1. Welcome to the new boards! Details here!

Why the PT will never be as good as the OT

Discussion in 'Attack of the Clones' started by Sebulba-Dug, Jun 2, 2002.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Razorback

    Razorback Jedi Youngling star 5

    Oct 2, 2001
    Finally!!! Someone understands me!!! Woohoo!!! I thought maybe I was not making sense or something

    Don't go thinking that one or two people agreeing with you validates your opinion. ;)

  2. Sebulba-Dug

    Sebulba-Dug Jedi Youngling star 1

    May 25, 2002
    I could care less if people agree with me. I was just happy someone understood what I was saying about the models and puppets actually being real in the OT and that it gave them a more "real" feel than CGI. Everyone was misunderstanding how I was using the word "real" and I was starting to think I was speaking German or something.
  3. Bowen

    Bowen Force Ghost star 5

    Sep 6, 1999
    Ok I am about to show my actual ignorance of the making of AOTC here, so sorry, but...

    Obi-Wan's ship was CG the entire movie? Was it or wasn't it? I thought it was real a lot of the time, you know, models. Am I wrong?

    The clone troopers... Aren't they real a lot of the time too? In the scenes where you see them talking to Mace, for instance, or where they are on the ground up close, aren't those real people in costumes or are those also CG? I have not read much about the making of the film yet, as I guess I just made apparent.

    Yoda is all CG, all of the time, that much I know, yet to be honest it wouldn't shock me if Lucasfilm was like, "Ha-ha-ha, jokes on you guys, Yoda really was a puppet after all, we just said he was CG to see how many idiots would complain anyway." If you hadn't told me Yoda was CG, I wouldn't have known it, except when he was fighting because OBVIOUSLY there is no way to do that besides CG. I mean clearly nobody had Yoda on wires and whatnot, LOL!

    My guess is hardly anyone in the world who is not a SW fan knows that Yoda is CG. I told one of my friends that and he is like, "In the WHOLE movie?! Are you sure about that?" I said, "Yeah, he is really CG the entire way." He said, "Wow... That is just incredible."

    Anyone who says Yoda looks fake needs to lay off the weed, seriously. I was hyper critical the entire first viewing, watching Yoda super carefully TRYING to look for a flaw, and I never found it. I kept thinking, "Jeez, he looks just the same! This is amazing!" I have seen the movie 14 times. Yoda looks totally real.

    As for the effects, OUCH to both the OT and the PT here guys. I've heard both of them just bashed up and down.

    I think the OT looks almost totally realistic throughout, except a few selected scenes, mostly in ANH, that could use a bit of fixing. The Rancor in ROTJ, I admit, still needs a bit of work. The rest is excellent!

    The PT, well wow, there is so much more going on. The CG is about 99.9999% perfect. The only error I found so far in the entire trilogy, i.e. two films so far, was in TPM when Watto has his back to the camera (at least in the theatrical release, I forgot to check for this on the DVD). Basically, you see a little blotch of his skin cover up his utility belt (this is in the hangar before the Podrace as Qui-Gon is making his bet with him). That is all I noticed after 50 viewings of TPM, as far as CGI goes. 50 viewings in theaters, I mean, many more on DVD and VHS...

    The capability of ILM is just stunning. I really think it is amazing that apparently all of Coruscant in the chase scene is CG I guess? I mean, dang, it's so amazing. I feel like I AM looking at this real race taking place through the buildings on this marvelous city, but apparently I am looking at no more than computer images.

    I don't think there is any progress left to be made with CG. It's perfect right now. It was perfect for TPM too. We have reached a stage where the next level is only the quickness of creation and the number of effects shots, not the actual potential. They can do anything. They can make characters, they can make ships, they can insert whatever they want, they can create cities. They LITERALLY can make ANYTHING they want in CG and have it look entirely realistic and perfect. It's stunning and really blows me away.
  4. Adali-Kiri

    Adali-Kiri Jedi Padawan star 4

    Jul 31, 2000

    "I wasn't trying to attract a debate, I thought more people would agree with me."

    Hmmm, with all due respect - that was the problem you had back there. Posting opinions on the TFN forums IS attracting debate, but I guess you know that by now. You could post a thread about Star Wars being cool movies and you'd still attract debate around here. You'd be amazed! ;)

    But it seems to be going well here now, so I'll shut off the complain-o-fier.

    Btw; why have you Americans turned the obvious phrase "I couldn't care less" into the honestly incomprehendible "I could care less"? I don't get it, it must be a mistake made by young people. When you say "I couldn't care less what you think", you're saying you don't give a darn. But if you say "I could care less what you think", you're saying you do actually give a darn. Isn't this a mess-up...? ?[face_plain]
  5. Commander Antilles

    Commander Antilles Jedi Grand Master star 6

    Jul 21, 1999
    My conclusion is that the PT is a decent set of films so far, but it's ultimately just a backstory for the OT.

