Were the prequels really all that bad??

evil-monkey

This has been discussed many a time, but I'd like to bring it up again...just because...

Were the prequel movies really all that bad?? I quite enjoyed them (a lot in fact), and other than Jar Jar and a few other minor hiccups, I think their only failing was that they could never, no matter how good, have lived up to the hype and expectations; which is really our own fault.

I mean, what was so bad about them?? What exactly did they lack that the Episodes IV - VI had??

I love the prequals - Episode three especially.

The face off in Episode one between Obi, Qui and Maul just before they begin to duel is great! (many other great moments too, just that one is off the top of my head!)

I never liked Jar-Jar though, and wasn't surprised that he played an integral part in bringing down the Old Republic.

bigdaddyliamo

Yes, yes they were. They just tried too hard to wedge in the formula. Also the acting could not have been more wooden if it had been sponsored by sadolin:D

AnCapaillMor

I thought they were good not as bad as people made out, i think alot of people were expecting the same impact that the originals had when they come out, which was next to impossible. I loved 3, clone wars was the weakest of the 3.

Call Me Jimmy

Phantom of the menace was the best of the three. It had jar jar.

keefg

As much as I hate to admit it....I think the prequels were pretty terrible with the exception of a few decent fight scenes.

And as another post has mentioned, the acting is just painful (as much as I like McGregor) and that Hayden fella is a plank altogether.

armour87

With the exception of the dour love story, Episode Two is one of my favourites. Well...Top 4....

V9

hmmm, I dunno, hard to say, each of the three films had great elements. The duel in Ep 1 was brilliant, imo. Ep 2 had that fantastic battle at the end and loads of jedi with lightsabers just before that. (still wish they used yellow and handed out more purple sabers though) Ep 3 was by far my favorite, god I love my Clones.

Rawr

Although nowhere near the classic trilogy (Eps4-6), I would consider Episodes 1 - 3 as mostly enjoyable and pretty good. However, that is considering them together them as a trilogy. Individually the films cannot stand alone very well, unlike the classic trilogy where each film (although connected in an ark) could stand on their own as films in their own right.

As for each film:

Episode 1
There's a lot to love and hate in this one I feel, however it is very much the weakest in the trilogy. Jar Jar Binks is a big minus here. Although Star Wars often benefits from the inclusion of odd-ball aliens like Chewie and Jabba the Hutt, Jar Jar was poorly written and was aimed the youngest demographic possible, forsaking all others it seems.
Jake Lloyd's Anakin Skywalker is just a pure example of how not to direct (or cast) a child actor. However, for me, the Trade Federation's Droid Army was one of the positive elements in this film. Long before becoming the comic mess that they are now, the Battle Droids acted as an odd and very interesting enemy.
Although the lightsabre dual was great, I disliked much of the ending which felt very much like a re-hash of Episode 4's ending, with dog-fights, a 'Death Star' blowing up (be it a Droid Control Ship) and a very poor closing scene in the streets of the Naboo capital.

Episode 2
Things seriously pick up here I feel. With Lloyd out of the way, Chistensen takes the role of adult Anakin, and to be honest does an OK job. The role could have been casted better, for sure. I enjoyed the background to the Storm Troopers in this film and found it to be a very interesting role-reversal to see early Storm Troopers (Clone Troopers) to be aiding the good guys.
The love story featured in Episode 2 is by far the lowest point of the film.

Episode 3
This is my favourite of the lot. The opening battle is just great, and final days of the Clone Wars are a treat to watch as well as the beginning of the Jedi Purge with Order 66 (turning those Clones into the baddies we all know well ) The birth of Darth Vader was also cool, but the whole thing of him screaming 'NOOO!!!' was kinda weird. I recon they should have just have him scream and smash some stuff (like he did in that scene).
I felt that the ending was done well, and did a good job of matching up with Episode 4.

