PT In defense of the prequels

It's honestly really sad when people make the rape and Hitler remarks regarding the PT and Lucas. I honestly wonder how Lucas feels about this if he thinks at all about what people say about him and the PT.

 

Why is it absurd? Ultimately, they are just movies. GL may have meant them to tell one particular story, but that doesn't mean that an individual doesn't have a right to arrange the story in whatever order, or omit whatever part, they want, in order to enjoy them personally. I have a few other franchises I like outside of Star Wars. That doesn't mean I enjoy each and every individual movie of a chosen franchise. I can choose whatever part I want of whatever franchise I want to ignore in my own personal viewing "canon".

 

Agreed. For me, the focus of SW is Luke, Leia and Han against the Emperor, Vader and the Empire. Not the tragedy of Anakin Skywalker/Darth Vader or whatever it will be now. Seeing how the PT answers the questions of how the OT comes to be is exciting though.

 

Why is it absurd?
---------
quite simply because there is a difference saying "I really detest the Prisoner of Azkaban and the half blood prince, therefore I'm going to stick my fingers in my ears and say those books are not canon"
and

"It was really nice of the author of Harry Potter to let <generic name here> write some Harry Potter books, however since they are not written by the creator, I can't see this as part of the canon"


if you want to pick and choose which star wars movies are canon or not, great, it's your right to do so, they are after all only movies as you point out. My personal opinion though is such a view is absurd.


also:
but that doesn't mean that an individual doesn't have a right to arrange the story in whatever order, or omit whatever part, they want, in order to enjoy them personally

is not the way I could watch a movie, I take the good with the bad, whether I like that part of the story or not. I'm not good at pretending a scene in a film doesn't exist if it's shown.

 

You know what's funny? Several years ago before Disney bought Lucasfilm there was a poll on comingsoon.net asking "What movie sequel that will unlikely never come to be do you wish would be released one day?" and the number one, towering results were for Star Wars Episode 7-9...I remember reading that and yelling at my computer screen and eventually posting on their comments section, "YOU GUYS DON'T DESERVE AN EPISODE 7-9, WITH ALL THE HATE YOU GAVE TO LUCAS OVER THE PREQUELS!" And yet this man gave us what we wanted...in fact I think he gave everyone what they wanted...he gave supporters treatments/outlines for episodes 7-9 and sold Lucasfilm to Disney so the haters have new filmmakers at the helm.....oh yeah, Lucas is a terrible man (sarcasm).

 

You know, this is the part im baffled by, are you saying many fans had the story and plot already set in their mind prior to the creation of the PT?? As if fans have been dreaming and lusting for Star Wars since 1984 til 1999?? Thats really pathetic. I hope this isnt true. This question comes from a fan who didnt grow up to Star Wars, but saw episode 1 4 n 5 in the same week. I did see ROTJ as a kid, but I didnt like it or understand it. Lol for years I thought Star Wars was ONLY Rotj. Until TPM came out. Im always trying to figure out, why guys my exact age bash the PT, praise the OT and dont see the story how George sees it, but then you have few fans who do see episodes 1-6 as one story. Why dont I hate the PT if im over 35??

 

Because we aren't Lucas and might just possibly have our own interpretations of how the Saga might go compared to what Lucas thinks?

 

^ That. A creator has their own intention by a work but the observers of said work have no obligation to see or accept it as the creator does. We often don't have the same history, interest, or frames of references as a creator. We can respect a work and it's creator *without* following it blindly.

 

Fair enough. I can understand what you're saying, but I want to point out that you started off by outright calling someone else's point silly and absurd, which was unnecessary when you could've just as easily said that's not how you could do it.

maychild said:

I agree wholeheartedly with your point about comparing this, or any movie, to rape, child molestation, abuse, etc.

As for "NOT just as bad" that kind of depends. While not using the kind of hyperbole, or crossing the same lines, supporters can be fairly vicious in their own right. Until joining this site, I had never heard of RLM, or any of the other online reviews before. Never bothered to look any up. I probably won't either because I don't care. I know there's some hate shown toward the prequels, but I haven't personally seen a lot of it, because this is where I go to discuss Star Wars. Since being here, I've seen people called ignorant, been told people weren't "wise enough" to see...whatever, any prequel opinion that doesn't conform with someone else's (in regards to ranking) is based purely on trying to fit in and afraid to state their "real" opinion (pro-prequel), seen someone use the "real fan" argument and state an opinion as fact "it just is!", several "in defense of..." threads, be and absolutists that seem to think you either have to love them as a whole, or hate them as a whole. I will say...again...that I don't hate the prequels. There are most definitely things I like about them. As I've said in another thread: the trolls don't really affect my view of the PT as much as the fans.

