Thread: Which Star Wars Prequel do you hate the most?

For as much guff as the prequals have taken and deserved, I can still remember the feeling I had when I saw "New Hope" or Star Wars as it was once known. It was the first release. I went to one of the old movie palaces that had a huge screen and actuall ushers. The place was packed so I was down front. The music was not impressive, it sounded like old Korngold. The introduction word crawl was alright. Then came the first ship That was pretty cool. Then came Vaders ship. That was jaw dropping. The size was amazing and Lucas made you feel how big it was. CGI has made big strides since then but that was an impressive sight.

Originally Posted by Carpenoctem

The only good thing is the lightsaber fight with Darth Maul. That movies had so much potential, Lucas should have made a darker movie, he should have shown the suffer from the people from Naboo.

No way! Everything these days is darker and its absurd. I don't know what's wrong with folks these days.

I want to live in Naboo.

I should say "on", I suppose.

Naboo would be cool, or on a moisture farm on Tatooine, or maybe in some high class penthouse on Coruscant, or else in a freighter like the Millennium Falcon as a mobile home.

I want the salvage rights for the "forrest moon of Endor"

Originally Posted by Cnote11

I want to live in Naboo.

I should say "on", I suppose.

Unless you are a Gungan.

Originally Posted by clavichorder

No way! Everything these days is darker and its absurd. I don't know what's wrong with folks these days.

Haha, and what exactly is darker and why would it be absurd? You'd rather watch Amidala's wardrobe and Jar Jar Binks than the life and struggle of occupied Naboo? Try watching Phantom Menace again and then please tell me why is it absurd.

Originally Posted by Carpenoctem

Haha, and what exactly is darker and why would it be absurd? You'd rather watch Amidala's wardrobe and Jar Jar Binks than the life and struggle of occupied Naboo? Try watching Phantom Menace again and then please tell me why is it absurd.

Or they could try making a legitimately good movie like the original.

Originally Posted by Carpenoctem

Haha, and what exactly is darker and why would it be absurd? You'd rather watch Amidala's wardrobe and Jar Jar Binks than the life and struggle of occupied Naboo? Try watching Phantom Menace again and then please tell me why is it absurd.

Because it wouldn't have been Star Wars. All the griping about those movies you hear but when you ask people what it they think it should have been like the results are always laughable. They invariably harp on about how 'boring' all the political stuff was (actually its fundamental and absolutely crucial to Star Wars). These people seem to have wanted some non stop action movie (maybe they should've hired Schwarzenegger to play Qui Gon Jinn!) -wildly inappropriate. These guys generally wanted 2 and a half movies of Darth Vader running around hunting and killing Jedi -the mind boggles. Another trend I've come across is people who wanted some sort of gritty war movie -Black Hawk Down or Apocalypse Now in space. Have you completely lost touch with reality? Star Wars with an 18 Rating -sure, that's gonna happen. Again it would be totally wrong and lose the essence of what Star Wars is all about.

In that list drpraetorus made there are one or two justified criticisms but its mostly notable for being chock full of misconceptions and misunderstandings. I was particularly shocked to see that old whinge about Anakin being a messiah stand in -did you completely miss the Opera House scene?

Originally Posted by Crudblud

I saw the Phantom Menace when it first came out and thought "well, that's quite enough of that." I have absolutely no interest in seeing the other two.

Wait, you were old enough when it came out to not enjoy it? I actually quite enjoyed it when I watched it as a 1st grader.

I think I still would actually. I've never minded it story-wise, and have enjoyed the fantasy star wars elements of it quite a lot.

So what would I have wanted? 1st, and I think foremost, a kid who could actually act rather than work so hard at being cute and bland. How about a little more clarity on what the purpose for the blocade was, what exactly is the trade federation, what did Sidious expect to achieve? Did you ever see King Lear or Richard the Third? Those are rather complcated plots but the audience knows what is up and what each character is trying to achieve. Shakespear let us in on the plot and in a sence, makes the audience co-conspiritors. Why not Lucas?

It was inevitable that the new three would be compared to the old three. In that comparison, #1 is at a distinct disadvantage. It is in a word, juvenile. In all the whiz-bangery of the special effects, Lucas lost the thrust of the story and character exposition. We did not really care that much for the characters and were not that emotionaly involved with them. In 4,5,6 we met charaters we liked and cared about. In 1,2,3 that doesn't really happen until #2.

Actually, when you really look at it, #1 is not really necessary to the major storyline. The whole thing could have been merged with #2 (with a bit of a re-write) and have the story move along faster. Remember Polonius "Brevety is the soul of wit". That would have solved the problem of Anakin getting older and Padme not. I think that Lucas was trying more for symmetry than efficient storytelling.

Internal consistency would be nice. The bit about Anakin flying through the chields when the other couldn't is just the most glarring example.

