Saga Prequel Trilogy vs Original Trilogy

Discussion in 'Star Wars Saga In-Depth' started by kenobifan1999, Sep 4, 2012.

?

Prequel Trilogy vs Original Trilogy

Prequel Trilogy 10 vote(s) 45.5%
Original Trilogy 12 vote(s) 54.5%
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Moderators: Darth_Nub, Lt.Cmdr.Thrawn
  1. Valairy Scot Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Sep 16, 2005
    star 5
    I disagree! :D Or - or I no longer know what I know.
  2. Humble_Jedi Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Oct 14, 2004
    star 4
  3. Zeta1127 Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Sep 2, 2012
    star 4
    Star Wars is a saga of six films in the form of two trilogies, no more, no less. One trilogy isn't better than the other, because they are actually all part of a larger story. Those who hate one trilogy or the other don't understand this fact, and had different expectations than the vision of George Lucas.
    Last edited by Zeta1127, Sep 4, 2012
  4. Drewton Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jan 8, 2009
    star 4
    1 + 3 does not + 5.

    This statement doesn't make any sense. One part of a story can be better than another. Like how Mass Effect 3 is good but the ending could be really bad. The stories weren't even planned out in advance, Lucas made it up as he went.
    Last edited by Drewton, Sep 5, 2012
  5. Frank T. Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Sep 2, 2012
    star 6
    I prefer the OT.
    Why? Well, I choose to watch them more often than the PT, so that's like a hundred and fifty viewings to twenty of the PT. RotJ has the happy ending. More screen time for the main plot and characters. I don't have to read novels and comics to understand elements of the story. Yoda has more humor.

    It's not that I don't like the PT, I do, but . . .
    Why not the PT? Let me try to explain. I feel that GL tried to make the story of the PT bigger than that of the OT. The PT would have been better as a quadrilogy. The story and characters need more room to breathe. Not so much TPM(in fact I think TPM would have made a nice prologue movie to the PT). ROTS in particular felt like it had too much to do and left much to be desired. Same with AOTC just not as much. AOTC and ROTS are always in such a rush that it's harder for me to really take it all in. Most of the cringe-worthy moments of the Saga are in the PT.

    Just to fair to the PT I'll just add a few things I did like so you know my complaints aren't some of the normal variety.
    I like Jar jar Binks. I never was annoyed by him and even would like to see more of him in AOTC. I have no problem with CGI. The midichlorians don't bother me. I do like the politics and wish there could have been more. I thought Hayden's performance in ROTS was the most impressive acting in the whole saga.

    So there you have it: I prefer the OT but wish there was more of the PT.
  6. Samnz Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Sep 4, 2012
    star 2
    What's wrong with that opinion?
    Sorry, but I don't see an actor with Liam Neeson's presence in the OT. Mark Hamill comes close in ROTJ, but he that's it.
    And I still think no other actress reached Pernilla August's warm performance.

    If laughing is your only argument, well, then it's no argument at all and called trolling.

    I'm not sure if I agree with Zeta, but I can definately see her point.
    If you see it as one story, it's very difficult to evaluate different parts of them because they complement each other.
    I simply don't buy the idea of a "good story but bad ending", because that doesn't make sense imo. If you don't get a good ending to your story then your story just isn't good at all, because your story relies heavily on an ending.
    Last edited by Samnz, Sep 5, 2012
  7. Humble_Jedi Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Oct 14, 2004
    star 4
    Don't get me wrong, McGregor and Neeson are doing a great job, but Portman and Christensen are dragging the whole PT down. In the OT, the entire cast was fantastic.

    Also, grow a sense of humour. :p
  8. obi-rob-kenobi4 Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Apr 17, 2007
    star 4
    To all the bashers who partake in the practice of useing the imfamious "but its bad acting" excuse:

    Many Oscar winning "classic" films have weak acting in them:

    Ben-Hur: this film is not loved for its acting! Very stagey, and a very flat script. It's the grandeur of the epic production that makes it memorable.

    All Quiet On The Western Front: Have you ever seen this? Groundbreaking war film, but the acting is beyond ridiculous, outdated even for 1930! Look at Fritz' Lang's "M" only a few years later, which might have been filmed in the 1970's for its intense, edgy performances.

