Jump to content

Photo

Why all the SW prequel hate?

star wars phantom menace revenge sith attack clones

  • Please log in to reply
35 replies to this topic

#1
OpheliaNeoma

OpheliaNeoma

    Old hand

  • Premium Member
  • 672 posts

They weren't terrible, nowhere near as bad as the bandwagon hopping people like to make it out to be.  I prefer them over the original trilogy, that's for sure.  It's been a few years since I watched them, but whenever I wanted to watch the movies I would have to watch them in chronological order, like with LOTR.   The battles were great, the landscapes were gorgeous, they were all just great movies.

 

The only interesting parts of the originals were R2 and C3PO.  Everybody else was boring.

 

If you want to talk about bad __quels to a great movie, look at the Matrix franchise.


Edited by SgtHighwaters, 15 August 2013 - 08:38 AM.


#2
flamenx01

flamenx01

    Bonny Scotsman

  • Supporter
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,388 posts

The prequels where too political heavy. Also CGI was used far too much to the point where everything just looked fake (the originals looked so much better because they use models and costumes). The original films also seemed to balance the light hearted bits with the serious bits so much better than the prequels.

The prequels aren't bad movies and if the where released before the originals or as stand alone films I'm pretty sure that they wouldn't have got as much hate. The problems is that most people grew up watching the originals and hold them in high regard. It makes it nearly impossible for the prequels to live up to them. (I actually used to like the prequels better but now big parts of them just annoy me)

How can you say Han Solo, Darth Vader and Jaba the Hutt are boring?

I quite enjoyed the second matrix film. The problems with the third one is it's really hard to get the ending to a trilogy right and they didn't quite hit the mark.



#3
OpheliaNeoma

OpheliaNeoma

    Old hand

  • Premium Member
  • 672 posts

I didn't know that the point of scifi/fantasy was to be realistic.  The CGI made them much more spectacular, especially Phantom Menace's podracing, the battle with the giant bubble shields, the underwater segmant with the fish, the fighter jets (much cooler than the ugly X-Wings), and the battle droids (I know it's a scene from AotC but still, they look very believable).

 

Han Solo felt like a character that belongs in an Asylum movie. Darth Vader was an okay character (considering the prequels, because you learn of his backstory), but you never see a human side to him, he's just like Batman - an emotionless blank figure with a one-track mind.  However Vader for some reason tried to redeem himself in his last moments of dying.  Jabba wasn't interesting, at all.  People seem to regard him like a scumbag Face of Boe from DW, he's just lacking in practically every department.

 

Matrix was drawn out  way too much. The three movies should have been two, at the maximum.  Looper was a better movie than the entire Matrix series, and it was only one, but still did the job of a great movie.



#4
LadyMilla

LadyMilla

    Resident poster

  • Moderators
  • 15,159 posts

Movies are not about CGI. 

 

I could write a monograph on why all the prequels (well, maybe except Ep III.) sucked badly, but I'm just going to post a link to a good review that more or less reflects my own opinion:

 

http://redlettermedi...phantom-menace/



#5
OpheliaNeoma

OpheliaNeoma

    Old hand

  • Premium Member
  • 672 posts

I've seen the RedLetter review, and it was just stupid.

 

Movies may not be about CGI, but let's face it - reality can't bring as breathtaking visuals as computer generated imaging can.



#6
LadyMilla

LadyMilla

    Resident poster

  • Moderators
  • 15,159 posts

You're missing the point. It's not the just visuals that make a movie great or bad. By the way, can you explain why those reviews were stupid? The guy made a lot of good points that are difficult (but not impossible) to argue with. You just simply dismissed a detailed review with a simple word: 'stupid'. 

 

Let me just say it's not the best way to make sure that your opinion is taken seriously.



#7
flamenx01

flamenx01

    Bonny Scotsman

  • Supporter
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,388 posts

I've seen the RedLetter review, and it was just stupid.

 

Movies may not be about CGI, but let's face it - reality can't bring as breathtaking visuals as computer generated imaging can.

The problem with the CGI is the over use of CGI. For example they didn't make a single clone uniform they just CGI'd them in if they had made costumes the clones would have looked more realistic. CGI does looks good in space battles and for landscapes (the vehicles actually looke better in the prequels).


Edited by flamenx01, 15 August 2013 - 09:31 AM.


#8
OpheliaNeoma

OpheliaNeoma

    Old hand

  • Premium Member
  • 672 posts

Simply because I don't agree with 'Plinkett'.  The review seems to me to be more about 'I can't accept that this isn't exactly the same as the originals' than actual reasons why it's not a good movie.  The politcal conversations and faster pacing is what made it great, not the incredibly grueling farmboy-turned-hero experience the originals were.  It didn't have a main character, sure, but it didn't need one. The Phantom Menace was more about the events and introducing the main characters of the entire franchise (Anakin, Kenobi, Padme, Yoda, and the two droids to name a few).

 

Any argument about how good or bad it was is purely opinion, and it to me was a very, very good movie.



#9
OpheliaNeoma

OpheliaNeoma

    Old hand

  • Premium Member
  • 672 posts


 



I've seen the RedLetter review, and it was just stupid.

 

Movies may not be about CGI, but let's face it - reality can't bring as breathtaking visuals as computer generated imaging can.

The problem with the CGI is the over use of CGI. For example they didn't make a single clone uniform they just CGI'd them in if they had made costumes the clones would have looked more realistic. CGI does looks good in space battles and for landscapes (the vehicles actually looke better in the prequels).

I can see here that there's obvious CGI, but it still looks good enough,  and since CGI was a sort of new thing at the time they were probably experimenting to see what it could do.  It worked really well, I think. Especially Grievous, he's easily the coolest character of the entire series.



#10
brokenergy

brokenergy

    Damn it Luke!

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,743 posts

Because it lost the favour that the original trillogy had. It turned Vader into some guy with issues and made Jar Jar Binks to attract kids (what kind of kids wants that). It's not Lucas' best work by far (not that it was that bad and there are movies which are worse than the prequels) but it certainly didn't bring the flare that the original trillogy had.


Edited by brokenergy, 16 August 2013 - 01:06 AM.






Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: star, wars, phantom, menace, revenge, sith, attack, clones

IPB skins by Skinbox
Page loaded in: 1.051 seconds