Is this why people hate the Star Wars prequels?!
- Thread starter Blindswordmaster
- Start date
Recommended Videos
That's part of it. There really is much worse with the movies. Just the stories in general, I guess did it for me. Also it didn't help that there were contradictions all over the place.Blindswordmaster said:
I actually didn't think that much about the Midichlorians. but then I wasn't alive when the original Star Wars came, and I was like 10 or 11 when Episode 1 came out, so I ever really felt the magic of The Force. But thinking about it now, yeah it was a bit unnecessary of Lucas to explain it. Especially since the alternative would have worked just as well. "The Force is strong in this one".
Over all I like the prequels though.
EDIT:
Even if Hayden's acting is outright atrocious sometimes.
(But again, was Mark Hamill's acting much better? just sayin')
Over all I like the prequels though.
EDIT:
Even if Hayden's acting is outright atrocious sometimes.
(But again, was Mark Hamill's acting much better? just sayin')
I am not a Star Wars superfan. I never have been, I never will be. However, I do have a decent memory, and I gotta say, there were inconsistencies all over the place with regard to what the original films stated, and what the prequels stated.
The most annoying full-fledged character in the original movies--C3P0--is still infinitely more tolerable than Jar-Jar Binks. Jar-Jar wasn't just irritating, he was UTTERLY POINTLESS after the first movie ended. He showed up again to vote in the senate and make a speech, but any throw-away character could have done that part.
The plot was bad. The acting was worse. The new characters were not worthwhile. Darth Maul was not on-screen long enough. The shift from good to evil for Anakin was NOT slow, subtle, or even logical. He was not constantly making decisions that were morally ambiguous, he was throwing temper tantrums, being gullible and killing children after ONE chat with Palpatine. Lucas seemed to think, in these movies, that his audience was full of idiots, and it was depressing.
The most annoying full-fledged character in the original movies--C3P0--is still infinitely more tolerable than Jar-Jar Binks. Jar-Jar wasn't just irritating, he was UTTERLY POINTLESS after the first movie ended. He showed up again to vote in the senate and make a speech, but any throw-away character could have done that part.
The plot was bad. The acting was worse. The new characters were not worthwhile. Darth Maul was not on-screen long enough. The shift from good to evil for Anakin was NOT slow, subtle, or even logical. He was not constantly making decisions that were morally ambiguous, he was throwing temper tantrums, being gullible and killing children after ONE chat with Palpatine. Lucas seemed to think, in these movies, that his audience was full of idiots, and it was depressing.
I didn't like the new ones, but I didn't hate them untill the last minute or so in the third one where Hayden Christensensen tried to throw his hands in the air and shriek in anguish. He looked like some sort of idiot who couldnt forsee that his arms can't actually go above his shoulders (on account of the super grim Darth Vader shoulder pads)- and just figured that out whilst simultaneously dropping his ice cream.
It's all just opinion. Mine's weirder than most. Star Wars was fantasy, covered in a thin candy shell of sci-fi. It's too bad I like sci-fi better. My favorite part of all of them, Battle of Yavin. TRD Bay-Bee. Second favorite, Battle of Endor. Not lazersword and casting lit3 fighting, but Lando and Wedge freakin Antillies powerdiving the core. Midi-chlorians didn't bother me. For me it was the weakest part of the series that I didn't like anyway.
In answer to your question. Yes, yes I did notice it and it did piss me off (to me and my friends it is the 'M' word). And then Jar-Jar came and pissed me off some more. I did however like ep 2 (Attack of the killer tomato's) and ep 3Blindswordmaster said:
Yay me too.Queen Michael said:
The midichlorians were probably a dumb idea but it really didn't bother me that much. If there was anything that didn't like it was in the second film. But you know, I didn't watch starwars to see a romance film, so whatever. An
But in the original series Luke isn't even a fully trained Jedi... It would be more unrealistic if he was as good as any of the prequel Jedi when they had trained since they were knee high to a grasshoper and him only for a bit in a swamp.Blindswordmaster said:
And as for Vader, I don't think that's a continuity thing, that's more of the prequels needing to stay current in terms of special effects and stunts. I mean the sequels were top quality in their day but there was 16 years between the last of the original trilogy and the first of the new trilogy. So that there's more stunts and running and jumping in the prequels isn't a continuity thing at all I would say.
everything.Nooners said:
i mean christ were the ORIGINALS that good? yea the whole "luke! I AM YOUR FATHAH!" is awesome and stuff but then again a film, let alone the first in a trilogy, SHOULD NOT FEEL LIKE A film long climax!.
