• Most new users don't bother reading our rules. Here's the one that is ignored almost immediately upon signup: DO NOT ASK FOR FANEDIT LINKS PUBLICLY. First, read the FAQ. Seriously. What you want is there. You can also send a message to the editor. If that doesn't work THEN post in the Trade & Request forum. Anywhere else and it will be deleted and an infraction will be issued.
  • If this is your first time here please read our FAQ and Rules pages. They have some useful information that will get us all off on the right foot, especially our Own the Source rule. If you do not understand any of these rules send a private message to one of our staff for further details.
  • Please read our Rules & Guidelines

SW - Star Wars

TV's Frink

You Catch On Pretty Quick
Staff member
Donor
Faneditor
Messages
23,676
Reaction score
406
Trophy Points
193
Hardbackyoyo said:
DigModiFicaTion said:
The prequels had the appearance of Star Wars, but they lacked almost any feeling of being a Star Wars movie.

That's because the PT took place during a time of prosperity before the Empire took over everything.


This argument falls down when you remember that the only official versions of the OT that you can buy are the the SEs, which shoehorn in digital "prosperity" into a time period that isn't supposed to allow for it.
 

TV's Frink

You Catch On Pretty Quick
Staff member
Donor
Faneditor
Messages
23,676
Reaction score
406
Trophy Points
193

Hardbackyoyo

Well-known member
Messages
122
Reaction score
0
Trophy Points
16
TVs Frink said:
Hardbackyoyo said:
DigModiFicaTion said:
The prequels had the appearance of Star Wars, but they lacked almost any feeling of being a Star Wars movie.

That's because the PT took place during a time of prosperity before the Empire took over everything.


This argument falls down when you remember that the only official versions of the OT that you can buy are the the SEs, which shoehorn in digital "prosperity" into a time period that isn't supposed to allow for it.

Ehh...NO. Simply, no. There is nothing NEARLY as glamorous or glitzy as what was going on in the Prequels. The stuff he added was every bit as grungy as anything else in the original theatrical versions, maybe not in terms of effects, but in terms of mood and setting, certainly.
 

TM2YC

Take Me To Your Cinema
Staff member
Donor
Faneditor
Messages
14,869
Reaction score
2,380
Trophy Points
228
Hardbackyoyo said:
I would really love it if you all read this great article. Please give it a chance and let go of your hate:

http://www.brianonstarwars.com/2014/05/star-wars-prequels-are-just-as-good.html

Dude, we don't need a long article to explain to us why our eyes, ears, hearts and brains are wrong. Trust me, we've all watched the prequels and gave them a chance (many, many desperate chances) to not suck over a decade ago.

I can't speak for the initial reaction of anybody else but... after waiting 16 long years for another SW movie, I could not have been more excited to see the PT, I desperately wanted them to be good. I bought the VHS tapes, I bought the books, I bought the soundtrack, I went to the exhibition, I built the model kits, I played Episode-1-Racer on the N64 'til my finger nearly bled (That is genuinely an amazing game. Almost worth having the PT for that ;) ). After such a drought of Star Wars, this new trilogy just had to be good. I tried to enjoy it, I really did. But the more I watched them, the more I disliked them, not vice versa. Then GL started to try and change the OT to bring it down to the level of the prequels and I really started to hate them then. I'm really, really, REALLY sure they aren't good movies.

They aren't going to suddenly be great movies because an article by some guy on the internet says they are. This is a site basically created out of trying to make the prequels into versions that are less awful, so stop trying to convince us otherwise. If you like them, good for you, I'd honestly love to have 7x SW movies on my video shelf that I could regularly enjoy but it ain't gonna happen. I'll stick with the 4x that I do like (Now that fans have preserved them against GL's wishes).
 

Hardbackyoyo

Well-known member
Messages
122
Reaction score
0
Trophy Points
16
TVs Frink said:
Hardbackyoyo said:
I would really love it if you all read this great article. Please give it a chance and let go of your hate:

http://www.brianonstarwars.com/2014/05/star-wars-prequels-are-just-as-good.html

This is a bad article because:

1) I disagreed with almost every point for as long as I could stand to read and
2) It's too long for something I want to read, let alone something I don't want to read.

You're not open to opposing opinions?
 

TV's Frink

You Catch On Pretty Quick
Staff member
Donor
Faneditor
Messages
23,676
Reaction score
406
Trophy Points
193
Hardbackyoyo said:
TVs Frink said:
Hardbackyoyo said:
DigModiFicaTion said:
The prequels had the appearance of Star Wars, but they lacked almost any feeling of being a Star Wars movie.

That's because the PT took place during a time of prosperity before the Empire took over everything.


This argument falls down when you remember that the only official versions of the OT that you can buy are the the SEs, which shoehorn in digital "prosperity" into a time period that isn't supposed to allow for it.

