Is this why people hate the Star Wars prequels?!

[maninahat]

That last review of his was rather lackluster and seemed to milk his successful jokes to the point where it wasn't funny after a while.

He's best when he's breaking shit down, not running off his own jokes. That part where he's ratting Anni based on his behavior around Padme was fucking hilarious. The ending of each segment with a little chapter of the hooker was not quite as funny.

His review of Episode II was the first I had ever seen of his work. I actually think it is the funniest, and I liked the parts with the hooker. It added a fun little narrative that went along with the review and brought it to the end.

I'm impressed how redlettermedia reviews can be so ridiculously long without ever getting tedious, which is more than I can say for Confused Matthew.

 

[MASTACHIEFPWN]

I love star wars. I don't even give a sh*t that few people share my belief.

 

[Treblaine]

Besides Episode I, there is nothing fucking wrong with the prequels.

Yes, but the problem was there wasn't anything particularly GOOD about them either.

This is reflected in their aggregate ratings, it's not like they are "Meet the Spartans" bad, simply that they are so mundane, boring to spite what the high-fantasy sci-fi setting would allude to.

Prequel to the greatest film trilogy of the 20th century, most should be expected from them than middle of the road, lowest common denominator, market to widest demographic, liked by millions yet loved by none.

In the end they are barely worth your time watching if it happens to be on TV and certainly isn't worth buying or even wasting Shelf or Hard-drive space.

 

[arcticphoenix95]

what are midichlorians anyway?

 

[Andothul]

The prequel movies woulda been fine hell they would been great if it wasn't for two things. Jar Jar Binks and the horrible fucking actors they got to play Anakin

 

[CK76]

what are midichlorians anyway?

According to Wiki

Midi-chlorians were intelligent microscopic life forms that lived symbiotically inside the cells of all living things. When present in sufficient numbers, they could allow their symbiont to detect the pervasive energy field known as the Force. Midi-chlorian counts were linked to potential in the Force, ranging from normal Human levels of 2,500 per cell to the much higher levels of Jedi. The highest known midi-chlorian count belonged to the Jedi Anakin Skywalker (over 20,000 per cell), who was believed to have been conceived by the midi-chlorians.
Midi-chlorian counts were measured through a blood test; the Jedi used this method to locate Force-sensitive children before their Order was purged by the Galactic Empire. With the rise of the Empire, research into Jedi and the Force was banned, and though midi-chlorians continued to be tested for, sometimes by the Empire itself to root out hidden Jedi and other Force-sensitives, knowledge of them was diminished and inquiries into them were branded as illegal medical research. Midi-chlorians were only rediscovered after a New Jedi Order was founded.

 

[arcticphoenix95]

i hate you george lucas, i hate you for ruining this series and everything people liked about it.......

 

[Deacon Cole]

I never really understood why people hate the new three Star Wars movies, I mean Phantom Menace wasn't great, but they got better with age, and Revenge of the Sith stood out as a great addition to the series. Then I came upon this comic, which explained why some people hate episodes 1, 2, and 3. Is this really the reason?! Are Star Wars fans really pissed off by this?! Really?! This is insignificant to me. I didn't even notice it when I watched Phantom Menace the first few times. Please help me here, I'm completely lost.

The reason for the hate of the Star Wars prequels goes a bit deeper than you think. We all know the name of the man who ruined Star Wars and it isn't George Lucas. It is Indiana Jones.

When making Raiders of the Lost Ark, Lucas was disappointed that many of the character and story moments did not make it into the final product. (among them, apparently, was that Indy's romance with Marion Ravenwood occurred when she was a minor [!]) But the movie was a hit anyway. From this, Lucas decided that people did not want a good story. They just wanted a special effects thrill ride. He scrapped the story for the third Star Wars film and Return of the Jedi became the worst of the original trilogy.

Basically, after that, Lucas just stopped trying to make a good story and it shows. Return of the Jedi and Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom are both weak efforts compared to his previous films. He should be ashamed of them, but they still made money.

