Saga Why do people hate the prequels?

Personally I grew up with the prequels so I actually like them. For others maybe they were expecting the original trilogy all over again when in fact the prequels have a different tone to the originals. I think the prequels gives the originals greater depth and makes me watching the originals all the more better.
The prequels told us how one generation screwed up the galaxy. The originals told us how one generation saved the galaxy.

 

This quote FTW!

 

Again, I'm willing to admit some of the "we expected the OT" issue is part of the problem but it is not the whole truth. And besides, what's wrong with wanting more of a good thing?

There is also the fact that, as I said, for some of us who wanted to like them badly, they just don't work, they feel uneven and tonally mixed up. And since these aren't new films we were definitely within our rights to contrast and compare.

And then there is the fact that, because of the PT, the OT ends up getting tweaked from what we fell in love with before to make it match the new vision. It is this latter point that drives me the most nuts now, now that I have reconciled myself to the fact I'll never like the PT fully and that there is new-flavored SW everywhere. It would be like being in love with, I don't know, a classic rock album for years only to have the artists rerelease it after their mediocre new studio album remixed and tell you that you'll never get a digital copy of that cassette you own as it used to be. Frustrating no?

 

wait

 

Granted that I am frustrated that we won't get the original trilogy in it's original form and the originals are defiantly better than the prequels. The prequels do however open up interesting new perspectives on statements made in the original trilogy
Example: When the Emperor dissolved the senate in a New Hope we knew nothing about it but now we understand that the Emperor is finally destroying any last pockets of democracy in the galaxy.

 

Do not really agree, I think that point was well made with just the original film.
In ANH we are told that there was once a republic but now there is an Empire. We know that some remains of the old republic still exists, one example is the Imperial Senate. In the first part of the film this senate is given some weight and it is implied that it still has some power. So some democracy still exists. Then with the DS that all changes and now the emperor can rule with force and fear.

With the PT we know what the senate was like, corrupt, ineffective and mostly in the palm of Palpatine.
So it's removal isn't very sad as it showed itself mostly useless and largely only did what Palpatine wanted it to.

As for expectations, I disgree. I did not expect the OT again. I knew that this story would be different, it would end badly for one, the good guys loose. It would involve a good man becoming evil, the rise of an evil empire.

And I was also expecting a fair amount of political intrigue and if done well, I rather like that sort of thing.
But the politics of the PT was often far too simplified and we often did not get any good idea why the various parties did what they did. Beyond the obvious "Palpatine told them to." The TF are upset about some new tax and are working with the sith and blockades Naboo. What do they hope to get out of this? How is this blockade getting rid of this new tax? Why and how did they get into bed with the Sith? Speaking of the Sith, they want revenge at the Jedi for something, what is never said. In AotC the seps want to leave, why? Dooku and his goons build an army and plan to attack the republic and make demands but what those demands are is never said.

In all, my problem is that the TF, seps and the politicians in the senate only do things because the plot needs them to or because Palpatine told them to. Had the seps been shown as a genuine political movement and Dooku had not been a sith but really just a former jedi but that Palpatine is using him that might have made things better for me.
Or that the seeds of the seps had been established in TPM along with Dooku.

In closing, I certainly don't hate the PT and would not want them undone. They are average films to me.
They are attempting to be more complex but often I find it doesn't really work that well. The OT is simpler but it works better, the storytelling works better.

Bye for now.
Old Stoneface

 

I see your point in that the originals are simpler. If I wasn't such a big EU reader I probably wouldn't have understand the prequels nearly as well as I do now. So yes the originals are better but with help from the EU and the tv show the Clone Wars I can appreciate the story George was trying to tell even though it is flawed at times.

 

People don't like the prequels because they are living in the past. Nostalgia destroys reason.

 

I'm the OT generation.

I love the prequels (minus a few scenes here and there). I'm more apt to watch any of them than the OT, which I also love. OT, especially ANH, is more "fairytale" - simplistic, black and white morality, enjoyable. PT is more shadowed and ambiguous.

 

Yeah, that's all this is. Sigh...