Ehh...NO. Simply, no. There is nothing NEARLY as glamorous or glitzy as what was going on in the Prequels. The stuff he added was every bit as grungy as anything else in the original theatrical versions, maybe not in terms of effects, but in terms of mood and setting, certainly.

Apparently you've never seen the end of ROTJ:SE, where Coruscant is shown looking exactly the same as in the prequels.
 

TV's Frink

You Catch On Pretty Quick
Staff member
Donor
Faneditor
Messages
23,676
Reaction score
406
Trophy Points
193
Hardbackyoyo said:
TVs Frink said:
Hardbackyoyo said:
I would really love it if you all read this great article. Please give it a chance and let go of your hate:

http://www.brianonstarwars.com/2014/05/star-wars-prequels-are-just-as-good.html

This is a bad article because:

1) I disagreed with almost every point for as long as I could stand to read and
2) It's too long for something I want to read, let alone something I don't want to read.

You're not open to opposing opinions?

Sure, I'm open to them.  Let me give you an example.  His argument about Jake Lloyd not being terrible is that he acts how kids act.  I considered his argument, then rejected it because

1) I don't know any kids who talk like they're reading off of cue cards
2) I saw the full-length doc on the DVD where they showed the other two kids who lost out to Jake, and they were both better.
 

TV's Frink

You Catch On Pretty Quick
Staff member
Donor
Faneditor
Messages
23,676
Reaction score
406
Trophy Points
193
Hardbackyoyo said:
TVs Frink said:
Hardbackyoyo said:
I would really love it if you all read this great article. Please give it a chance and let go of your hate:

http://www.brianonstarwars.com/2014/05/star-wars-prequels-are-just-as-good.html

This is a bad article because:

1) I disagreed with almost every point for as long as I could stand to read and
2) It's too long for something I want to read, let alone something I don't want to read.

You're not open to opposing opinions?

I've restored your post.  I've noticed you do this all the time, where you post variations of the same thing multiple times only to delete most or all of them.  Please stop.  If you want to change something minor, use the edit function instead.  And if you didn't want to post it at all but someone (like me) has already responded, it's pointless to delete your post.
 

TV's Frink

You Catch On Pretty Quick
Staff member
Donor
Faneditor
Messages
23,676
Reaction score
406
Trophy Points
193
The comment section of that article is predictably bat-shit crazy.

You can draw a similar parallel between Jar Jar and Yoda. Remember how weird and annoying Yoda was in episode V? He stole Luke's fish sticks and messed with his equipment! Remember how Luke thought he was wasting his time with a senile, washed out, little toad? Remember how Yoda totally blew Luke away when he lifted the X-Wing out of the water? Remember how sad Yoda was that Luke didn't "get it?" If you wish Jar Jar didn't exist, then you don't "get it."
 

Hardbackyoyo

Well-known member
Messages
122
Reaction score
0
Trophy Points
16
Hating the Prequel Trilogy seems to have become less of a bandwagon and more like a subculture.
 

ssj

Well-known member
Donor
Faneditor
Messages
3,883
Reaction score
2
Trophy Points
53
i used to date a twi'lek girl. she didn't care for the prequels.
 

TV's Frink

You Catch On Pretty Quick
Staff member
Donor
Faneditor
Messages
23,676
Reaction score
406
Trophy Points
193
Hardbackyoyo said:
Hating the Prequel Trilogy seems to have become less of a bandwagon and more like a subculture.


A "using your brain" subculture.
 

Hardbackyoyo

Well-known member
Messages
122
Reaction score
0
Trophy Points
16
TVs Frink said:
The comment section of that article is predictably bat-shit crazy.

You can draw a similar parallel between Jar Jar and Yoda. Remember how weird and annoying Yoda was in episode V? He stole Luke's fish sticks and messed with his equipment! Remember how Luke thought he was wasting his time with a senile, washed out, little toad? Remember how Yoda totally blew Luke away when he lifted the X-Wing out of the water? Remember how sad Yoda was that Luke didn't "get it?" If you wish Jar Jar didn't exist, then you don't "get it."

Jar Jar Binks IS annoying--but as the article itself said, if you'd have read it, HE WAS SUPPOSED TO BE. Even the characters traveling with him are irritated by him. People say: THIS CHARACTER'S SO ANNOYING. The movie: I KNOW, RIGHT?! The point is, even the most irritating, dumb and clumsy person, by themselves, can contribute to saving the day, in their own unique way. It's a good moral--completely ignored by fans.
 

TV's Frink

You Catch On Pretty Quick
Staff member
Donor
Faneditor
Messages
23,676
Reaction score
406
Trophy Points
193
That's like how Tommy Wiseau tried to claim that The Room was supposed to be funny after the fact.  No sale.

And even if that was Lucas' intent, how about writing a character that wasn't annoying.  There are tons of not-annoying characters in fiction that are still interesting, despite the fact that they aren't annoying.
 