So, no. The real problem with the prequels is not Jar-Jar Binks or midichlorians. It that they are just poorly conceived, poorly written and poorly executed. The first two Star Wars movies weren't perfect, but they had story structure that was strong enough to keep people coming after four bad movies, even to making excuses for those four bad movies. The prequels are just boring movies. All sound and fury, signifying nothing.

If Lucas had managed to pull off the prequels, then it would have made the Star Wars saga a true work of genius. Prequels are hard to do because we already knew what was going to happen in those movies. The particulars mattered so little when we got to actually see them. Like the Kobashi Maru scene in the recent Star Trek movie. We didn't need to see it. We already knew what happened.

If Lucas had made the prequels fit well with the original series and good movies in their own right, he would have deserved all the acclaim and money he's currently getting. But he didn't manage that. He didn't even get close, making it apparent not only that he did not deserve anything for the more recent movies but he probably had little to do with the previous films' success.

They are just terrible movies. That's why no one likes the prequels. And you shouldn't either, kid.

 

[SonicKoala]

Well, the whole midichlorians thing was completely unnecessary, and it just helped to make a bad movie even worse - the story was terrible, and the characters (particularly in comparison to the original 3 Star Wars movies) were god-awful.

I thought episode 2 was ruined largely by the fact that Hayden Christensen can't act AT ALL, and his "romance" with Padme felt so awkward and forced. Episode 3 was alright, but once again the shitty acting and awkward relationship greatly hurt my overall impression of the movie - "Anakin, you're breaking my heart"..... one of the few lines which never fails to make me cringe. Seriously, Natalie Portman CAN act, but WHAT THE FUCK HAPPENED THERE?

But yeah, I think the Midichlorians was a huge kick in the balls to long-time fans, considering the whole "Force" concept was one of the most intriguing and original parts of the first three movies; I (and many others) simply can't comprehend WHY George Lucas found it necessary to explain it - it makes no fucking sense whatsoever, and it literally just comes off as Lucas trying as HARD as he possibly can to ruin his once beloved series.

Do explain me how midichlorians make less sense then the Force. Please, just try.

I think you misunderstood my original quote - I'm not suggesting that the "Force" itself makes that much sense as a concept, but what I was saying is that it makes no sense to me at all WHY George Lucas would include this "midichlorians" idea in the movie in the first place. Seriously, what was the point of that?

The Force is just kind of there - it exists all around us and within us, and with the proper training people can learn to harness the power of this mystical "Force"; I don't see why something that cool requires a scientific explanation. It completely removes the mysticism behind the original idea - oh, it's because of small biological lifeforms.... you know, just like in real life. Oh boy, I'm so intrigued now.....

 

[TheTim]

The 2nd movie was the best of all of them imo.

 

[Blitzkrieg8]

The Second one pissed me off the most then the first one then the third

 

[SonicKoala]

Read here:
Yes, I call that acting because in any other of your favorite movies where she'd say the exact same line, you would praise her acting talents.

....No I wouldn't. If she had delivered such a line in say, "V for Vendetta", in such an unforgiveably forced, awkward, and cringe-worthy way, you would see absoloutely no praise from me.

It isn't bad acting.

Yes, it is.

Bad acting is when someone dies and the person says "Nooo." instead of "NOOOO!".
Imagine if she'd shrug and say "You're breaking my heart" instead. Now THAT would be terrible / bad acting.
But what you are complaining about is perfectly fine -ACTING-.

Bad acting is not limited to passiveness or disinterest on the part of the actor - bad acting can incorporate a wide variety of shittiness, such as forced and unbelievable emotion. I suppose you consider Hayden Christensen's similar attempt to appear emotional "perfectly fine acting" as well. I suppose we'll just have to agree to disagree. Natalie Portman is a fine actress, but her performance in that movie was awful.