    The Greatest Show On Earth: Wonderful film, but everyone but Burt Lancaster is overacting their little hearts out!

    From here To Eternity: Another overacted film. And a script every bit as "cliche" as Red Tails...but they gave it Best Picture anyway!

    Around The World In 80 Days: A wonderful collection of set-pieces -- no great performances here!

    Gigi: Classic musical -- also features more fake French accents than you can shake a baguette at and a grown woman playing a little girl. Flaws? Yes. A classic? Also yes!
    West Side Story: Another musical. Terrific film, but again, lots of fake accents and many dated performances. It doesn't make this any less of a classic.

    Kramer V. Kramer: Does anyone even watch this movie anymore? Hoffman's great in this, but there's that annoying kid...it can't be a classic!!

    Ordinary People: Zzzzzzzz...another Oscar winner lost to time...

    Dancing With Wolves: Please point out any good acting in this movie (or writing) because I missed it entirely. Stereotypical movie Indians act like stereotypical movie Indians, white people act like depraved overacting maniacs & Costner stares blankly at everything...for 3 hours. Give that badboy an Oscar!!!

    Braveheart: Seriously, lots of baaaad Hollywood blockbuster acting here. But it's considered a classic & it won Best Picture!

    Titanic: If there's even one scene with good acting in this atrocity, I must've been in the bathroom puking up when it happened.

    Gladiator: Not a film loved for its dialogue or acting. It's a great genre movie. If you did Julius Caesar like this, today, the internet would hang you for cinematic crimes against humanity. Also got terrible reviews. It's now...you guessed it, a minor classic.

    Lord of the rings Return of the King: Viggo stares, Bloom preens, Davies mugs, Elijah whimpers, Ulman pouts, everyone else emotes like they're going to the gallows first thing next morning. This is good acting?? Subtlety, thy name is not Peter Jackson!
    The list could go on and on.

    Im so sorry to break it to the pretentious elitists but oscar worthy acting is not necessary and is not always what makes a film good or considered classic.

    The acting in Star Wars is and has always been corny and guess what? Thats GOOD. Becouse THATS STAR WARS. Thats the lingo. When Anakin talks guess what? THATS HOW DARTH VADER TALKS. Its supposed to be stylized and operatic and I love star wars all the more for it. After all these films are called "space operas". It is going to be a little pulpy/corny and if it wasn't it wouldn't really be SW. Look at the scene in ROTJ where luke tells leia they are siblings. It is absolutely identical to "the fireplace" scene in AOTC and guess what? GOOD. Because thats what a space opera is. Thats the style of it. Don't be ashamed of it, embrace it. Its not "bad acting" in the traditional sense, its stylized acting. Its Star Wars.

    IMO Hayden Christensen did an amazing job playing anakin. Almost all of his mannerisms are vaders mannerisms from 4,5 an 6. All his gestures. The way he stands with his hands clenched behind his back. The way he sometimes points his finger at who hes talking to. And most of all the way he talks. This is the part that I think people mistake for "bad acting" when in reality thats just how VADER talks. Very dramatic and operatic. The way he will always say "destroy" instead of saying "kill". Now doesn't "kill" sound more naturalistic? But Vader wouldn't say "kill" he would say "destroy". Get it? Things like that. And when he has a speech he takes up the whole screen the same way Vader takes up the whole screen. The only reason some people think of it as so called "bad acting" is because hes not behind a mask. They hate seeing a face IMO. Well sorry but thats kind of the whole point of the PT to put a face behind that famous mask.

    Thats another great thing about the PT. It has the very first uses of method acting in the whole saga. The OT did not have any method acting. Ewan Mcgregor uses method acting for obi-wan and even the most passionate PT bashers admit that his performance is one of the best things in the whole PT. Arguably even more charming than Alec Guinness himself. Right down to his smallest gestures, the way he brushes his finger over his bottom lip when hes deep in thought the way Guinness used to do. Its the same thing Christensen does with his performance as the young Darth Vader. The only difference is that the one which is socially acceptable to gush over has a face we can compare it to and the other one does not have a face, only a black mask. But it is the same exact thing.