Y'know what... I don't even know what to think anymore.
I saw the first three episodes and thought they weren't bad when the general consensus was that they were shit.
I saw Avatar as a liberal, pandering shitpiece of a script that glossed over its unoriginality and gaping plot holes by looking pretty, and everyone else thought it was good enough to make a religion out of.
I... am clearly not on the same page as anyone else. I'm going to just say "Fuck you, Maddox, Ebert, everyone, my opinion is my own," and leave it at that, because I'm not going to get any points by jumping on the bandwagon that is apparently inversely proportional to my own one-man pack animal.
I saw the first three episodes and thought they weren't bad when the general consensus was that they were shit.
I saw Avatar as a liberal, pandering shitpiece of a script that glossed over its unoriginality and gaping plot holes by looking pretty, and everyone else thought it was good enough to make a religion out of.
I... am clearly not on the same page as anyone else. I'm going to just say "Fuck you, Maddox, Ebert, everyone, my opinion is my own," and leave it at that, because I'm not going to get any points by jumping on the bandwagon that is apparently inversely proportional to my own one-man pack animal.
There are a LOT of people who realize that although it was absolutely gorgeous, Avatar was nothing but another Noble Savages Fight the Evil Advanced People story that wasn't even a very GOOD Noble Savages Fight the Evil Advanced People story (I'm one of them). James Cameron is great for advancing film technology, but shit for story most of the time.Kingsman said:
It's part of it but there are plenty of other reasons:
1) Lucas' TERRIBLE direction. Why he felt he had to do it himself when he could have got someone decent like his mate Speilberg to do it I don't know. There are shots in there for no reason that just cut to others randomly, it's just awkward.
2) On the whole, poor acting. Christopher Lee and Ewan McGregor do decent enough jobs but nothing, nothing, can excuse that whiny lump of wood known as Hayden Christiansen.
3) Poorly developed plot/pointless sideplots. Hello, podrace for half an hour? NO! And Anakin's turn to the dark side was pathetic
"I'll never turn!"
"Oh but a long time ago there was a myth that one dark lord could stop people like your wife dying!......
"Sign me up!"
Did he ask for proof? Can Palpatine even use this power if it does exist? And why the hell does he fly off and start choking the person he became 'evil' to save? Which brings me back to his acting - they basically had to put a sign behind him saying 'I'm Angry!', you can see McGregor doing his best to make him look good, but it just isn't possible.
When we add in the 'scientific' explanation for what was an almost religious power based on belief in using the connections that bind life together to 'woops this guy has lots of bacteria, he'll be awesome' and Jar Jar bloody Binks, yeah they were pretty terible
EDIT: Wow, just read Maddox's assessment, it seems we agree on a lot
1) Lucas' TERRIBLE direction. Why he felt he had to do it himself when he could have got someone decent like his mate Speilberg to do it I don't know. There are shots in there for no reason that just cut to others randomly, it's just awkward.
2) On the whole, poor acting. Christopher Lee and Ewan McGregor do decent enough jobs but nothing, nothing, can excuse that whiny lump of wood known as Hayden Christiansen.
3) Poorly developed plot/pointless sideplots. Hello, podrace for half an hour? NO! And Anakin's turn to the dark side was pathetic
"I'll never turn!"
"Oh but a long time ago there was a myth that one dark lord could stop people like your wife dying!......
"Sign me up!"
Did he ask for proof? Can Palpatine even use this power if it does exist? And why the hell does he fly off and start choking the person he became 'evil' to save? Which brings me back to his acting - they basically had to put a sign behind him saying 'I'm Angry!', you can see McGregor doing his best to make him look good, but it just isn't possible.
When we add in the 'scientific' explanation for what was an almost religious power based on belief in using the connections that bind life together to 'woops this guy has lots of bacteria, he'll be awesome' and Jar Jar bloody Binks, yeah they were pretty terible
EDIT: Wow, just read Maddox's assessment, it seems we agree on a lot
The prequals were alright. I would've go as far as saying they were bad, as, besides The Phantom Menace which was absolute crap, was a fair addition to the Star Wars universe. True, they do have many flaws, but it's still fairly good.