 

[Dan Shive]

What's the deal with "NOOOOOOO" anyway? Would anyone actually yell it at length? I can picture it being cried out in a number of realistic and slightly extended ways, or said over and over again, but it seems like the realism goes down with each "o" added to a single "no". This is particularly true if it isn't really a scream, and more like someone speaking from the diaphragm in order to project it as loudly and clearly as possible. That's more like singing or public speaking than an outpouring of emotion. A "NOOOOOOO" performed wrong seems as rehearsed and unreal as the prequel lightsaber duels.

 

[AWDMANOUT]

I think I read somewhere that the Jedi council had a disagreement on whether the midichlorians existed as the force or BECAUSE of the force. Like athiests and creationists, if you will, respectively.

 

[NewGeekPhilosopher]

For me, it's more a combination of bad acting and poorly written dialogue.
If they show those prequels on TV, I will still watch them as I don't think they are THAT bad.
They are entertaining, but they lack the feel of the original movies.

Seriously, Natalie Portman CAN act, but WHAT THE FUCK HAPPENED THERE?

I cringe whenever I hear her say: "Please Anakin! You are breaking my heart!" It's just so unnatural.

"You're breaking my heart Lisa!"

"Oh hi there!"

I maintain that the Star Wars prequels didn't ruin my childhood because in a weird way they WERE my childhood. Midichlorians might seem like they ruin the force but I guess no matter how you try and explain it scientifically the Force is still magical. Maybe that's just the apologist in me, I don't think the Prequels are so bad they're horrible - they're still better than Indiana Jones and the Crystal Skull. Mainly because Star Wars is allowed to be illogical - that's the point. But Indiana Jones is more rooted in a 1940s adventure series type - it's less believable when you nuke a fridge than when you say the force is caused by bacteria. Who really cares anyway - the Force is the Force no matter how you try to explain it.

I had a Jar-Jar Binks toy as a kid and nobody understood why. The reason was this - I have some deal of affection for downtrodden aliens.

 

[gigastrike]

I think the only problem was Hayden Christianson. A new Anakin and better explainations of his motivations would have done the prequals wonders.

 

[Twilight_guy]

The reason people don't like it is the rosy-rosy nostalgia goggles. Contrary to popular belief, they do do something. They make you think that everything from your childhood was awesome with chocolate on top. Unfortunately, that's not true you were just stupid as a kid. Everyone was. We're not born as fully functional or knowledgeable adults. The originals were classics but are not as good as people have made them out to be. Star Wars sits on a pillar in memory and scorns all those before it but in reality its more of a mole-hill. Think what you will on the new movies but there is no denying the fact that people will hate them because anything new can never live up to the impossible standard of Nostalgia.

 

[Ultra_Caboose]

I'm sure my opinion isn't much different from a lot of others, but I'll state it anyway. What's the internet good for if not that??

As for Episode 1, I thought it was just kinda boring. Qui Gon and young Obi Wan were interesting enough characters and the story was decent, but it just chugged and chugged, never really getting interesting until the last quarter or so. Also, I have a problem with Yoda. I'm sure Lucas just kept the Yoda puppet as a throwback to the originals, and because it's good for that nostalgic feel, but it completely baffles me from a technical point. All the crap that's CG in the movie is done really well, so why not make Yoda CG? I can say with little doubt that he was changed in Episode II just for the fight scene, which, admittedly was bad-ass.

Episode 2 was pretty good all in all, except for the acting. Hayden Christensen and Natalie Portman had a few good moments, but ruined a lot of the more dramatic scenes for me because they were as stiff as hell. The same problem comes through in 3, their acting is practically deadpan or completely overblown in some parts, they might as well have William Shatner superimposed onto their heads.

All in all, 1 was boring, 2 was decent, and 3 had awesome, sprinkled with bad acting.

Maybe it's also a nostalgia factor... I can't really say. I wasn't into Star Wars until I saw Episodes 1 and 2, and after watching the original trilogy I can clearly say that the originals are just simply better.