Saga Unpopular Star Wars opinions!

A New Hope is my personal favorite in the saga - complete story, well executed.

Darth Maul sucked. - <5 minutes screen time and terrible dialogue...so much potential poorly represented

AOTC is my fav PT Star Wars movie.

ROTS was rushed and order 66 had next to 0 impact with no backstory on most of the targets

I'm reaching on these few opinions. Ultimately I love all the movies a great deal and have very little I dislike...even Jar Jar




“I'm just a simple man, trying to make my way in the universe.” – Jango Fett

 

The irony is this is not an unpopular opinion among the masses. Most people I know who are not diehard fans like me love the Original SW and nothing else after that. Its the movie that appeals to everyone, plus it is the only movie that can be watched as a standalone. ANH & ESB are pretty much tied for me as #1 or #1a and #1b, but I notice that is far down on many lists here.

 

There is no evidence that they "steal" anyone.

Anakin vowed to free her. He was a Jedi. Regardless, the Jedi serve the Republic. They had no jurisdiction on Tatooine. Forcefully taking Shmi may have caused a rather unwelcome dispute with The Hutts. Qui-Gon did try to release Shmi, remember. Would he have tried again in the future? Possibly... if he didn't deem it detrimental to Anakin's progression (which he may have done once Anakin was settled on Coruscant). But he died. The rest of the Jedi probably saw no benefit in trying to free her and I doubt, given Anakin's vow, he would ever have requested it. Maybe you can argue this was ignorant or selfish but I don't think it's something really worthy of too much vitriol.

Attachment and possession is forbidden. Neither exactly served Anakin well. I don't think love is forbidden. Obi-Wan is quoted as loving Anakin, remember. Romantic ties? Yes. For good reasons.

And look how justified that rule was proven to be when they broke it for Anakin.

Normal kids, yes. Normal kids can't fly pods at hundreds of miles an hour either. Hair splitting, I know, but the kids in AOTC also looked older than 4. I'd estimate about 7.

How would you have them discuss events? In a bar?

 

The Phantom Menace is the most visually stunning, and interesting looking picture of the entire Saga.

I actually love all the "boring" political parts of the Prequel trilogy.

Palpatine is a far more interesting character than Darth Vader.

Attack of the Clones, not TPM, is the worst Star Wars film...by far.

Boba Fett is not cool. In fact I much prefer Jango.

Hayden does an extraordinary acting job in the "I killed them" scene in AOTC.

Natalie Portman was actually very effective as Amidala, the political figure, and as Padme in ROTS.

I think The Empire Strikes back has become a little overrated. The original Star Wars is still a better film on the whole.

Return of the Jedi has become a little underrated with time.

I prefer Luke and Leia over Han.

PT Yoda is more enthralling than OT Yoda (and I love OT Yoda).

Much of the dialogue in the OT is just as clunky as the PT.

I love the Ewoks.

3PO has never annoyed me.

I think Jar Jar's role in AOTC is quite perfect and necessary, and I wish he had a tad more to do in ROTS.

A lot of the PT backlash stems from a combination of impossibly high expectations and grown ass men and women expecting Star Wars to grow up with them.

 

This is such baloney and I wish fans would stop generalizing and stop being Dr. Freud towards every SW fan. I LOVED the Christopher Nolan Batman trilogy even though I grew up with the Burton/Shumacher Batman films. By your rationale, I should like the Burton Batman films the most because I saw them as a kid and should detest the Nolan Batman films because I saw them as an adult. But I LOVE the Nolan Batman films because...... they're better movies!

 

The Burton/Schumacher Batman movies are very different to the Nolan ones though. The point about Star Wars is that the movies are all essentially very similar. The theory goes that the elements in the OT you have such a strong affection for, you would probably have a different reaction to had you watched them for the first time as an adult, and vice versa the things you think silly or annoying about the PT had you first seen it as a kid. Now that's not to say every kid will love the PT or every adult would hate the OT being introduced to it for the first time. Everyone is different. But there is still something in the theory which applies to a certain number of people, I think.

