Why are the Star Wars prequels bad?

Neo, no-one could have said what you did better. It was a wasted opportunity.

Spitfirer

exactly. It would have been alot sadder and more emotional than it ended up being if they had focused on the relationship between obi-wan and anakin. we would have actually felt something when he gets chopped up and burnt alive

As I have said before, and will sya again, the Prequels are not better than the Originals, and the Originals are not better than the Prequels. And compared to the Expanded Universe, the preqeuls writing is made of solid gold. You can complain about inconsistancy all you want, but the EU makes no sense at ALL.

Example: The EU has both Jedi AND sith back in their THOUSANDS. Now, Luke IS the last of the Jedi, how can one Jedi teach so many students?

Example from Original Trilogy, Empire Strikes back: Giant Worm scene, that scene did not add a damn thing to teh story, you could literally cut it out and no one would notice.

The prequels get **** on because people are too stupid to take off the nostalgia glasses. Star Wars was never a movieabout great writing or a deep story. What made it was the sense of adventure and seeing stuff we don't normally see, and the prequels did a better job at that (Episode 2, at the end of the chase, the Cantina seemed real) and Battles. Face it, Star Wars is and was about the battles, and the sense of adventure, and all the cool FX.

The prequels get **** on because people are too stupid to take off the nostalgia glasses. Star Wars was never a movieabout great writing or a deep story. What made it was the sense of adventure and seeing stuff we don't normally see, and the prequels did a better job at that (Episode 2, at the end of the chase, the Cantina seemed real) and Battles. Face it, Star Wars is and was about the battles, and the sense of adventure, and all the cool FX.

lordreaven

The originals are MUCH better films than the prequels. Star Wars was never all about the battles, sense of adventure, or cool FX. A large part, but not all. Star Wars has great mythology behind it. It is the journey of a young idealistic naive boy who grows into a man and experiences loss, betrayal, pain, redemption and finally peace.

The story and character progression of the originals are what make them so great, all else was just a benefit.

[QUOTE="black_cat19"]

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

If you have 6 hours to kill, everything you need to know is right there.

Gibsonsg527

Came in here to say this.

Watching Plinkett tear apart the Pre-quels was more entertaining than the prequels themselves. I almost recommend people watch the prequels, just so they can watch his review. It's really fantastic if you can get past the creepy, hannibal skits.

I never watched the originals but I have been thinking of watching all of them. Ugalde-

And my favorite "I have the high ground!".. What a anti climatic and STUPID way to end basicaly the climax of the entire trilogy.. sSubZerOo

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

If you have 6 hours to kill, everything you need to know is right there.

black_cat19

This.

Those reviews are the only time I watch the prequels (watching the review for Episode II in a seperate tab as I type)

terrible acting, writing, and pacing

Quite a bit of the dialouge is bad, and some of the acting isn't very good, but overall they're good movies.

BTW, the RLM reviews are terrible.

Because Lucas had full control, and no Irvin Kershner as in the first two.Engrish_Major

The main reason besides Jar Jar is that it seemed to contradict everything about the originals... Without revealing spoilers, pay attention to the original trilogy and then watch the prequels because there are a lot of continuity issues with the prequels

tbh, even Return of the Jedi was crap imo. Lucas is a total sellout. Do you know ROTJ was supposed to end with Skywalker walking in the Tatooine by himself? Instead we got the travesty that is the ending of ROTJ

tbh, even Return of the Jedi was crap imo. Lucas is a total sellout. Do you know ROTJ was supposed to end with Skywalker walking in the Tatooine by himself? Instead we got the travesty that is the ending of ROTJ

BossPerson

The first two basically were catering to children. Lucas could have made them into something great.

airshocker

Hai guyz, my name is luke skywalker, im a typical american teen heart throb that grew up on a moisture, farm, 3 days later Im a blaster expert picking off elite soldiers, doing lame indiana jones rope-swings somehow never getting hit in the process. oh look, now im a star x-wing pilot all of a sudden trustworthy enough to be part of the 30 ships sent to destroy the deathstar. And then I used my magic to outsmart targeting computers and shoot a missile down a funnel at the last second, while being saved by my scoundrel stereotype freind that was somehow immune to scanners and went unoticed. Sorry, star wars has always been silly, a GOOD silly though.