Anyway, I agree that the PT can be fun on a variety of levels. But like others have said, the basics of it just didn't get translated well through the package it was finalized in for my tastes or understanding of what a good film (any good film) is. So I can appreciate the details and the intentions but I don't find myself buying them as films and would have stopped caring long ago if they weren't Star Wars films. Something said above had me thinking, for example, that if the "Separatist movement" or whatever had been more seriously presented and clear it might have been more interesting and that was when I flashed on the Moffs from ANH. To me that kind of handful of power hungry dictator types all coming together to use their people for their own personal gains was something that was missing. The rogues gallery of "freaky monsters" in the Separtist council that represented this, though colorful, just didn't ring true to me. Whereas the human-council in ANH did. Of course this isn't necessarily the most imaginative way in sci fi to give the impression of a diverse galaxy, but it worked nonetheless to speak to our own (human) sensibilities and experience with politics. Perhaps the colorful rogues gallery thing is just too distracting and relies too much on spectacle for the tastes of some. We didn't really need a convoluted plot involving all these shadowy figures per say. Look at politics today! You just need to get people freaked out a bit and you can get them to do almost anything you want for your personal gains. Power hungry politicians and the people that support and follow them are a dime a dozen. If the PT had started with a war already in progress between the Old Republic and a growing faction of systems wanting less Republic interference? I would have bought that no problem. And seeing a small scene with a briefing between a bunch of Moff types would probably instantly have even felt much more SW to me anyway. Or a more "peppered" approach, kind of like the briefing in ROTJ with Ackbar and company.

 

This is very well said, and I agree completely with it. I don't particularly like the prequels, but not because of the concepts. I've said before that the concepts of the prequels are fairly strong. You have a charismatic and sinister leader who used to be a good guy creating a separatist movement, you have a hero being manipulated by darkness and giving into his faults, you have a love story, you have a hero trying to stop the future from happening, you have peaceful guardians who suddenly have to become generals, you have political corruption and intrigue, you have a fallen savior, etc. etc., and all the while you have Space Hitler masterminding it all from the shadows. The problem is the execution. Those concepts were not packaged well, a term that you said and I think describes it pretty accurately. Things happened because they had to happen, not because they felt natural and organic -- and that's my biggest issue with the new trilogy.

So to answer the first question of the thread, for me hate is a very strong word and I wouldn't use that word. I wouldn't say disappointed either, because the first Star Wars film I saw was The Phantom Menace -- so I wasn't waiting for it in some sort of nostalgic trance. I just don't like them that much because I don't think they're very well made, and Sinkie's post illustrates why.

 

Just out of curiosity, but what do people mean when they say "things happened because they had to happen"? I've heard this line before, but I don't really see how this is applicable any more to the prequels than to the OT or many other films (Harry Potter, Lord of the Rings, etc.).

Is it referring to the plot driving the characters rather than the characters driving the plot? Because I've never really felt this is true of the PT.

 

I thought it was more

"we know what happens in the OT- therefore certain things have to happen in the PT to set the stage for the OT"

 

It means that the story of the prequels did not unfold naturally and organically, but rather the plot got from point A to Z because the original trilogy necessitated it. For example, Anakin and Padme's love story is not well crafted. You can kinda sorta get the idea as to why Anakin is in love with Padme, but Padme loving Anakin comes out of nowhere. She says "I love you" because Luke and Leia necessitate that happening, not because it was a logical or natural character and plot development.

No matter what, certain things had to happen, of course. That's the trouble you run into with any prequel to any story. However, better writing, better characterization, and so forth could have made those happenings feel natural. Instead, they felt forced (pun completely intended).

 

Personally, I don't really see how they're all that different from the OT. Maybe it's just a matter of perception, but I felt things unfolded naturally. I could see why characters were making the choices they made even if they were often bad choices. I often found this harder to do in the OT. In terms of Anakin and Padmé's relationship, for instance, I was able to see why she fell for him far more easily than why Leia fell for Han. Han is childish, disrespects her, and doesn't listen to her protests. I don't really see how that's attractive or why Leia would give him the time of day, especially when it's clear that Luke (who treats her much better) also likes her. It seems like they got together just to have a romance in the story, but nothing ever really comes of it.

For Padmé, though, I could see from her personality why she would be attracted to Anakin -- she could justify being with him and seemed like the type of person who martyrs herself to causes.

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. I don't think anything in the PT felt nearly as forced as Luke forgiving his father in ROTJ. It's not so much the fact that Luke forgave him, just the way it was handled. Luke enters ROTJ convinced he wants to redeem Anakin when he has no reason to think there's any good in him and has plenty of reason to hate him. We never really see when or why Luke came to this decision and it felt like the plot forced itself on his character arc in order to ensure that Anakin could be redeemed by the end. But your mileage may vary.

 

You may not understand what Leia sees in Han, but what is abundantly clear is that the two characters have profound chemistry. You could cut the sexual tension with a knife, but it was so much more than that; there was genuine affection shared between them that was very apparent. The magic of the Han and Leia romance is that they were so very antagonistic towards each other, and yet, the love they shared was obvious.

For me, Padme and Anakin's love story fell flat. Hayden and Natalie just seemed to be speaking lines in a high school production (and I don't mean to knock their acting chops because I know that are both very talented actors). I did not get a sense of the chemistry between the characters at all. The dialogue says the characters are in love, so we are meant to believe it- well that didn't work for me.