    If you really want to get down to acting the best actors in the saga are:

    1. Ewan Mcgregor
    2. Hayden Christensen
    3. Ian Mcdiarmid
    4.Liam Neeson

    and what a telling coincidence that they are all from the PT giving performances that enrich the OT making the whole thing work better as a Saga. @};-
    Last edited by obi-rob-kenobi4, Sep 5, 2012
  9. LadyTila Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Dec 13, 2010
    star 1
    I prefer the prequels coz I like the whole vibe better.We have whole jedi order,sith are rising and thus conflicts are getting bigger and bigger,Anakin turning to the darkside is bit more intresting then watching Luke trying to save him from it,and I like the cast more.
    obi-rob-kenobi4 likes this.
  10. EHT Manager: New Films

    Manager
    Member Since:
    Sep 13, 2007
    star 5
    @obi-rob-kenobi4 : I get that you're trying to defend SW and the Saga (which I generally agree with), but ironically I disagree that all the acting is SW is corny or intended to be corny.

    Second, not sure what you're talking about with Gladiator. The acting and dialogue, IMO, is not at all bad. Also... Julius Caesar is not in the movie at all, so... ? "Cinematic crimes against humanity"? "Also got terrible reviews"? It got many raving reviews, and it's at 78% fresh on RottenTomatoes and 8.5 out of 10 stars on IMDB. It also won 5 Oscars, including Best Picture and Best Actor.
    Last edited by eht13, Sep 5, 2012
  11. Samuel Vimes Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Sep 4, 2012
    star 3
    I don't understand the idea that you can't prefer one trilogy over another or that you can't discuss the relative merits of them.

    Take Nolans Batman films, they are now a trilogy of connected films that form a whole. But still people can debate about which is film they prefer or which they think is best. Same thing with the Matrix films, the X-men films which also has a prequel that people can talk about and how well it measures up to the original.
    The three LOTR films are very close to be one film cut up in three parts but still people don't view them equally, some prefer Fellowship, others TTT and so on.

    Star Wars was made in the order of 4-6, 1-3 so it is obvious that Lucas intended for people to see it in that order. To argue otherwise would be saying that Lucas made Star Wars with the intent that noone should see it. Back then 1-3 did not exist so if we were supposed to have seen 1-3 before Star Wars then noone should have watched it as noone could have seen 1-3.

    I think the phrase "One long movie" isn't all that correct when dealing with SW, Harry Potter or any other series of films.
    Back in the days of the big epic films like Ben-Hur and Spartacus, those films had an intermission. You saw the first part, then had a pause and then watched the second part. The first part wasn't self-contained in any way, it was just act 1 and 2 and the second part wasn't self-contained either, that was just act 3. Watching just the first part of Ben-Hur wouldn't really work nor would watching just the second part.
    But with SW and Harry Potter and even the LOTR films, they are made to be more self-contained. Many of the plot points are resolved, you have a climax and an epilogue of sorts and the the film ends. Sure the overall story continues, the characters go on in some cases and questions might remain unresolved. This isn't any kind of slam against these films, after all they were made to be one at a time with rather long pauses between them. Very long pauses in the case of SW.
    So rather SW is a film series with an overarching story and several recurring characters. But it isn't one film in the sense that you can cut of the end credits and splice all six films together and you have one movie.

    Same thing with many book series, the HP books are very connected yes but you can't just splice them all together and have one book.

    RE: acting in OT and PT.
    Alec Guinness, to me the best actor in any of the SW films and his performance in ANH is the best in the series.
    Mark gets better over the three films, Harrison is good in ANH and ESB but less good in RotJ. Carrie's best work is in ESB.
    In the PT Liam is fairly good in TPM, Ian is rather good through all three films but he did get a bit over the top in RotS.
    Ewan is somewhat wasted in TPM but gets better.
    Overall, I rate the acting in the OT much higher than the acting in the PT.

    Bye for now.
    The Guarding Dark
  12. Samuel Vimes Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Sep 4, 2012
    star 3
    I don't understand the idea that you can't prefer one trilogy over another or that you can't discuss the relative merits of them.

    Take Nolans Batman films, they are now a trilogy of connected films that form a whole. But still people can debate about which is film they prefer or which they think is best. Same thing with the Matrix films, the X-men films which also has a prequel that people can talk about and how well it measures up to the original.
    The three LOTR films are very close to be one film cut up in three parts but still people don't view them equally, some prefer Fellowship, others TTT and so on.