I don't consider any of the prequels ''bad'', in fact episode 3 is by far my favorite Star Wars.

IMO my list from best to worst are: 3 - 4 - 5 - 6 - 2 - 1

Because they have terrible acting, terrible dialogue, terrible pacing, terrible writing, and basically only get any recognition because of a couple of decent actions scenes and the recognition of the brand. TL;DR version, they suck.

[QUOTE="Engrish_Major"]Because Lucas had full control, and no Irvin Kershner as in the first two.Avian005

And the original 3 wernt? please.... the damn opening with the droids in a new hope ... infact, pretty mcuh all of a new hope. Your only saying that because there is a kid as a main character... other than that, a new hope was just as child freindly. infact star wars has never been series... little teddies killing stormtroopers anyone? Your brains are filled with kiddy nostalgia.PC360Wii

Considering EVERYBODY went and saw the originals, no, they weren't.

[QUOTE="black_cat19"]http://redlettermedia.com/plinkett/star-wars/ If you have 6 hours to kill, everything you need to know is right there.foxhound_fox

Now I reconize the prequel have there, very, awful flaws, but these are very poor reviews when they don't prove anything.

EDIT: I would also like to point out he actually edits some scenes in the movies to fit HIS description, not what happened in the movies.

Not this. As he tries to go over every major point he either gets them wrong or purposely lies about how things happen in the movies. There are times when he actually uses his opinion, but majority of what he points is entirely false, or just trying to make a joke.

Now I reconize the prequel have there, very, awful flaws, but these are very poor reviews when they don't prove anything.

EDIT: I would also like to point out he actually edits some scenes in the movies to fit HIS description, not what happened in the movies.

Avian005

Are you serious? It's clear as day how flawed the movies are. It's common sense and movie basics 101.

Give me 3 parts where he's false in his points.

I'd like to hear someone defend the prequels, this should be fun.

[QUOTE="Avian005"]Not this. As he tries to go over every major point he either gets them wrong or purposely lies about how things happen in the movies. There are times when he actually uses his opinion, but majority of what he points is entirely false, or just trying to make a joke.

Now I reconize the prequel have there, very, awful flaws, but these are very poor reviews when they don't prove anything.

EDIT: I would also like to point out he actually edits some scenes in the movies to fit HIS description, not what happened in the movies.

AtlanticRock

Are you serious? It's clear as day how flawed the movies are. It's common sense and movie basics 101.

Give me 3 parts where he's false in his points.

I'd like to hear someone defend the prequels, this should be fun.

The first two basically were catering to children. Lucas could have made them into something great.

airshocker

Pretty much, the last 1/3 of Return of the Jedi was kind of ruined by Ewoks, and the first two was just like that, one big pandering to the little kids. It doesn't help that the non kid parts were basically just one giant trade dispute where all they did was talk like we were watching freaking Space Judge Judy or something.

The third was the best of the prequel though since it was able to take a dark turn, but the worst part is that it really showed how terrible Lucas is at writing dialogue. I mean, really? Padme died of a broken heart? God I wanted to kill myself during that scene.

[QUOTE="black_cat19"]

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

If you have 6 hours to kill, everything you need to know is right there.

Gibsonsg527

In the original trilogy, especially the first movie, we get to see a group of lovable misfits get thrown into extraordinary situations and somehow bumble their way through their adventure in a most entertaining fashion. The sequels then, follow this same core group of buddies through dark times and towards an epic conclusion, where each of our beloved heroes has grown in some way.

The prequels have no lovable group of buddies. They have a whiny moron, and his equally inept non-friend (but claimed best friend). Their adventures are very bland, cheesy, and just downright stupid. Plus there was horrible plot, dialogue and acting. And way too much emphasis on (overrated) special effects. George really needed someone to keep him in check.

Laughable dialogue for one, and Jar Jar, and then I guess you could blame Hayden Christensen too but I mostly blame Lucas for having such a ****** script.

Because they weren't made with terrible acting and 1970's special effects. How terrible!

Most people have no idea what's real and what's not in the Star Wars prequels. I love it when I hear folks complaining about CGI and I know those things are real.

The only bad one is Episode 1 IMO. Still going to see it this weekend in 3D.