While watching 1,2,3, one gets the feeling that Lucas was more concerned with building the backstory and reconciling susposed contradictions in 4.5.6 than with the mythic background that informed 4.5.6. A great deal was made about Lucas using the writings of Joseph Campbell to ground his story (4.5.6) is myths that are at the root of much of world culture. That's why there are parallels with greek myths and even with The Ring. Luke is Jason/Siegfried/Cuchulain. Even his theme sounds a great deal like Siegfrieds horn call. For me, that mythic resonance is lacking in #1 and only lurking in the shadows in 2 and 3. Which mythic hero would Anakin be analogous to? He certainly has the makings of a tragic, flawed hero that the greeks loved so much and we can see that tragic flaw in his pride. But as it works itself out we do not get that same sense of grand tragedy that we get with Oedipus or Jason or King Lear. And there's the rub.

I don't think that Lucas is a good enough writter to do justice to his vision in 1.2.3. The story, with a few tweaks is not irredeemable. A different child actor could be found. They're a dime a dozen in Hollywood. A tallented writer, working under Lucas's supervision could have taken the clunky language and midicloreans and turned it into something far more than it became. A co-writer could have made Jar-jar (if he was kept) somewhat less annoying. The humor would have been less forced. No more would we have "That's wizard Annie" or "Now THAT'S pod racing" and any number of other groaners.

Well, that's a start. Maybe, with all the tinkering he does with his movies, Lucas will read this and improve on #1. But I get a part of the toy concession.

I think the Revenge of the Sith was well made but the other two weren't. The dialogue from attack of the Clone Wars was horrendous. The phantom Menace just doesn't seem to fit with the others. They all have good special effects, though.

Is is true that Lucas intended to make 9 Star Wars movies? I'm glad he stopped at 6 though.

Originally Posted by drpraetorus

So what would I have wanted? 1st, and I think foremost, a kid who could actually act rather than work so hard at being cute and bland.

Child actors are always hazardous and screen history is littered with disasters -the whole 'dime a dozen notion is utterly mistaken. Lucas was looking for a very specific type. He isn't just cute and bland. On the one hand he's well intentioned, courageous, and spirited, but on the other he's ambitious and a bit too much of a go-getter. The seeds of Anakin's downfall are always present and its a significant reason why it's difficult to sympathise with the character. The same traits are of course in Luke who was never just the fair haired boy.

How about a little more clarity on what the purpose for the blocade was, what exactly is the trade federation, what did Sidious expect to achieve? Did you ever see King Lear or Richard the Third? Those are rather complcated plots but the audience knows what is up and what each character is trying to achieve. Shakespear let us in on the plot and in a sence, makes the audience co-conspiritors. Why not Lucas?

That's a plot choice. It's an absurd criticism. Are you suggesting that Agatha Christie novels would be improved if they revealed at the start who the killer is, and explained in detail how and why they were going to go about executing their diabolical schemes? Should The Usual Suspects have told us who Kaiser Soze was from the start? Perhaps Dostoevsky should have spelt out from the start what Stavrogin was all about in Devils? The thing is, the overwhelming majority of the audience already knew what Palpatine was trying to achieve ultimately and where he'd end up -the interest was in how he got there so giving the game away right off the bat would've been a pretty dumb move. As for the Trade Federation and the taxation of trade routes -well they want to trade and Naboo wants to tax them for travelling through their sovereign space and the Federation want to either reduce this or eliminate it entirely. How much more do you really want to know without it genuinely becoming boring?

It was inevitable that the new three would be compared to the old three. In that comparison, #1 is at a distinct disadvantage. It is in a word, juvenile. In all the whiz-bangery of the special effects, Lucas lost the thrust of the story and character exposition. We did not really care that much for the characters and were not that emotionaly involved with them. In 4,5,6 we met charaters we liked and cared about. In 1,2,3 that doesn't really happen until #2.

Really? I though Qui Gon made a great lead and was very sympathetic. Obi Wan and Padme were also fairly sympathetic characters, although relatively thinly drawn in this film, but of course every one already knew Obi Wan and had strong emotional ties to the character. The kid was problematic and Jar Jar plain irritating. Sure the actors and character chemistry was more successful in the original trilogy, but you always can't expect to get lucky the way they did there and I suspect Harrison Ford was the magic ingredient that really made that group work together.

Actually, when you really look at it, #1 is not really necessary to the major storyline. The whole thing could have been merged with #2 (with a bit of a re-write) and have the story move along faster.

I just plain disagree. I could go on for ages about that.

Remember Polonius "Brevety is the soul of wit".

Huh? You seem to be very keen on applying one sided dogmas to writing. Polonius' comment is supposed to be ironic because he's such a verbose windbag btw. In any event, there is more than one way to skin a cat. Leaving aside the fact that I disagree with your notion that Episode 1 is superfluous, I remember watching a documentary about the making of John Ford's My Darling Clementine and one of the team commenting with pride how they'd broken every rule you're taught in film school -in particular he singled out the idea that every scene should advance the plot.