 

Thank you for your 'not as bad' thoughts. Well said.

 

I can understand keeping an open mind or trying to anyway but following it blindly isn't my style. After the PT, with Lucas doing it his way, I'm open to seeing how the ST goes. The NJO book series is my continuation of the Saga but am willing to see where the ST goes. Do I get another possible continuation? I have some expectations but will wait until Episode 9 is over. I am not going to accept everything they possibly do just because its SW. If I like it, it stays, if I don't like it, it doesn't stay.

 

I am not going to accept everything they possibly do just because its SW. If I like it, it stays, if I don't like it, it doesn't stay.

Here, here, FS. I am similar.

 

I am insanely flexible when it comes to SW. You need to do something pretty insane for me not to like it. If I don't like it, I won't accept it. Okay, I might try to fiddle it for a while so who knows?

 

Whatever makes the fan happy. My main thing is differences occur for reasons and aren't inherently terrible or wrong or baseless like many here act.

 

Fair enough. I can understand what you're saying, but I want to point out that you started off by outright calling someone else's point silly and absurd, which was unnecessary when you could've just as easily said that's not how you could do it.
-------

Point taken, wasn't meant to cause offense, many have taken my point of view to be absurd many times

 

My point wasn't trying to find some sort of order of which director,writer etc has it worst. That would be firstly a rather depressing task to make such a determination. And secondly it would be like choosing between plague and cholera.

The point is that a number of creative people gets nasty insults thrown at them from certain sections of the fandom. Take Orci and Kurtzman, amoung Trek and Spiderman fans, they aren't very well liked.
Or take Michael Bay, he has become the sort of reference point for "Brainless action flicks"
Or take M. Night Shyamalan, in his case it is more or ridicule and mockery than anger that gets directed at him.
The lsit can be made quite long and it is not upplifting at all.

As for PJ and LotR, one difference is that those that bashed TPM, almost all of them did so after they saw it. Was it overly rude, hostile and not very well thought out? In some cases yes.
With LotR, some of the most vicious bashing came before the film was even released. So they bashed a film they haven't even seen yet.
And I was around a few Tolkien sites back then and it was quite ugly at times.

As for "seriuos" critiscism, not sure what you mean. On the whole, the impression I got was that many critics in many different countries really liked the films. There were some negative reviews, which pretty much all films have. A quite common comlaint I have read from a variety of sources is that the films are too long, to slow and too little happens.

Since PJ's adaptation isn't the first one we actually have somethign to compare to, Bakshi.
And while I know some Tolkien purists prefer that film because it is "Closer to the text" most find it less good. And while it didn't flop, it didn't do well enough to get completed.
This shows us that simply being based on Tolkiens books isn't enough to make a film good.
The book was also largely considered unfilmable for quite a number of years. People have tried to make a film out of it for a long time, with little success.
Also, among Tolkien purist, they very much challenge this and a common argument is that "The films are good is when PJ copies the text, when he departs from it, they suck."

Yes I have come across this far too often and it is rude, silly and stupid.

Well to me, the acting in the LotR films are in the whole very good and, again to me, far above the acting in the PT. Both series have their share of dialogue that looks odd, clunky, cheesy or over the top on the page. But the difference to me is that the actors in LotR did a better job selling those lines.
And that is enough, I can accept almsot any dialogue if the actor can convince me that he or she really means it. However if they are unable to do that, then almsot any dialogue sounds forced, unnatural or wodden.
In Trek, some actors could handle loads of techobabble and sound ok, others just made it sound like a word salad.

To me, the PT had a good and interesting story and premise but the telling if this story through the acting and plot was less good. With TPM I didn't really connect with the characters, I wasn't involved. So instead I became a passive viewer, looking at actions and events. Occasionally moving, somewhat interesting, competently made but it got little more than a passive reaction from me. "It was okay I guess." I don't find the film bad or terrible and some things I like better now than when I saw them, other bits are still less good.

[/QUOTE]

yep, the argument that "Noone likes these films" is false, nonsensical and deserves all the scorn it gets.

Still I have comes across PT defenders that use those kind of arguments against other films.
With the LotR films I saw more than one person claim that the BO, reviews etc didn't change the fact that the films were awfull and no one really liked them. They only pretended to like them in order to bash Lucas.

Or the "Evil media conspiracy" against Lucas, or arguments like "All film critics have always hated Star Wars." Which ingores what you wrote above, all PT films were liked by a majority of film critics.

But this is getting very off-topic so I'll stop here.

Bye for now.
Old Stoneface

 

I think of it as Anakin's fall and the aftershock of it. To try and say it is note about him when he is obviously the nost constant central focus through all six films is silly.

 

It's a matter of perceptions and tastes. Differences aren't silly and they happen for a reason.