They are just as corny as the first three, people are silly. That's all. I'm a huge star wars fan, but the truth is the truth. They're all cheesy, the newest three aren't anymore so than the older ones.

Lucas became a family man

So he dropped the target demographic age to appeal more to children.

Compared to the originals which were targeted at Lucas's own demographic(teens/20's)

Fans expecting films targeted towards them, found it targeted at their kids or younger brothers/sisters

.

That and *********Midichlorian's:evil:

I actually liked all 3 new episodes (1,2, and 3). I don't mind special effects. I think older movies with crappy effects sort of ruin the movie for me. Guess that's why I don't like any movies really prior to the 80's and even then, it's spotty. I don't dislike the older ones. I actually like them too. Just stating I don't dislike the newer releases. I think people just don't like special effects that don't look exactly real. I hate when people say a movie sucked because of CGI. How else would they do it, imagination? You're there to see things that aren't a part of reality in the best way they can. I think they also don't like the new ones because somehow they're doing a disservice to the older 3, but they're just a prequel of what happened. That's how they were written. To me, they follow the same type of acting and special effects for what they had and what Lucas envisioned.

I saw the prequels first, so my opinions on Star Wars ar pretty much based off of them. I like them, but when I finally saw the originals (even though I already knew what was going to happen), they blew me away, but I still don't think the prequels are anywhere near as bad as anyone says they are. The people who normally state they are terrible movies had soaring expectations when they came out because of the original trilogy. When they saw a movie revolving around politics, they went up in arms. Basically what I'm saying is that the people who think they are terrible movies are normally either Star Wars purists (who are almost as annoying as trekkies), amateur film critics, people who like the movies but are to embarassed to say so, or people who have never actually seen the prequels and are trying to seem like they know something about Star Wars. It's all about personal interest.

It has a lack of emotional connection between any of it's characters and the audience feels nothing when a character dies/turns to the dark side.

Since someone already posted the redlettermedia.com link, I don't have much to say, but 3d will only make it worse!

And if anyone's not seen the reviews of them at redlettermedia, I highly suggest you do, especially if you 'like' any aspect of them.

Because they weren't made with terrible acting and 1970's special effects. How terrible!

DigitalExile

[QUOTE="DigitalExile"]

Because they weren't made with terrible acting and 1970's special effects. How terrible!

Serraph105

Thank you. The models had a feeling of depth and weight to them, the CGI didn't.

[QUOTE="Serraph105"][QUOTE="DigitalExile"]

Because they weren't made with terrible acting and 1970's special effects. How terrible!

MirkoS77

Thank you. The models had a feeling of depth and weight to them, the CGI didn't.

Many clone troopers close-ups are CGI. Episode I alone has more miniatures than the entire old trilogy. For the major battle of Episode 2 the ILM technicians were blowing stuff up for weeks - including walker models. In Episode 3 the lava is actually food additive.

Anyway, I honestly don't understand why people claim the CGI creatures of the prequels look worse than the models of the original trilogy. When the Imperial Walker falls in the snow and explodes, it's painfully clear it's a miniature. In fact it's more jarring than a constantly meh 1999 CGI model - at least that one's quality is always constant, as opposed to selling the illusion in one shot and then breaking it in the next.

Because they weren't made with terrible acting and 1970's special effects. How terrible!

DigitalExile

You cannot call the acting in the originals bad during a comparison to the new ones, it does not work. Ewan McGregor was the only passable actor in the new ones, maybe Natalie Portman could have made something out of her role if her dialogue wasn't a steaming pile of sh*t. Hayden Christiansen, though, is the absolute worst thing to happen to acting in forever. He got gifted one of the biggest roles at the time because George Lucas saw something in him, and even after that the best roles he gets offered are sh*tty second-rate horror movies. Why? Because he's a talentless wooden post of an actor.

I'm not going to say the acting in the originals was Oscar-worthy or anything like that, but comparing it to the new movies is like comparing the Godfather to Keeping up with the Kardashians. Part of the reason the acting wasn't oustanding in the originals, though, like the new movies is because George Lucas doesn't know jack about dialogue or how to make scene movement seem natural. Still, the acting in the new films is absolute sh*te, there's no comparison to Harrison Ford, Carrie Fisher, and Alec Guiness.