That would have solved the problem of Anakin getting older and Padme not. I think that Lucas was trying more for symmetry than efficient storytelling.

In TPM Padme's supposed to be in her mid teens which she looks right for then. By ROTS she's in her mid-late 20s, which she can comfortably pass for in those films. What's the problem? You seem to just be complaining for no evident reason.

Internal consistency would be nice. The bit about Anakin flying through the chields when the other couldn't is just the most glarring example.

Actually there's no indication that the others tried to fly through the shields. They couldn't shoot through them. You should conclude that either the shields in question only protect from energy weapons but not kamikaze pilots or that there's a gap in the shields by the docking bay so that their own ships can take off and land. In the latter case that'd presumably be very well defended so anyone'd be foolhardy to try and attack there and likely be killed rapidly. In any event the whole point was that Anakin was freakishly lucky and was presumably unconsciously guided by the Force to fulfill his destiny.

While watching 1,2,3, one gets the feeling that Lucas was more concerned with building the backstory and reconciling susposed contradictions in 4.5.6 than with the mythic background that informed 4.5.6. A great deal was made about Lucas using the writings of Joseph Campbell to ground his story (4.5.6) is myths that are at the root of much of world culture. That's why there are parallels with greek myths and even with The Ring. Luke is Jason/Siegfried/Cuchulain. Even his theme sounds a great deal like Siegfrieds horn call. For me, that mythic resonance is lacking in #1 and only lurking in the shadows in 2 and 3. Which mythic hero would Anakin be analogous to? He certainly has the makings of a tragic, flawed hero that the greeks loved so much and we can see that tragic flaw in his pride. But as it works itself out we do not get that same sense of grand tragedy that we get with Oedipus or Jason or King Lear. And there's the rub.

Have you actually read A Hero with a Thousand Faces? There are two models it outlines. The successful hero as seen in Luke and the flawed tragic hero who ultimately falls/fails (although in Arthur's, like Anikin's, he is actually redeemed). The mentor figure appears in a number of guises, as do father figures, the thresholds of love and battle have a prominent role and hell is harrowed several times, whether in the Arena on Geonosis or most graphically on Mustafar. In what sense is there no grand tragedy? Anakin loses everything as a result of his personal failings and misdeeds and gains the earth. He becomes powerful but mired in corruption and his destiny cursed just like Jason, Siegfried, Arthur, and of course Uther. In one way or another he becomes Cain, David, Samson, Launcelot, Orpheus, Lot, Theseus, Achilles and of course Oedipus.

I don't think that Lucas is a good enough writter to do justice to his vision in 1.2.3. The story, with a few tweaks is not irredeemable. A different child actor could be found. They're a dime a dozen in Hollywood. A tallented writer, working under Lucas's supervision could have taken the clunky language and midicloreans and turned it into something far more than it became. A co-writer could have made Jar-jar (if he was kept) somewhat less annoying. The humor would have been less forced. No more would we have "That's wizard Annie" or "Now THAT'S pod racing" and any number of other groaners.

Midichlorians would've seemed much more clever when Lucas first dreamed them up in the mid-late 70s, but the unusual properties of mitochondria were far more a part of the general public consciousness by the late 90s -as a result their use was a little bald. Other than that they elegantly served the twin purpose of being a handy measure by which to indicate that little Ani is a bit special and by which to introduce the notion of symbiosis as the fundamental benevolent facet of the Force and indeed of life and something crucial to the mythology of the series.

The first trilogy had clunky lines too (see Harrison Ford's legendary comments). Nonetheless the scripts do their job. There are some poor moments it's true (I see nothing wrong with the lines you cite, but ''you say that biggest problem in this universe is that nobody helps each other'' sounded like it was segueing into an episode of The Waltons...), but overall the issues were grossly exaggerated (kids do say 'yipee!' and sports commentators are notorious for saying stupid things) by an audience that seemed desperate to find fault when they didn't get nine hours of Darth Vader kicking ass.

Tom Stoppard was employed to sharpen up the script of ROTS, and it shows. The repartee of the romance scene between Padme and Anikin in that film actually has some wit and charm to it whilst the Opera House scene is probably the best actor's scene and the best written in the entire six movies. So on that count I don't disagree as the benefits are self-evident, but I do think you're exaggerating the problems considerably.

Oh, and btw, R2's memory wasn't deleted because he can't speak.

It's very strange, but I've begun to like the Phantom Menace a little bit. It's like a weird, off-beat adventure film from the early 80's, with some memorable and likable characters... also, Jar Jar is so very strange and face-palmingly awkward that he has somehow turned interesting in my eyes. Moreover, the central mystery is compelling - so very little is explained.

I still dislike Attack of the Clones and outright hate the Revenge of the Sith, though.