    Star Wars was made in the order of 4-6, 1-3 so it is obvious that Lucas intended for people to see it in that order. To argue otherwise would be saying that Lucas made Star Wars with the intent that noone should see it. Back then 1-3 did not exist so if we were supposed to have seen 1-3 before Star Wars then noone should have watched it as noone could have seen 1-3.

    I think the phrase "One long movie" isn't all that correct when dealing with SW, Harry Potter or any other series of films.
    Back in the days of the big epic films like Ben-Hur and Spartacus, those films had an intermission. You saw the first part, then had a pause and then watched the second part. The first part wasn't self-contained in any way, it was just act 1 and 2 and the second part wasn't self-contained either, that was just act 3. Watching just the first part of Ben-Hur wouldn't really work nor would watching just the second part.
    But with SW and Harry Potter and even the LOTR films, they are made to be more self-contained. Many of the plot points are resolved, you have a climax and an epilogue of sorts and the the film ends. Sure the overall story continues, the characters go on in some cases and questions might remain unresolved. This isn't any kind of slam against these films, after all they were made to be one at a time with rather long pauses between them. Very long pauses in the case of SW.
    So rather SW is a film series with an overarching story and several recurring characters. But it isn't one film in the sense that you can cut of the end credits and splice all six films together and you have one movie. Also the OT is still very much Luke's story while the PT is focused on several characters. Qui-Gon in TPM, Obi-Wan and Anakin in AotC and mostly Anakin in RotS.

    Same thing with many book series, the HP books are very connected yes but you can't just splice them all together and have one book.

    RE: acting in OT and PT.
    Alec Guinness, to me the best actor in any of the SW films and his performance in ANH is the best in the series.
    Mark gets better over the three films, Harrison is good in ANH and ESB but less good in RotJ. Carrie's best work is in ESB.
    In the PT Liam is fairly good in TPM, Ian is rather good through all three films but he did get a bit over the top in RotS.
    Ewan is somewhat wasted in TPM but gets better.
    Overall, I rate the acting in the OT much higher than the acting in the PT.

    Bye for now.
    The Guarding Dark
  13. PiettsHat Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jan 1, 2011
    star 4
    I don't think it's wrong to discuss the merits of the individual films, but I don't think it necessarily has to be drawn on PT versus OT lines. For example, there are quite a few people who prefer ROTS to ROTJ, so their preferred "trilogy" would be Episodes III, IV, and V. Perhaps, then, a "favorite film" poll would be relevant to the discussion. I've noted, for instance, that TPM shares many similarities to both ANH and ROTJ -- perhaps even more so than AOTC or ROTS, although it is a prequel film and the latter two are films from the original trilogy. In terms of tone, I'd say that ROTS and ESB are the most alike in that they have the greatest "operatic sweep" of any of them and are both rather emotional films.

    In terms of acting, I'd probably say that Ian McDiarmid is my favorite actor and I heavily prefer the performances of the PT, which I find to be more subtly developed and more fitting to setting. Of the OT performances, I hold Mark Hamill's in especially high esteem. Carrie Fisher is certainly good, but she's mired a bit by her character's arc (or lack of one, I should say). I've never really been impressed with Harrison Ford. Having just recently seen Indiana Jones, you could literally transpose the characters from these films and I wouldn't notice the difference.
    Zeta1127 likes this.
  14. Drewton Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jan 8, 2009
    star 4
    But it makes perfect sense. If it's not true why did so many people love 99% Mass Effect 3 but hate the ending? Why do so many people love the first Matrix but hate the third?

    ROTJ's weak ending (IMO) doesn't make me think less of SW and TESB. Why should it?
    Last edited by Drewton, Sep 5, 2012
    Humble_Jedi likes this.
  15. Frank T. Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Sep 2, 2012
    star 6
    FWIW, I watched every episode of LOST and loved 'em all. Right up to the ending of the final episode which I did not like. It diminished the whole story for me. I was going to buy the collected series but changed my mind and bought BSG instead.
  16. Zeta1127 Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Sep 2, 2012
    star 4
    I just don't see the point in pitting one trilogy against the other when they are both part of a larger story.
  17. Arawn_Fenn Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Jul 2, 2004
    star 7
    You know, we actually did have the internet back in that ancient era when this film ( which wasn't about Julius Caesar ) came out. I don't see any problem with its acting. And if The Sopranos is to be believed, the film was loved for its dialogue, at least among certain fictional characters.