    Lucas seems to have lost the knack of giving us a human story. Sure, there's lots of flash and snazzy effects in the PT, but none of it still holds a candle to the 25 year old effect of the Star Destroyer chasing Leia's ship, or the AT-ATs. That's so much more impressive because you had people working on these realistic models, hour after hour, and not just taking the shortcut of CGI. It pays off too. I saw the OT recently in an IMAX cinema, and the original FX looked better than the SE additions.

    Also, I'd still rather see moments of high drama like the Han/Leia farewell in the carbon freezing chamber, or Vader's revelation to Luke. Scenes like those blow away all the CGI FX Lucas can dream up, and are unrivalled by anything in the PT.
  6. Darth-Richard

    Darth-Richard Jedi Youngling star 1

    May 22, 2002
    First off, the PT's complexities (in plot) aren't as catchy as the simplicities of the OT (to the wider viewing audience which consit of non-star wars fanatics like us). People want microwaved answers. NOW! NOW! NOW! But the PT is where you have to be in the state of mind that these are chapters in a larger story. If someone is looking for all the answers, he/or she will think there are plot holes by the end of the movie instead of waiting for the next movies to find the answers.

    As for CGI, in my first viewing of AOTC, I was caught off guard by things that blatantly stood out. Some things (to my eye) blended nicely, some didn't. By the 2nd viewing everything blended very well. But to a non-star wars fan, he/or she may not give the movie a 2nd chance and just scream, "FAKE! THAT'S FAKE!". Coupled with the wooden acting and complex story, they definately won't come back.

    And the arguement about age is baseless. There are many people who viewed the OT in their 20s and 30s and are just as big a fan as anyone else. 25 years later, some of these same cats ain't diggin' the PT. What's the excuse? They're WAAAAY too old. C'mon! Star Wars was an age defying phenomenon. It was like that woman's deoterant, strong enough for a man but Ph balanced for a woman. Well, the OT was strong enough for adults but Ph balanced for children. So the whole "this is geared towards kids (exclusively)" is a farce. Lucas had stated that the world became too cynical (symbolized by Han Solo, the cynic). He wanted to create a story that moved people back to a spiritual state (go read the Annotated Screenplays, it says A LOT about the production of Star Wars, Lucas also admits he's not a good writer but can come up with a cool story). This also has to do with the silliness of the PT. Saying it's geared for kids is a copout. Harry Poter is geared towards kids and is in no way overly silly. It has some very strong concepts for kids. A mature story for 7 year olds that even adults can enjoy.

    But yes, what also holds up the PT is the same thing that brings it down. That is the OT. When you compare the PT to its predecessor you see flaws (take some time to get use to PT, and at least wait for Episode III). But ... you also see lightsabers, robes, talk of the force, spaceships, dictators, sith, and cool effects. So it wins for the same reason.

    oh well, whatever ... "enjoy" the show.
  7. TokyoXtreme

    TokyoXtreme Jedi Master star 4

    Oct 24, 2001
    Don't go thinking that one or two people agreeing with you validates your opinion.


    Actually, the argument against CGI is pretty strong, encompassing many more than "one or two people". As I've watched CGI cinema technology grow and develop over the past ten years, from T2 and Jurassic Park and Michael Jackson's Moonwalker, I've given it quite a bit of thought. My belief is that used sparingly, CGI can save some serious cash when it comes to making movies. Yet, there is most definitely another, non-monetary price.

    "Real" objects that Sebulba-Dug has been describing include the blue-screened stop-motion elements such as the Rancor and always cool AT-ATs, puppets such as Yoda, plastic models such as the X-Wing (a timeless design), and even the occasional rubber-suited Walrus-Man. All of these mentioned objects actually exist on a physical plane in our universe. They are tangible objects with mass that can be stolen or forged and sold over eBay.

    On the other hand, we have CGI elements such as Dex, new Yoda, Darth Maul jumping off of a speeder bike, Watto, and even that other guy. These digital creations exist only as data on a hard drive or whatever storage medium ILM is using in the workshop. These digital whatevers are more analogous to cel animation, as they are at best only "approximations" of real objects. Souped-up drawings really. No matter how advanced the computer, CGI creations are still limited to the human animator. Because of this limiting factor, the imagery can approach reality only to a certain point.

    So what's the big deal. Well, my guess is that the human mind is so accustomed to seeing actual, real objects on a daily basis -- practically every waking day of our lives -- that it can instantly differentiate between physical models and human approximations born from computers. For largely static and inflexible images such as planets, scenery, and spaceships, CGI is usually "good enough" to look believable. After all, matte paintings have long been used to achieve the same things that CGI scenery does now, with similar results. Spaceships moving through space is a different story, as completely realistic lighting models and textures are again a function of the human animator and his or her ability to utilize the technology.

    The major and most often "jarring" (if you'll pardon the obvious reference) aspect of CGI application is when it's used to create living beings. To create a somewhat convincing creature using only digital methods is extremely difficult, as it requires an extraordinary deal of research and craftmanship on the part of the artist. Unfortunately, the digital beings are not realistic enough to trick the human brain into believing that the entity is a flesh-and-green-blood organism. It is so difficult, that I wonder why they just don't save some time and use more realistic models and rubber suits. If the modelmakers know what they are doing, the results are always better. After all, the modelmaker doesn't have to fiddle with light sources and texture algorithms and whatever else CGI designers get all drippy about.