 

I saw the OT for the first time in the mid 90's. Before Anakin's backstory was revealed. And started reading the OT and after EU before then. That stuff clicked with me. I love the PT and all but the OT is what SW is to me. I see Luke and Anakin as co-stars of the saga but Luke clicks with me more.

This trailer helped.

You can like SW however you like and I will like it however I like. You think its about Anakin. So be it. I think Luke and his friends are more important. So be it. Not silly at all. My personal experiences shaped my fandom. Just like your experiences shaped your fandom.

 

He used to. He couldn't save it.

I like it. I tend to think that the negative feeling toward the film has a lot to do with the unfinished rotoscoping and the fact that it didn't complete the story, stopping right after Helm's Deep. I do feel that it is closer to the text in some respects. For example, the scene where Galadriel contemplates what it would be like if she took the Ring, or Theoden's rehabilitation. In the Bakshi film, as in the text, these scenes are presented without an over-the-top physical manifestation because things are happening on a purely psychological level.

 

The number one reason why I would say that the prequels are better than the original is Jar Jar.
**JUST KIDDING!!!**
Actually, I just feel that the saber duels in the original saga were Horrible. Seriously, Ben vs. Vader? They looked like trees with nothing but the wind moving their sabers like branches. On the other hand, Lucas and his crew did an excellent job with the jumps and fighting styles in the prequels. In all actuallity, I feel that if the prequels were not made, Star Wars would not be a fifth as popular as it is today!

 

I think the some of the same people who hated Lucas for the PT will be the same people saying the ST would have been better with his involvement. I give Lucas credit for not doing a cut and paste of the OT. The PT was a great gamble and It was the first time I remember watching a series of movies where we knew the villains would win. I agree with some of the flaws people who don't like the PT point out. My biggest issues is with Jar Jar and the Love story between Anakin and Padme. Jar Jar is not as bad as when I first saw TPM. The Love story in AOTC has gotten worse over time for me. Padme and Anakin was better in ROTS though. For some people that may have been a deal breaker. I still had fun watching the PT. I agree with Kao Chen Darach, George Lucas did introduce Star Wars to a new generation and Star Wars would not have been as popular as it is today. The PT kept Star Wars relevant.

 

I don't think it is terrible and I gave Bakshi credit for trying and he did have budget problems.
But the film has a lot of problems. Gandalf of the many hand gestures, (S)Aruman the Red, Gimli the tall dwarf, Bormoir the stage opera Viking with no pants, Aragorn the equally pant less. Merry and Pippin who switch names several times during the film. Orcs with mops on their heads or gorilla masks. Overall the design isn't good and sometimes awful, like the Balrog.

When I first saw it I hadn't read the book and the second half of the film I had considerable difficulty in following what was going on.

To me, Bakshi's main flaw is that he assumes that everyone that sees the film has read the book. So he has random bits of dialogue directly from the book but cuts all the stuff around it and the lines themselves don't make any sense.

Ex. at the council Boromir asks why they all speak of hiding and destroying, exactly as in the book. Problem is that no one has spoken of hiding and destroying except Elrond who said that they couldn't do those things. When we first meet (S")Aruman he calls himself "of many colors". But we get no explanation of that line or why it is significant.
When Gandalf talks to Frodo about the ring, he asks if Frodo can see any markings on it. Frodo says no so Gandalf tosses into the fire and begins to recite the ring poem. Then he pulls it out and Frodo comments that it is cool but no markings appear. Which makes the whole deal of throwing it into the fire entirely pointless.
We see Aragorn with the broken sword and we are told it belonged to Elendil of Gondor but who that is the film doesn't say. And later Aragorn has a whole sword but no explanation of how he got it, making it look like a missing plotpoint.
I could go on but the point is that the Bakshi film has many more flaws than shoddy effects and an unfinished plot.

Bye for now.
Mr "Insert-Name-Here."

 

Personally speaking, (others may agree?) I just didn't agree with the interpretation we got of Anakin. IMO he wasn't likeable, and that invariably made his 'fall' not the least bit tragic in my eyes. I feel it would've greatly added to the overall perception of his character in the OT (and in particular tied in with his redemption at the climax of ROTJ) if he'd been portrayed differently. That for me, despite all my other gripes with the prequels, is why I do not like them.

 

This is a problem?

I guess I didn't mind the Balrog because it reminded me of something from Dungeons & Dragons. By comparison the Jackson version looked like it belonged in a video game. ( Speaking of Dungeons & Dragons, I love the design of Moria in the Bakshi film because the artwork looks like it could have been done by Erol Otus. )

"Not even a dragon's fire could harm that ring." The fact that the fire doesn't damage it or even warm it up indicates that it is the One Ring.

"...who fought the Dark Lord long ago and was slain."