    Oh, god. :rolleyes: This again? I'm going to assume the above is a cut-and-paste job, because we've seen it before and LIV ULLMANN WAS NOT IN LOTR.

    Yes. You see, they were facing the gallows if things didn't work out. The stakes tend to be a bit higher for the characters in the film than they are for the audience. The alternative - the unemotional, disaffected acting so popular amongst the younger set these days - wouldn't have been appropriate in the fictional setting.
    Last edited by Arawn_Fenn, Sep 5, 2012
  18. Frank T. Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Sep 2, 2012
    star 6
    phew. And I thought I was gonna have to sit through 12 hours to catch that cameo.
  19. Legolas Skywalker Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Sep 3, 2012
    star 6
    I'll choose both since i love both
  20. Drewton Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jan 8, 2009
    star 4
    Do we really have to put other epic stories down just to make the prequels seem better?
    Last edited by Drewton, Sep 5, 2012
  21. anakinfansince1983 Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Mar 4, 2011
    star 7
    I love the prequels but I agree that "Hey look over there!" isn't really the best strategy in their defense.
    eht13, Drewton and Frank T. like this.
  22. EHT Manager: New Films

    Manager
    Member Since:
    Sep 13, 2007
    star 5
    Yes... as I said above:
  23. Drewton Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jan 8, 2009
    star 4
    I like the prequels, I don't hate everything about them and I'm able to appreciate them, but except for Ewan McGregor and Ian McDiarmid in ROTS (Ewan especially was great), on no day would I say overall the acting is good. Not as terrible as a lot of people say, but consistently wooden.

    The new Star Trek's acting was so much better than the prequel's, it wasn't funny. Seriously. The opening sequence made me well up in tears and had far more emotional depth than Anakin and Padme's relationship ever did - and this was all done through just one scene. Between two characters who didn't even have a proper introduction and we'd only known for, what, eight minutes? I really cared for the characters and it made Anakin and Padme's scenes seem even more wooden. Say what you will about the story of the film, but that scene had brilliant acting and direction.

    On a positive note I thought Christensen did a good job with the scene in the Lars garage, with what he was given.

    We're off topic now though. I guess let's get back on track if we're able to? :p
    Last edited by Drewton, Sep 5, 2012
  24. PiettsHat Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jan 1, 2011
    star 4
    The acting issue (and the framing of emotion) is tricky because it really is highly subjective. Something that one person might find over the top might work perfectly for another person. In general, I found the PT handled the acting well in that it didn't constantly run emotion at maximum. This, I've found, can often be overwhelming for me in that if a particular emotion or state is stressed too long, too often, and in too similar a manner, it becomes less easy for me to appreciate. One that is particularly vulnerable to abuse is the slow-motion zoom of a character crying, often accompanied by choral music. Used sparingly, this can produce a really emotionally impacting scene. One of my favorite all time instances of this is in The Lion King, when we are treated to a close up of cub Simba weeping over his father's corpse. It makes the scene hit that much harder and is really impactful. For a similar reason, Anakin's weeping during Padmé's ruminations works well in that it is an uncommonly used technique throughout the Saga that is used to heighten the emotion and the connection felt to the character (at least in my experience, not trying to generalize here). Unfortunately, I've also fallen out of love with some films because, after repeated exposures to the same "tricks," I've found that they are used so much that they are effectively rendered meaningless.
  25. obi-rob-kenobi4 Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Apr 17, 2007
    star 4
    I just want to say that I realize it didn't have Julius Caesar in it, what was meant by that was that it was "the time of Julius Caesar".

    Also just for the record I want to say that I love (and have always loved) Gladiator and I paid $30 to own it on blu-ray. I also have no problem with any of the films I listed. The point was just to show that if you really want to get right down to it the acting in all these other films can be picked apart too just like people tend to nit-pick about SW.

    BTW I must add that The Sopranos is my favorite show of all time and I too enjoyed all the Gladiator references in season 3.
Moderators: Darth_Nub, Lt.Cmdr.Thrawn
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.