powerful, and manipulative

Yoda - stoic, stern, and erudite

 

Just because the 4 idiots Plinkett interviews couldn't describe any of the characters, doesn't mean nobody else can.

Edited by Smashbrother
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You don't need to have seen either trilogy to understand or watch the other. There is no reason to compare them.

 

And I have watched all the Plinkett reviews for the prequels and they're funny as hell, but alot of his complaints stem from comparing the two trilogies.

 

 

 

 

Easy.

 

Bad a s s mutha fuc ka.

 

I'll do one better and describe all the other major characters too.

 

Padme - brave, devoted, and curious

Qui-Gonn Jinn - defiant, rogueish, and dashing

Obi-Wan - disciplined, reliable, and honorable

Anakin - whiny, avaricious, and brilliant

Palpatine - genius, powerful, and manipulative

Yoda - stoic, stern, and erudite

 

Just because the 4 idiots Plinkett interviews couldn't describe any of the characters, doesn't mean nobody else can.

 

Eh I would actually call Anakin more a deeply troubled man then whiny, I mean he was a slave, then he lost his mother, then he was fearing of losing his wife. But then again, I suppose you could characterize a number of characters in different ways.

Edited by Wolfninjajedi
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Eh I would actually call Anakin more a deeply troubled man then whiny, I mean he was a slave, then he lost his mother, then he was fearing of losing his wife. But then again, I suppose you could characterize a number of characters in different ways.

 

Other characters in other movies have done "deeply troubled" and it doesn't look anything like Anakin's whinyness. I suppose that could just be the terrible acting or dialogue of the prequels though, and not the char's fault.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Other characters in other movies have done "deeply troubled" and it doesn't look anything like Anakin's whinyness. I suppose that could just be the terrible acting or dialogue of the prequels though, and not the char's fault.

 

I saw him more as troubled/guilt ridden/frustrated then anything else honestly.

Edited by Wolfninjajedi
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I saw him more as troubled/guilt ridden/frustrated then anything else honestly.

 

Well I guess you're more lenient in this instance. I hated all things Anakin in the prequels. The kid version was terribly acted and annoying, and the adult version was terribly acted and annoying lol.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well I guess you're more lenient in this instance. I hated all things Anakin in the prequels. The kid version was terribly acted and annoying, and the adult version was terribly acted and annoying lol.

 

/shrugs, opinions we all have em, but that is kinda proving the point of being able to characterize the characters in different ways.

Edited by Wolfninjajedi
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know that the shortcomings of the prequel trilogy are well documented and, for the most part, I agree with what others have already pointed out. I do, however, find them entertaining. I just go into them knowing that they are not going to be as good as the original trilogy and enjoy them for what they are.

 

I like episode 1, but I think I still like episode 3 a little bit better. I think episode 3 should have been the hands down winner, but it suffers a bit from the set up of episode 2. I just felt like I was supposed to like Anakin more. His fall to the darkside was supposed to illicit more of an emotional response from me, but I was almost grateful for the transition because I really didn't like his character much before the switch. To me, a lot of that is because of episode 2. That's when he is supposed to establish himself as the hero. I know that I said I can enjoy the prequels for what they are, but I just can't stand episode 2. To me, it's just a poorly made movie and to make things worse, episode 3 suffers because of how much episode 2 fails to set the stage.

 

I like episode 1. I like Qui Gon and I like Maul. I like the pod racing scene, although, it should have been a bit shorter. I can ignore Jar Jar. I still like episode 3 a bit more.

Edited by sevenex
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is very interesting, and its nice to see some people coming out in support of the prequels, which compared with other sci-fi (and action films altogether) are pretty amazing. However while I like all the films Episode I is my least favourite for various reasons.

 

I do however think its got one of the best, if not the best lightsaber fight sequences in the entire saga. I also really like Liam Neeson as Qui-Gon and the political intrigue surrounding Palpatine. And Darth Maul makes an epic villain and is even more epic in TCW. It could have been better done though.

 

My favourite prequel film, and my favourite Star Wars film, is Episode III. Its just pure none stop epicness. I love the opening space scene, that is unparrelled by any other. And I thought Grievous was a perfect, archetypal, moustache twirling villain to act as an antithesis to Sidious' and Dooku's scheming personas. And then there's Grievous vs Obi-Wan, Anakin's Fall, Order 66, Operation: Knightfall, Sidious kicking butt in his office, Yoda vs Sidious, Anakin vs Obi-Wan, the rise of Darth Vader and the Death Star! All crammed into one awesome, seamless production! I really do think Lucas pulled it out of the bag in that one.

 

Oh and one more thing, and this may come as a shock to many. But guess what? I like Hayden Christensen! Not just that but I rate him pretty high, all the way down to his accent, which has an alien 'Star Warsy' feel to it. He's certainly better than Mark Hamill ever was. I think he plays the role of Anakin Skywalker really well, everyone seems to present him as a whiny emo, but in less pejorative terms he is meant to be exactly that. He's a frustrated, angry, emotional youth who wants to be powerful and feels everyone around him is holding him back, And Hayden pulls that off really well, a favourite scene is when he kills the Sandpeople as says to Padme "I killed them. I killed them all. They're dead, every single one of them. And not just the men, but the women and the children, too. They're like animals, and I slaughtered them like animals. I HATE THEM!" Awesomely performed. And then all the dialogue and acting on Mustafar. Really, what's not to love!

 

FInal point, the whole point of the prequels was to look at 'the good guys' in a different light, and present them in a different light which makes you think 'who really are the bad guys'? So in a sense there is no real 'hero figure' - however Anakin is something of a tragic hero. And Obi-Wan and Padme are pretty heroic.

 

People are probably raging at me right now but whatever, because guess what? I enjoyed the prequels whereas you didn't. So I can watch the entire saga with a smile on my face and you can't - sucks to be you!

Edited by Beniboybling
Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...