 

Han and Leia always had sexual tension. You got that immediately in A New Hope, and that’s important. Is “I love you” a stretch? Sure, but that’s typical of a lot of movies. What can’t be denied is their attraction, as MrFantastic said. One can have no trouble believing that these two are generally into each other. Leia is the princess who falls for the bad boy.

The reasons why Anakin loves Padme are more or less clear. She had a major impression on him when he was a kid, and he idolized her and thought about her for 10 years before they finally met again. I would argue that's more lust, but whatever.

The problem comes from the Padme side of that. In the beginning of the film, she makes it clear that she views him as that little boy from Tatooine (ew). As the film moved forward, Padme witnesses Anakin doing quite a bit of whining and complaining. Not exactly what a woman is going to find attractive in a man. She even tells him that he’s making her uncomfortable when he gives her his creepy face in her apartment.

Flash forward to Naboo. They kiss, they have some platonic fun out in the sun, and then later Padme has to hold back her deep feelings for Anakin because she’s a Senator and he’s a Jedi. Woah, wait, hold on, what? What feelings? Where did those feelings come from? She’s basically known him for a few days, and in that time a number of their scenes together have been about his temper tantrums and nothing to make her have feelings for him. Yes, there's the scene aboard the ship to Naboo where they talk about love, but that's Anakin telling Padme about the Jedi. There's nothing revelatory there to justify Padme having those feelings all of a sudden.

Flash forward to Tatooine. Anakin confesses to being a mass murderer. So Padme obviously gets the heck away from him. Wait, no she doesn’t. To be angry is to be human. So it’s cool. He slaughtered an entire tribe of mostly sentient albeit primitive beings, but he’s human so he gets a pass. Plus he's just so dreamy!

Flash forward to Geonosis. She confesses that she truly deeply loves him and that it's her dying desire to tell him that. Why did that happen? When did that happen? Then when the battle is over, they get married. After a few days or weeks? After no sensible characterization to get us to this point?

Even though you can sort of understand why Anakin is in love with Padme given that he's thought about her for ten years, there's still a lot left out. There's still a far too limited amount of motivation on his end too, given that he's basically in love with a person he imagined in his head and we see no real reason for him to be in love with the real person standing right in front of him. That concept of loving an idolized person from your dreams is an interesting story idea, but it's one that was not explored.

The love story completely falls apart because of Padme’s motivations (aka her lack thereof), and Revenge of the Sith and the character of Darth Vader (when starting your viewing with Episode I) is dependent on that love story.

 

Well, I don't think Padme's change of heart was SHOWN particularly well in execution, although the fact that he on Naboo relates to her as Padme and not the Queen probably affected her views a lot. She saw someone like her, in part, someone who was used to being seen as a role.
The biggest problem was the lack of chemistry between the actors (IMHO) although that was a bit of hit or miss.

Heck, there was more chemistry between Ewan and Natalie when he comes to her apartment after Order 66. With one minor misstep on Ewan's part ("they," pause, strokes beard, "killed younglings") that scene SUNG.

 

Perhaps Han and Leia's sexual chemistry was clear to you. It was not so to me. I could clearly tell that Han "wanted" Leia, but the way he went about it, frankly, was more predatory than romantic. Who pushes someone against a wall to kiss them after they've told you to let go? I actually thought, to be honest, that Leia and Luke always had much better chemistry and the way he treated her was a lot better (at least in ESB, come ROTJ, it's different). I didn't think the "love" they shared was at all obvious. Is it normal to ignore the protests of people you love?

I can respect that you didn't like the Padmé/Anakin romance. I did, but I can see how if one was looking for sexual chemistry, it wouldn't necessarily be appealing since I never really got the sense that theirs was a relationship based on lust. Mostly, this is because they're both shown to be able to engage if they want. The issue that I think makes their relationship compelling is their emotional needs -- both of them come across as very lonely and wanting someone who doesn't see them as a title or a position, but as a person. Because of that, I liked the way their relationship developed.

Like I said to MrFantastic, though, the issue I have isn't that they are missing sexuality (they're not), but that Han doesn't seem to respect Leia and yet she still falls for him and the film portrays this as ideal. I much preferred the way Luke and Leia interacted, to be truthful.

See, I'd argue quite the opposite. I think Anakin's attachment to Padmé is far more emotional than lust-based, not just because if sex was all he was after, he's shown as having plenty of options, but also because it's clear that Padmé cared for him a great deal even when he was "unimportant" and a mere slave boy. I think that made an immense impression on him and I think he comes across as very lonely and isolated among the Jedi.