Hardbackyoyo

Well-known member
Messages
122
Reaction score
0
Trophy Points
16
Oh, that's nice. Compare George Lucas to Tommy Wiseau. Real classy. Because obviously, George Lucas is on the same level of filmmaking as Tommy FREAKING Wiseau. GET A CLUE.
 

DigModiFicaTion

DᴉმWoqᴉԷᴉcɑꓕᴉou
Staff member
Faneditor
Messages
8,609
Reaction score
3,508
Trophy Points
168
Hardbackyoyo said:
DigModiFicaTion said:
The prequels had the appearance of Star Wars, but they lacked almost any feeling of being a Star Wars movie.

That's because the PT took place during a time of prosperity before the Empire took over everything.

I was actually referring to the story and characters. The story doesn't feel like Star Wars. It has too much exposition and only progresses the content with glitz and glam instead of real story telling. It's almost as if story telling was an after thought. This is reactionary storytelling,and it's just plain bad. Sadly the reaction is towards technological advancement,  as in what can we do with sfx to distract and lull you into thinking this movie is amazing. Lucas and ILM were ground breaking with the originals,  but because of the difficulty in producing sfx,  each had a function in story telling. The prequels are the byproduct of too much available technology.

Also, having Obi-Wan, r2 and 3po in the prequels does nothing but reinforce that these movies are so bad that they had to put in characters that make you think you are watching Star Wars. At least Han and Leia had impactful roles to play beyond parlor tricks in TFA. McGregor's Kenobi is perhaps the best part of the prequels,  but his character doesn't match his and Yoda's description of himself in the OT. (I do like his Obi-Wan, just to clarify) Most of the brilliance of the OT is due to the necessity to create the impossible using practical means. That is why, even though some of the dialogue is ridiculous,  TFA  got it so right.  They forced themselves to create tangible reality rather than imagine it in a sterile environment.  I think this is the juxtaposition between practical effects and cgi. 

In short, Star Wars is real when you can touch it and relate to its familiar environments and characters. The prequels neither feel real nor have many been able to connect with its unrealistic environments and hollow characters. Sure,  we can identify with in the moment emotions that are displayed,  but to identify with character arcs over movies.... doesn't happen in the PT.

Anyway, I'm with @"ThrowgnCpr",.  The fact that this site exists is an overwhelming data point that the prequels are unpopular for the many reasons outlined throughout the thread. 

Perhaps it is the followers of the Empire that love the prequels because their team wins and it's the peace loving rebels that love the OT because their team wins.... Uh oh,  I just made this political.....im going to jump on my Tantive and escape now. 

b67fea53bb8c4560611dec1d53454220.gif
 

addiesin

Well-known member
Messages
5,888
Reaction score
1,502
Trophy Points
163
Hardbackyoyo said:
Hating the Prequel Trilogy seems to have become less of a bandwagon and more like a subculture.

Actually it sounds more like a band name.
 

Hardbackyoyo

Well-known member
Messages
122
Reaction score
0
Trophy Points
16
DigModiFicaTion said:
Hardbackyoyo said:
DigModiFicaTion said:
The prequels had the appearance of Star Wars, but they lacked almost any feeling of being a Star Wars movie.

That's because the PT took place during a time of prosperity before the Empire took over everything.

I was actually referring to the story and characters. The story doesn't feel like Star Wars. It has too much exposition and only progresses the content with glitz and glam instead of real story telling. It's almost as if story telling was an after thought. This is reactionary storytelling,and it's just plain bad. Sadly the reaction is towards technological advancement,  as in what can we do with sfx to distract and lull you into thinking this movie is amazing. Lucas and ILM were ground breaking with the originals,  but because of the difficulty in producing sfx,  each had a function in story telling. The prequels are the byproduct of too much available technology.

Also, having Obi-Wan, r2 and 3po in the prequels does nothing but reinforce that these movies are so bad that they had to put in characters that make you think you are watching Star Wars. At least Han and Leia had impactful roles to play behind parlor tricks in TFA. McGregor's Kenobi is perhaps the best part of the prequels,  but his character doesn't match his and Yoda's description of himself in the OT. (I do like his Obi-Wan, just to clarify. Most of the balance of the OT is due to the necessity to create the impossible using practical means. That is why, even though some of the dialogue is ridiculous,  TFA  got is so right.  They forced themselves to create tangible reality rather than imagine it in a sterile environment.  I think this is the juxtaposition between practical effects and cgi. 

In short, Star Wars is real when you can touch it and relate to its familiar environments and characters. The prequels neither felt real nor have many been able to connect with its unrealistic environments and hollow characters. Sure,  we can identify with in the moment emotions that are displayed,  but to identify with character architecture over movies.... doesn't happen in the PT.

That's your opinion.
 
Top Bottom