 

The word "a lot" is quantifier. I said " a lot of the PT backlash"

Never did I even attempt to "generalize" or play "Dr. Freud" to "every SW fan". There are indeed a ton of Star Wars fans who belived the prequel trilogy not only should have recaptured the feeling they got from the original, but also should have been darker, more violent, and even sexual films. There was lots of "will Episode I be rated R?" and "will these films have nudity" talks back in the 90's. There were many who spent over a decade dreaming and imagining what they believed the Clone Wars would look like, and how Anakin would become Vader. Again (warning: quantifier ahead) a lot of fans back in the day, before the release of TPM, who truly expected Star Wars to grow up with them, fulfill their visions for the prequel unfoldings, and many of them completely disconnected to the more juvenile aspects of the original trilogy, and I'm not just taking about ewoks here. But that hardly includes "every SW fan".

The only person generalizing here buddy is you.

Your Burton/Schumacher vs Nolan analogy is just bad. Batman has undergone legions of incarnations. Burton and Schumacher shouldn't even be spliced together considering that Schumacher created radically different Batmans from Burton, and Burton even created radically different Batmans between part 1 and part 2. You (and I) grew up in the 90's with a schizophrenic Batman movie series that ended extremely badly. That Batman film series was already in the trash, making it absolutely ripe to be picked up by someone who took the story seriously and erased the bad taste left by Schumacher.

Meanwhile Star Wars went out beloved, and if nothing else, became even more so over time. Episode I was the most anticipated movie of all time back then. Star Wars was golden, and expectations were beyond reasonable. It was doomed to fail on some level, even if it was a stronger film. You certainly can not remotely compare the cultural consensus of Star Wars by 1999 to the collective consensus about the Batman film franchise by 2005. Apples and oranges.

 

I agree with your claim jaqen but I'd use a different qualifier. Maybe 'some' or 'in a minority of cases'. I think the majority of adults going along to TPM in '99 would've been savvy enough to know that they weren't going to be able to relive their childhood SW experiences and that they weren't going to have all of their story expectations met. Notwithstanding that, there was still plenty of room for potential enjoyment. In ' a lot' of cases, people just didn't like it for the same reasons that they wouldn't like any other movie.

 

OK, I will give you another analogy. I think Raiders of Lost Ark is light years better then Crystal Skull. Is my opinion tainted because I'm older or is the bottom line that Raiders is better then Crystal Skull? I feel the same way about ANH & ESB vs the other 4 movies.

 

This doesn't address my original point.

Never did I suggest that people couldn't dislike the PT based solely off the merits, or lack thereof, of the films themselves. If you hated one, or even all, of the the films because you didn't like them as films, then I completely respect that. But if you are biased against the PT simply because it wasn't the OT, or because you had built up your own personal fantasy of how the PT events "should" have happened, then that's a different matter.

Let's take your KOTCS example. Do I like Raiders more than Skull? Yes. Do I dislike Skull because it's not Raiders? No, I actually enjoy Skull quite a lot...even if it's not nearly as well structured a film as Raiders. I take Skull on it's own merits, not as it relates to Raiders however. I like Skull. I do not dislike Skull because it's not as brilliant as Raiders.

But if I hated Skull simply because it failed to recapture Raiders for me, because I spent 19 years waiting for an Indy film to make me feel like I did as a kid, if I walked into the film with mountain high expectations and nostalgia colored glasses, and hated it, perhaps it is worth asking myself "did I give THIS film, on it's own merit, a real chance?"

 

I'm sure there are a minority of people out there who didn't like the PT simply because the story didn't go the way they 'wanted' it to go (people on the internet), but my point is that if anyone dares say the OT is better then the PT, they are pigeoned-holed with that example and its not true. I try to avoid opinions on the internet and generalizing because I have never met these people personally, and who knows if there are people with multiple accounts, or just don't have anything better to do with their lives. I always try to give examples of what my friends talk to me about the movies, and none of them were disappointed in the PT because of this and that, they just think their inferior to the OT.

I look at movies solely on how much I like them, and it has nothing to do with 'bringing me back to my youth.' If I felt this way then I wouldn't like any new movies, and would only revisit movies I loved as a kid.