Anyway, that's my opinion on those 3 films. Not everyone would share the same views, but that's just how I regard them. 3 Ok films with some classic moments and some moments I wish never happened...(damn you Jar Jar)

Mr. Frost

I'm more of a fan of the 1 & 3 with the second one being my least favourite, though it did develop the story quite a bit. I can't really put my finger on it but I just don't like the feel of Attack of the Clones.

glenjamin

I loved the prequels. I felt that it has made IV-VI even better. What I didn't like was like everyone else, Jar Jar, C-3PO being built by Anakin, Boba Fett being a clone of Jango, and the love story being such a major part of the 3 films. Saying that the fight scenes and CGI were amazing plus the introduction of such characters as Mace Windu, Count Dooku, Darth Maul, and Qui-Gon Jinn made the whole Star Wars experience so much more better. Episode III will always be my favourite.

Call Me Jimmy

I feel the use of CGI (which is nowhere near good enough to be used on that scale) takes away from the character and charm of the prequels. Terrible casting and some very dodgy writing (not dialogue, that was always dodgy) meant that before filming they were already a cocktail for disaster.

I don't know how exactly to describe it, but the word that comes to mind when I think of the look of these films is 'glossy'. Maybe it's just me but the constant bad cgi completely kills any immersion.

I'm not the biggest fan of the other star wars movies but I enjoyed them. Prequels - not so much.

Feelgood

This reminds me of the time I went to see The Phantom Menance with a mate of mine and when we came out I asked him

"Well what did you think of that?"

to which he replid deadly in earnest...

"Thought it was a bit far fetched to be honest"

Blazer

I hate the prequels..I hope George Lucas spends an eternity in hell getting a lightsaber rammed up his ass.
I hated Jar Jar Binks..and Ep3 really took the piss from stupid retard Battledroids (R2D2 flying scene) to watching 2 wookies copying Tarzan :mad:
I could go on and on but won't.
I really hope someone remakes this in about 20 years and make it a lot darker with the stupid aliens and without Lucas being involved.

Vegeta

Things I disliked about prequels

Jar Jar, may as well have been a telly tubby

Love Story between Anakin and Padme, necessary I know as a vessel for the plot but didn't enjoy most scenes which dealt with it.

And the casting of both child and adult Anakin Skywalker, especially Hayden Christensen. He was such a whining moany c u n t. Now fair enough that was probably the direction as opposed to his personality but I hated having to watch him be a cry baby.

nyarlothothep

they're not bad at all, 2 and 3 were decent enough, 1 was a bit crap, not much happened, kind of like a book called the wolves of calla. The problem is they will be compared to episodes 4-6, which made a huge impact at the time and revolutionized film making, so they will inevitably come up short. Episode 6 was a bit sh1t as well, in the respect that they had a perfectly good film, with dark exposition, and then they bring the friggin ewoks in. They were totally unnecessary and spoiled the scenes somewhat in which Luke confronts the sith lord.

evil-monkey

bigdaddyliamo wrote: »

Yes, yes they were. They just tried too hard to wedge in the formula. Also the acting could not have been more wooden if it had been sponsored by sadolin:D

I thought the acting was fine. McGregor, Jackson, Portman, McDiarmid all did well. Christiansen was a bit whiney all right, but I think Anakin had to be like that...you couldn't help but grit your teeth at him...

Call Me Jimmy wrote: »

I feel the use of CGI (which is nowhere near good enough to be used on that scale) takes away from the character and charm of the prequels. Terrible casting and some very dodgy writing (not dialogue, that was always dodgy) meant that before filming they were already a cocktail for disaster.

Ah no way, the CGI was very good. From the fully animated Yoda to the all out battle scenes, I've seen few films come close imho...

Mathew Reilly wrote: »

I hate the prequels..I hope George Lucas spends an eternity in hell getting a lightsaber rammed up his ass.
I hated Jar Jar Binks..and Ep3 really took the piss from stupid retard Battledroids (R2D2 flying scene) to watching 2 wookies copying Tarzan :mad:
I could go on and on but won't.
I really hope someone remakes this in about 20 years and make it a lot darker with the stupid aliens and without Lucas being involved.

:rolleyes: Have you any really criticisms to make?? Or should I take the comment "I hope George Lucas spends an eternity in hell getting a lightsaber rammed up his ass" as an indication of your skills as a critic??

