The Original Trilogy as "Dramatic" and the Prequel Trilogy as "Epic."

Alright. More power to you I guess.

 

I also view the OT as being more mystical, mysterious, and less sci-fi and more fanasty, because it deals with the mystery of the force. Whereas the PT is more political and doesn't treat the force as some mysterious entity.

 

Theres certainly a certain "detatchment" to the PT. It's almost like watching a documentery, depicting how these ppeople came to play a pivitol role in the downfall of the Old Republic/Formation of The Empire.

 

I'm wondering how much of that is because we know what will happen at the end of the PT.

 

To me, the PT felt like a grand opera.

 

I agree.

The Original Trilogy can be seen as one long journey of Luke unraveling the arcane arts of the Force, whereas the Prequels took knowledge of the Force on the part of its viewers for granted.

The science-fiction definitely went on the backburner to focus more on character development and the depth of the story itself. Aliens species were more integrated into the Prequels because of new digital animation.

Awesome observation.

<[-]> Saber

 

"The Prequel Trilogy" took knowledge of the Force on the part of the viewers for granted?" How? Because of the midichlorians, which were only mentioned in TPM? Did this upset your view of the Force that badly? And how does this make the PT more "science-fiction" than the OT? And from what I had seen the PT was just as character developed as the OT. In some ways, even more. Or perhaps you have all come to this conlcusion because Qui-Gon had brought up the midichlorians in TPM.


I realize that you all have every right to your opinions. But I just find your explanations that the OT was "more mystical" than the PT to be very unconvincing. And it also sounds like another case of good old-fashioned "PT bashing".

 

The Prequels were nothing but one long action sequence. Sci-fi action sequence.

<[-]> Saber

 

Don't you mean . . .in your opinion? Because it felt like more than just one long action sequence to me. If it was, I believe that one might as well say the same about all six movies.

 

The Prequels were nothing but one long action sequence. Sci-fi action sequence.

There is many a scene in the PT with no action.

 

He probably fell asleep during those. Heck, I even dozed during the pod race the first time I saw TPM...

 

Mid TPM is pretty action-less (not all bad, though), and so was a lot of AOTC. AOTC has a very action-packed final 45 minutes, but much of the movie is devoid of action. The action is better paced in ROTS.

 

Ya ya know like...most of it.



The chart really fleshed out the differences between the two stories. I feel fo alot of the characters in both the OT and the PT but yes the narrative is completely different. Same themes, different styles.

I will say that whoever says that the OT wasn't bashed by critics as much as the PT are completely wrong. Both were critisized for the same things. Yes, they were. We haven't let these newer films age at all. Already I hear people warm up to TPM just a litle bit more. And if you ask a bunch kids who are from 4-12 which Star Wars film is their favorite. They will most likely say one of the prequels.

 

To simplify, the OT is like an ancient folk story, while the PT is an epic, abstract meditation on the themes and ideas of the OT. Without wishing to enter a debate on such things, perhaps this is a good reason why the "varnish" of CG and the like is "at odds" with the OT; the sheen of digital effects works better in the PT, which is an elevated, syncopated variant of the OT's methods and overall feel. There is a pronounced, delibrate difference between the two, but collectively, they form a whole.

I think that your second list, MisterVader, is more pleasing -- it seems to have clear categories that fit the PT / OT mould better. Fundamentally, apprehending the difference comes down to a simple point of philosophy, auspiciously found in the OT, reinforced (in a manner of speaking) at the start of the PT: "You must unlearn what you have learned" . . . AND . . . "But not at the expense of the moment. Be mindful of the Living Force".

 

To simplify, the OT is like an ancient folk story, while the PT is an epic, abstract meditation on the themes and ideas of the OT. Without wishing to enter a debate on such things, perhaps this is a good reason why the "varnish" of CG and the like is "at odds" with the OT; the sheen of digital effects works better in the PT, which is an elevated, syncopated variant of the OT's methods and overall feel. There is a pronounced, delibrate difference between the two, but collectively, they form a whole.


I suspect that this is due to the differences in the settings of the two trilogies. As I have stated on another thread, the PT had to adhere to Obi-Wan's superficial description of the Old Republic. Which is what Lucas had managed to do.