The simple answer is that most sequels/prequels of ANY movie series are inferior, but for some reason SW is the only one where the fans get pyschoanalyzed about it. I think Superman I is better then II, and I think Superman III & IV are horrendous. I liked Superman Returns, and didn't get a chance to see Man of Steele yet. But even though I saw them as a kid, Superman III & IV are two of the worst superhero movies I have ever seen. Rocky is another series where I think the original is the best, and sequels are good and bad, but nobody psychoanalyzes me as to why I hate Rocky V with a passion? Nobody says that I didn't like it because the story wasn't what I wanted it to be? The movie just sucks big time, and I will never watch it again, and it has nothing to do with the fact that I saw Rocky I in my youth, Rocky I is a genuine classic and the sequels aren't. Why can't people say that about the OT, and not be generalized as to 'why' they don't like it everytime?

Who wanted Episode I rated R? Who wanted nudity for Episode I? If you are bringing up some niche group of fans on some internet site, then I think you need to take that with a grain of salt. Please name me one person you know who wanted nudity in a SW film. I'm sorry but thats the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard regarding a SW film.

 

Chill, chill...

I think the example of nudity was more of an extreme example to illustrate a point. I've no doubt that it was speculated upon by some in the 1990s, however ridiculous it might sound.
FWIW, I was expecting something a bit more adult-oriented with the PT, simply based upon what we knew about the storyline - the fall of the Galactic Republic, the rise of an evil Empire, and the betrayal of the Jedi Order by one of their own.
Nudity and gore, no, but I do agree with jaqen that many fans thought that the SW Saga would somehow 'grow up' the same way they did, and be directed at an older audience. At one point I actually hoped that Francis Ford Coppola & GL could put aside old differences so that FFC might take the directorial reins for one of the films - because I wanted The Godfather in a galaxy far, far away. I thought Anakin Skywalker would be a Michael Corleone, not just a Luke Skywalker who made a couple of bad decisions.

In hindsight, that wouldn't make much sense if the two trilogies were meant to be consistent with each other, but try telling that to so many of us fanboys in the 1990s, frothing at the mouth at the idea that there was a new Star Wars trilogy on the way that would largely consist of the darker, more intense content from ESB & ROTJ.
Trouble was, we didn't understand that SW wasn't being 'rebooted', as Batman was, it was being continued. Poor sequels were par for the course with many a franchise, but this dark backstory had taken on a mythical status, and there simply wasn't a real precedent to compare it to. As far as we knew, the story was already there, had always been there, it was just a matter of calling "ACTION!" and it would happen - exactly the way we wanted it to.

That said, I completely agree with you about how you can't reduce everyone's objections to this line of thinking.
For a start, a lot of my own objections to the PT still stand, once I've put aside whatever expectations I had for the films. I still think Jar-Jar was a poorly executed & irritating character. Jake Lloyd's Anakin Skywalker might as well have been taken out of one of the vats that they take every child actor out of for blockbusters. The chemistry between Hayden & Natalie is non-existent - and given that the romance between Anakin & Padme is one of the lynchpins of the whole trilogy, that's a gigantic problem.
Ultimately, I think the PT is fundamentally flawed because at its heart it is a dark, tragic story that somehow had to sit alongside and lead into a more light-hearted adventure romp. It was never going to do so 100%, and in trying to have the best of both worlds, GL found himself with a great deal of elements that, well, jarred (pun completely intended).

Even so, there's loads that I do like about the PT - Palpatine is fantastic all the way through, Hayden Christensen did a fine job as Anakin, despite what many say, Ewan McGregor in ROTS was brilliant, and the Duel I'd been awaiting for 22 years delivered - and it's not because I'm living in denial, as many a PT basher will claim, just as the gushers try to put down all the criticisms to unfair expectations and childhood memories.

That doesn't mean that such perceptions and positions don't exist on both sides. We're talking about films that have been seen and judged by millions of people.