Vegeta wrote: »

Things I disliked about prequels

Jar Jar, may as well have been a telly tubby

True, but as with the Ewoks in Return of the Jedi, we must remember that Lucas wanted to attract the younger audiences as well. To them, Jar Jar was great, and he made for an even greater toy. I think he succeeded in making the films accessible to both younger and older audiences through the inclusion of such characters (which he always does)...

Vegeta wrote: »

And the casting of both child and adult Anakin Skywalker, especially Hayden Christensen. He was such a whining moany c u n t. Now fair enough that was probably the direction as opposed to his personality but I hated having to watch him be a cry baby.

Didn't we all...but as you say, I think his personality was meant to be portrayed like this.


I just can't see why so many people hate the first 3 eps. It's like this, when eps iv-vi were released, they weren't like anything that anyone had seen before. And no matter what Lucas did with the prequels, he couldn't have lived up the the hype in all our heads. Just look at eps iv - vi ; the destruction of Alderaan, the duel between Vader and Obi-Wan - these should have been two of the greatest moments in cinematic history...but they weren't. The destruction of Alderaan was treated like they all decided to go for a bottle of milk; nothing special about it. Leia didn't even seem bothered at all. There was no attempts to make it as horrific as possible for the viewer (showing the people on Alderaan just before etc). I really enjoyed all the SW films...and sure there was something about eps iv - vi that just felt better, but if you sit down and compare the six realistically, you cannot say that the newer ones are all that bad...

glenjamin

evil-monkey wrote: »

I just can't see why so many people hate the first 3 eps. It's like this, when eps iv-vi were released, they weren't like anything that anyone had seen before. And no matter what Lucas did with the prequels, he couldn't have lived up the the hype in all our heads. Just look at eps iv - vi ; the destruction of Alderaan, the duel between Vader and Obi-Wan - these should have been two of the greatest moments in cinematic history...but they weren't. The destruction of Alderaan was treated like they all decided to go for a bottle of milk; nothing special about it. Leia didn't even seem bothered at all. There was no attempts to make it as horrific as possible for the viewer (showing the people on Alderaan just before etc). I really enjoyed all the SW films...and sure there was something about eps iv - vi that just felt better, but if you sit down and compare the six realistically, you cannot say that the newer ones are all that bad...

Lately Episode IV has really gone down IMO. There is just no comparision between the Obi Wan and Vader duel in Ep IV to that of Ep III on Mustafar anymore. They just look so old and ackward with the lightsaber when on the Death Star. Whilst the duel on Mustafar was the climatic point for me in Ep III and made the prequels worth while. The destruction of Alderaan was poorly done when you watch it now. But the one thing that I really dislike was the way the Death Star was destroyed in Ep IV. For me that was a mistake destroying it so soon only to build another one in time for Ep VI. I think if Lucas could change one thing he would make the Death Star the main plot behind IV to VI just like I to III was all about the transforamtion of Anakin into Darth Vader (along with the rise of the Empire and the fall of the Jedi).

I know I'm probably coming off as one of these kids who had all 6 Episodes available and who never knew what it was like when there were only 3 films made but thats not true. I watched IV to VI when they were still called I to III but I still got to admit that I prefer the prequels, not because of the CGI or anything, but because of the storylines.

Pigman II

Currently reading The Making of Star Wars (JW Rinzler) and there's frequent mentions of how Lucas went to great lengths to ensure everything looked as real as possible. Cinema veritae if you will. He wanted everything the movie to look almost documentary style as tho you could buy into everything you were seeing on screen. This could only be accomplished if a special effects shot could match perfectly into an interior studio shot or vice verse etc.

For example the use of a motion control cameras. Up to this point sci-fi movies and tv shows that employed starfield shots from an optical printer were "locked off" (that is to say the camera didn't move during the shot). The shot might look nice and spiffy but at but the fact that the camera wasn't moving around the objects whilst the image played subconciously clued the viewer that "this isn't real". Lucas realised that this shortcoming had to be overcome and hense went to great pains to employ this technology in the original Star Wars. The results speak for themeselves.