Heh -- I actually thought it came across differently. Padmé is shocked by the fact that Anakin has grown up -- it's something she didn't consider and she's attracted to him. So she tells him (and herself) that he's still that little boy from Tatooine because she doesn't know how to handle it. I also think that, despite Anakin "whining and complaining" that there's some important points to consider -- namely that Anakin saved her life. But also the fact that he listens to her and clearly cares what she thinks -- when she points out that mentors have a way of seeing our flaws, he admits that she's right. Plus, I never got the impression that "uncomfortable" meant "creepy" -- I think she was more flustered by his attention than anything. After all, she doesn't seem the least bit concerned when they're about to leave for Naboo.

Where did Han and Leia's feelings come from? The same place Anakin and Padmé's did -- they spent time together and enjoyed each other's company. Anakin listens to her and cares about her as a person. I think that would probably mean a lot to Padmé who has spent her entire life since she was 14 as a politician, serving others and being seen largely as a Queen or a Senator. I don't think it's a coincidence that the boyfriend she tells Anakin about was from when she was 12. Plus, Padmé knows, intellectually, that they can't be together and it wouldn't work, but she does want to be with him -- hence why she kisses him on the balcony, pulls away, and then immediately clenches her hands. She's trying to restrain herself. Plus, I don't really see where you're getting "temper tantrums" -- they kiss on the balcony, have a picnic and dinner, have fun together. She's clearly enjoying herself. When she and Anakin roll around on the grass, it's not him pinning her down.

See, I always thought there was a kind of brilliance to this scene. Padmé looks disturbed by what she hears but comforts Anakin. And I think this makes sense for her character. You have to consider that Anakin saved her home planet, he saved her life, she knows he's been dreaming about his mother and she heard what happened to Shmi from Cliegg. Then Anakin comes back with his mother's dead body and breaks down crying at what he's done. I think she recognized what he did was wrong, but didn't think he was a bad person -- just a person who snapped under horrific circumstances and felt guilt and shame over what had happened. Where the "brilliance" factor comes in is that I think this, in many ways, solidifies Padmé's decision to be with him. Because now, she's not "selfish" for being with Anakin -- he clearly needs her, needs emotional support. And given her character and personality and her predilection for martyring herself to causes, I think Padmé uses this to legitimize why it's okay to be with him and not "selfish" of her. Plus, people forget that Anakin also told Palpatine, Padmé's former Senator and the Supreme Chancellor. He would have doubtlessly told Anakin that it was alright, and that would have eased Padmé's concerns. It was clearly a mistake for her to do this, but I think it makes sense for her character. She wants to "save" him by being there for him.

See above for why I think she marries him, but in terms of time frame, I don't think it's fair to criticize the PT for this. There's never any concrete time frame given for the OT (particularly ESB). That entire movie could have taken place within a few days or months, there's really no indication.

I think the film shows that Anakin, while certainly idealizing Padmé, also wants to know the real "her" and loves her regardless. He's willing to let her go, after all, in AOTC when she says they can't be together. After the fireplace scene when Padmé lays down the law, Anakin stops pursuing her -- it is she who initiates every romantic action after that while he keeps a more professional distance (calling her Senator, for instance). I think that demonstrates a great deal of love and maturity on his part -- to accept her decision even if it causes him pain and isn't what he wants.

I disagree. From my point of view, the love story functioned beautifully and told the story of how two flawed people fell in love but were blinded to their (and each other's) faults. And although there were some unhealthy elements to the relationship, such as Anakin's attachment issues which are explored in ROTS, I don't think that makes their love less true. Your mileage may vary, obviously, but I thought the characters behaved according to their personalities and it made sense to me why they fell in love and married even if some of the decisions they made were mistakes.

 

We're going to have to agree to disagree. I can tell your enjoyment of the prequels is enough to satisfy you, regardless of competent writing and story structure (or lack thereof), so I'd rather leave it at that. I don't think we'll particularly get any further than "I disagree" anyway.

 

Well, I might phrase it a little differently. My enjoyment of the prequels stems from its competent writing and story structure (not due to its lack thereof). Along with wonderful characters, emotional resonance, subtle (and not-so-subtle) symbolism, beautiful themes, astounding music, gorgeous images and so on and so forth.

But yes, we can agree to disagree.

 

PiettsHat states things so eloquently - I have to agree that prior to (later half of ESB) I always thought Luke should get the girl and now I think why - I like "nice" men. Han was a more aggressive type. That's not necessarily a negative, but I like the softer spoken, less aggressive ones and thus Luke was not just more my type, but closer to what I would think any woman would like (though obviously this is my bias).

 

Plus people forget Padme actually knew Shmi, they spent some time together at one point so I'm sure Padme didn't think it was that bad that Anakin killed the Sand people off.