 

I actually like the PT (probably more then you and many others here), but I just don't understand why people get bent out of shape that I love the OT more? I love ANH & ESB more then ROTJ, but I never had friends back in the 80's trying to rationalize why I felt that way, I just think it was an inferior movie. No one got defensive that I put ROTJ #3 in my favorites.

I think its natural to 'develop a story in your mind' with any sequel/prequel for a franchise, so this isn't just a SW thing. But for some reason that is always thrown back at me as to why I didn't love the PT as much as the OT. I guess I get mad and defensive because I am a fan of the PT, and went to bat for these movies among my friends for many years. I still think the turn scene in ROTS was the KEY to the whole Trilogy, and when that fell flat in the movie (ALL of my friends thought it came off quick and illogical), as I sort of backed off in my hyper defense of the PT cause for the first time I agreed with them.

The same will go with the ST, as I may not love them as much as the OT, but so what? Unless JJ screws them up royally, its hard for me to hate a SW film, as deep down they all still resonate with me one way or another. In the end, ANH and ESB are the crown jewel of the Saga in terms of quality for me, IMO, and it has nothing more to do then I think their better movies.

 

^^^
Completely agree, and for me also, SW/ANH & ESB are the two best films of the lot. They're just the two best films on all levels, IMHO, that doesn't mean I'm trashing the rest.

And yeah, I can't stand the attitude from many that you have to be a 'hater' for preferring the OT over the PT, although I've received more derision from my peers for genuinely liking the PT on its own terms. You'd think it was a trilogy of snuff films the way some people react.

 

I like that Greedo shoots first

 

I've never minded Greedo shooting first, but I like the Blu-ray version the best. It's now cut so fast that it looks like Han and Greedo are practically shooting at the same time.

 

There is no right or wrong answer. Your opinion isn't tainted if you can reasonably explain it. But I think it's actually a pretty good supporter of the theory you're trying to disprove. I think KOTCS is a very good Indiana Jones movie - better than Temple of Doom, possibly on a par with Raiders and maybe only falling short of Last Crusade (though I accept this is perhaps controversial). And I never sat through a full Indy movie until I was in my late teens btw. In fact, watching Raiders with the expectation it was one of the best adventure flicks of all time, I remember being somewhat disappointed and confused - though it's grown on me having considered it from the perspective of when it was first released. And a lot of our criticisms and opinions (not wishing to so clearly quote one particular Star Wars character) do come down to our perspective. Objectively, Indy movies, like Star Wars, are all very consistently made and formula based (had each one of them been the first in the series, I believe they could easily have been met with equal acclaim to that of Raiders, just as Raiders could have been met with disdain had it been the much anticipated fourth entry). I also believe that some of the dissatisfied reaction to the last Indy movie was entirely rooted in distorted expectations and altered perspectives, as was a lot of the fundamental criticism for the PT. There's actually very little wrong with it in comparison to all the other Indy films. It was a fun, intriguing, charming and very stylised adventure film which (like the PT) ended up exactly as it was designed to be. If there are to be no more in the franchise, I think it's a pretty good finale.

To me, the shifted perspectives argument can be summed up and made credible simply by comparing the popularity of C3-P0 against the hatred for Jar Jar Binks and the love for Luke in ANH/ESB against the widespread criticism of Anakin in the PT. It also comes into play when popular books are adapted into much condemned films.

 

Ahh, but you are assuming I saw Raiders first when I was a kid. I never saw Raiders in the movies (probably cause my older brothers weren't into it so I was too young to see a movie by myself) and actually saw Temple of Doom first in 1984. I liked it, but it wasn't as good as the SW movies. THEN I saw Raiders the next year when we finally got a VCR in 1985 and LOVED it, alot more then Temple of Doom. There is no difference in the sequels to Raiders as they are all entertaining, but NO WHERE close to Raiders. I never jumped on the 'I hate the Crystal Skull' bandwagon like others did, as it was just another sequel that couldn't stand up to Raiders.