Amazing then how he completely abandoned thes principle when making the prequel movies. The element that sinks this movie is not the directing, or the story or Hayden Christiansen but is in fact the big budget bangs and whistles that populate these prequels from start to finish. Now don't get me wrong, I like a good CGI sequence as much as the next guy. The problem is no matter how good the CGI looks in the prequels it simply DOES NOT LOOK REAL and does not match anything involving real actors in real or studio locations. It's like the effects industry had forgotten it's accomplishments and decided to step back 30 years in time all for the sake of playing with a new toy. Most other movies can get away with these shortcomings becasue they have no particular basis for compatison but when you have to live up to the relatively realistic look of the original SW the shortcomings of CGI in the prequels are mercilessly exposed.

The irony of it all is that they price we pay for technical progress is that 30 years from now the Original 3 movies are still going to hold up well and the prequels are going to be the ones that suffer visually as better ways of matching CGI to real elements make Lucas's efforts of 1999-2005 merely quaint.

jim o doom

Call Me Jimmy wrote: »

I don't know how exactly to describe it, but the word that comes to mind when I think of the look of these films is 'glossy'. Maybe it's just me but the constant bad cgi completely kills any immersion.

Nail on the head man, nail on the head. The crappy CGI was a major issue in all of them - it was like watching the trailer for any game, badly done CG - the toy ships in the originals were more convincing.. especially the weird creatures done in CGI instead of good costuming. looked pathetic.
I enjoyed the lightsaber battles in all of them, and of the prequels I only really enjoyed the 3rd one.. but that was it. I mean for me "ARISE LORD VADER" *shivers down spine* and then we have the originals.. (which ruled)

evil-monkey

Pigman II wrote: »

The problem is no matter how good the CGI looks in the prequels it simply DOES NOT LOOK REAL and does not match anything involving real actors in real or studio locations.

I disagree. I think this is the key point. I thought the CGI was perfect - as real as anything I've seen. Even the difference between the puppet version of Yoda in EP I, and the full CGI version thereafter is immense!!

Before CGI: http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/Pines/4928/tpm-yoda4.jpg

After CGI: http://www.the-planets.com/star-biography/yoda_biography_3.jpg

Pigman II

I was referring more in particular to the enviornments in the prequels than to characters. For the original trilogy if they wanted a forest world or a snow enviornment they went to real world locations. For the prequels they would just CG up the necessary landscapes and I think this is unfortunate because anyone can tell that what they are looking at is not real.

If you look a Geonosis or Kaimeno or even the odd bit of Tatooine in Ep2 it simply looks fake (mainly because it is) and there can be no denying this. Even the shots of interiors (eg Jedi temple) are no match for a set made of wood and paint with the right light on it (in terms of realism anyway if not scale). I'll admit now the environments had improved in Ep3 but they were still fake looking.

The reason we don't have CGI human characters in "real world" movies (as opposed to "fake world stuff like Polar Express or Final Fantasy) yet is that the human eye can detect instantly that there is something wrong. To a lesser extent this ability also exists in us for examining landscapes so I think perhaps directors should use it more sparingly until it's is good enough to trick us.

evil-monkey

Pigman II wrote: »

I was referring more in particular to the enviornments in the prequels than to characters. For the original trilogy if they wanted a forest world or a snow enviornment they went to real world locations. For the prequels they would just CG up the necessary landscapes and I think this is unfortunate because anyone can tell that what they are looking at is not real.

Where exactly were they going to find an underwater city or a volcanic planet?? Scenes on Tattooine etc were filmed in proper locations, but where this was impossible, CGI was used, and to great effect imho...

Pigman II wrote: »

If you look a Geonosis or Kaimeno or even the odd bit of Tatooine in Ep2 it simply looks fake (mainly because it is) and there can be no denying this. Even the shots of interiors (eg Jedi temple) are no match for a set made of wood and paint with the right light on it (in terms of realism anyway if not scale). I'll admit now the environments had improved in Ep3 but they were still fake looking.

Were we watching the same films??

Pigman II wrote: »

I think perhaps directors should use it more sparingly until it's is good enough to trick us.

I don't think the likes of some of the environments in Star Wars will ever look completely real through CGI, not for a long time yet anyway, and Georgie is getting on a bit. But overall, I thought the CGI was fine. Certainly a lot better than most films out there these days...

Looks like we're just going to have to agree to disagree on the whole CGI affair...

Call Me Jimmy

Well it seems that you must be judging it on the video-game scale of reality because I don't even think it's arguable that it is convincing.

Goodshape

evil-monkey wrote: »

I disagree. I think this is the key point. I thought the CGI was perfect - as real as anything I've seen. Even the difference between the puppet version of Yoda in EP I, and the full CGI version thereafter is immense!!

Before CGI: http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/Pines/4928/tpm-yoda4.jpg

After CGI: http://www.the-planets.com/star-biography/yoda_biography_3.jpg

HAVE to disagree there. First one looks much better.

Neither look really real but at least the puppet looks like a physical 'thing'. The the second image (and Yoda throughout Ep2 and 3) looks like a computer render. The lighting, textures, his hair, his movement... all look like CGI to me.

At least with a puppet you can make-believe that maybe it's just the way this creature moves. With CGI (and see also the ET 'Special Edition' for examples of this) they seem compelled to go overboard with movement and expression that just doesn't seem to suit the characters. They're not only animated (literally), they're too animated.

I'd fully agree with others that technology and experience simply couldn't match the ambition of the prequils.


But I also thought the story, script, acting and 'feel' to the films was pure muck. I'm honestly not sure I would sit through any of the prequils again if they were put on in front of me.


On the plus side, they have allowed me to enjoy the original trilogy in a new light. Knowing more of the history of the characters (however badly portraid) gives some extra gravitas to a few pivotal scenes. Knowing Darth Vader was once an annoying, whiney, easily led, insolent little ****e helps to highlight the characters inner turmoil somewhat. He was never evil, just an idiot. Poor guy.

evil-monkey

So people think the CGI of the prequils was poor, but that the "era sure it's only the destruction of a planet" attitude given to Alderaan was ok. That it was acceptbale that the final meeting of Obi-Wan and Darth Vader was as dramatic as Cornflakes, and that Kermit the Frog was a main character??

I'm not saying that the CGI was the best of all time, but it was pretty damn good in my book, and those claiming it was at the par of video games should really point me in the direction of what console they are playing on...

Call Me Jimmy

Yea. They had charm.

As the chap said, I obviously knew that yoda the puppet wasn't a real alien hired to play him. But watching the old yoda was easier because it was physically there and it didn't take me out of the story. Not that the prequels even had a story to take me out of but the environments, the look, the feel... CGI is nowhere near good enough to even think about using it as they did in the prequels without it ruining everything basically.

chopperbyrne

I thoroughly enjoyed all three prequel movies.

Jar Jar is far less annoying than the Ewoks (Although Jedi is still my favourite of all six).

Phantom Menace is excellent.

Attack of the Clones is a good middle part and Revenge of the Sith is very good and wraps things up nicely.

Most of the action scenes are better, the effects are superb and the story is no better or worse than the original trilogy.

evil-monkey

chopperbyrne wrote: »

I thoroughly enjoyed all three prequel movies.

Jar Jar is far less annoying than the Ewoks (Although Jedi is still my favourite of all six).

Phantom Menace is excellent.

Attack of the Clones is a good middle part and Revenge of the Sith is very good and wraps things up nicely.

Most of the action scenes are better, the effects are superb and the story is no better or worse than the original trilogy.

phew. For a second there I thought I was flying solo...

dyl10

I think as stand alone sci fi films, they're not all that bad, but for Starwars, they are atrocious

evil-monkey

dyl10 wrote: »

I think as stand alone sci fi films, they're not all that bad, but for Starwars, they are atrocious

Which is my point. When it comes down to it - why were the originals all that better when you consider all the key moments were done so poorly?? Don't get me wrong, I LOVE Star Wars, but I just don't see why people consider there to be such a void between the two sets of films. Maybe in the 70s the destruction of Alderaan scene was impressive, I'm far too young to know , but looking at it now you have to think - eh, maybe a bigger deal could have been made of it. Could Leia have maybe been even a little upset?? etc etc