I also saw Rocky II first before Rocky (again it was on Cable and I was too young to see Rocky when it came out in the movies in 1976), and finally saw Rocky in 1985 when we got a VCR. To this day, Rocky stands out as the best of the 6 movies, even though I still have memories of watching Rocky II on cable a zillion times (we were one of the first families in my neighborhood to get cable. I could go on and on as I saw Jaws 2 before Jaws (again because of Jaws 2 being on Cable and I was too young to see Jaws in the theaters in 1975).

Rocky, Raiders, and Jaws all stand out as the best of those franchises, and NONE of them did I see first.

 

Except this entire debate started because you called my opinion "baloney", assumed that I was part of some nefarious "they" who used this opinion to "pigeon-hole" fans who find the OT better than the PT when...

I am a fan who finds the OT much better than the PT.

So yeah, there's that.

I don't need to name you anyone. I had real conversations, with breathing, actual people, back in the 90's, who wondered if the new Star Wars films were going to be darker, more grown up. I too wondered if the new movies were going to be grown up fare, especially considering the dark backstory. There were actual speculation articles in newspapers and entertainment magazines at the time, in the midst of the frenzy following the announcement, asking similar questions as to whether Star Wars would be grown up with it's fans and become more adult fare, speculating if it would get a PG-13 (which it ultimately did) or even an R ratings. This wasn't some crazy conjecture spoken in the dank,, nerdy corners of niche fanboy late 90's message boards. At that point the bulk of the original Star Wars target audience were in their late 20's and 30's, and the rebound generation who fell in love with it on VHS, like myself, were teens. Film, on the whole, had taken a much more cynical, less optimistic turn. And yes, countless people absolutely did believe, even assume, that Star Wars would naturally have aged with us. I honestly don't remember talking to anyone, or reading any board, where anybody expected Episode I NOT to be darker than the original trilogy. Not a single person.

Nudity wasn't even an enormous jump for some considering in the 80's a scantily clad Princess Leia was the pin up girl for damn near every hetreosexual male who came of age in that decade, and even the next. Some absolutely did wonder if, over a decade later, Star Wars would continue peeling back the female layers...

And guess what? A good deal of the backlash from TPM stemmed from fans and causal viewers alike who absolutely did not expect a true PG family film, like ROTJ, but a darker, more violent, more grown up Star Wars film. LOTS of people actually clung to the pre-release images of Darth Maul as proof that Star Wars was taking a truly wicked turn. If you can find some boards, articles, and reviews from 1999 you might be surprised to see quite a few people talking about the disappointment that TPM was not the dark, conflicted, gritty tale of clone wars and falling jedi that they so hoped. Vader as a cute, blonde kid was getting backlash before the film's release partially for this very reason.

 

No wink face leads me to the conlusion that you are being serious. Therfore I say good day to you.

 

This. My ideal TV show would be a Sorkin-penned Star Wars show in the same vein as the West-Wing.

When I saw this, it made me laugh. Seemed like the most diplomatic solution.

 

I have never talked to any SW fan who was expecting nudity or even an R rating in the PT back in the 90's. That is just ridiculous, and again I think your memories are probably from some fanboys on Aintitcoolnews or some other website. I will agree with you that fans may have wanted a more mature PT, but I am shaking my head that anyone wanted nudity???? Let me know when you find a real, breathing person who will admit to wanting nudity, and not some fanboy with the name Lando1138.

Heck, at this point I don't know if you are a real person???

 

I don't think I was The part about that particular Indy example backing up the theory you disagree with is to do with the overall reaction of the majority of fans. I can't recall too many movie franchises that has a sequel made more than 15+ years after the original (or at a point where the first fanbase and perceived target audience has all matured beyond recognition), other than a total reboot/remake with an entirely different tone, that hasn't been met with widespread disappointment. Indy IV was a good example, the Star Wars PT another. You could also cite Superman Returns (although I did personally think this was a bad movie) and a few others. You've got to ask yourself how many people around or over 30 years old in 1977 got massively into the Star Wars franchise and how many people under 10 in 1999 loved/stilll love the Star Wars PT.

 

Return of the Jedi is my least favorite episode.

Final duel and Death Star battle are preeeeetty much my only favorite parts, whereas other episodes (V, II) are constructed almost completely out of my favorite parts.

 

jaqen is absolutely right.