    Stop-motion model "animation" from the early days of Hollywood looks pretty goofy because the actors themselves are often incorporated into the footage. Also, the technology was in its infancy, and modelmakers were rushed, not professionals, etc. etc. With Empire, the model teams were probably the best in the world, and they worked very hard to perfect the technique. When you think about it, the classic film camera is a stop-motion device that films everything at 22 fps. 22 years later, and the AT-ATs still look real as F in my book. Why shouldn't they? They ARE real!

    What it really boils down to is that no matter how greatly technology advances, CGI effects will always be limited by the human designers and artists. And as long as artists insist on using CGI to make completely digital life forms, it will always look like Roger Rabbit in space.
  8. EnforcerSG

    EnforcerSG Jedi Padawan star 4

    Sep 12, 2001
    Kay-Elle, i dissagree. To me, the Star Wars films are family films, not kids films. Babe, Barny, Power Rangers, Pokeman, those are kids films, and Star Wars is not that. Well, TPM was somewhat, but on the whole, Star Wars have been films that the whole family would not mind watching again and again and again. It was not just kids who liked Star Wars when it came out 30 some years ago, parrents enjoyed them too. It is not like as many parrents groned if their kids said they wanted to see it again.

    CGI vs. Traditional stuff.

    Well, here is my take. Traditional, you have to worry about mat lines, boxes, ect. CGI, you dont, but traditional has many more real elements, so when it looks good, it looks real.

    My point you ask? CGI looks good but not real. Traditional looks real, but not good. both of those are in general, and there are times when they both look real and good, or neither.

    This remindes me of analog vs. digital debates.

    The storys

    Well, in the OT, the story was clear, and it was there. It actually took the whole movie to tell the story. AOTC was like that. TPM IMHO was not. No one ever questioned if ESB was really needed, or could only point out two or three things that were needed, but people are doing that all the time with TPM (weather it is accurate or not is not being debated, just the fact that people question it is enough to show it is diffrent). AOTC is more like the OT in that way.

    Overall, the PT story is complex, but Lucas is still trying to make it simple, at at times, it feels dumbed down or overly simplified.


    I think the problem is that TPM really didn't attach us to OB1 and others, and the fact that many of them changed so much between TPM and AOTC that it is hard to attach to them again. Like we MAY have gotten attached to little 9 year old Anakin Skywalker, but now, he is played by a diffrent acter, and just it is harder to become attached. Things like that.

    Good vs Evil.

    It was clear in the OT until you found out Vaders little secret. In the PT, it seems like Lucas is trying to keep it overall simple, but also be subtal, and it is not working for me.

    Padme Bra, i agree with you, especally how simply some part of the PT are. Well, to me, TPM was simple, and AOTC was pleasantly complex, about as complex as the OT.
  9. Darth_Artoo

    Darth_Artoo Jedi Youngling

    May 19, 2002
    Foolish you are. There is but one saga. I feel sorry for those who seek to seperate the two. Niether of these trilogies is nearly as awe inspiring as the story as a whole. Seperate they are extreamly fun and entertaining. Taken together these trilogies form the greatest story ever told. Enjoy it I will.
  10. TokyoXtreme

    TokyoXtreme Jedi Master star 4

    Oct 24, 2001
    Well, matte lines and the boxes (same thing actually) are because of optical composition. A technique that I doubt is even used anymore. It has nothing to do with models and puppets and rubber soul. All of these things can be composited digitally and look much better. I guess like how they did it in Crouching Tiger.
  11. Green_Destiny_Sword

    Green_Destiny_Sword Jedi Grand Master star 5

    Jun 20, 2001
    How about the reason that the PT movies are worse than the OT?
  12. kristof

    kristof Jedi Padawan star 4

    Jun 29, 2000
  13. Adali-Kiri

    Adali-Kiri Jedi Padawan star 4

    Jul 31, 2000
    Commander Antilles;

    CGI is a short-cut? I'm not so sure about that. Especially given Lucas' own statements about it often being better to build a model physically than CGI, because it's less time consuming and less expensive. Sort of proves that CGI is no short-cut. If anything it's a less distorted channel into the imagination of a film director.

    The Star Destroyer doesn't look any more real to me than the ships in AOTC.
  14. Rebel Scumb

    Rebel Scumb Jedi Knight star 6

    Feb 22, 1999
    I've defended TPM on numerous occations, but AOTC really took away my faith in the PT.

    I think the PT will end up being a fun set of movies, but they will never mesh with the OT the way they should. I think Owen lars 'cameo' sealed that for me.

    THe OT is pure magic, and TPM while slightly less engaging is such a beautiful, and enjoyable film that it remains worthy of the SW banner, but AOTC was mildly enjoable at best with a scenes rising above the rest.

    Its not really all GLs fault, the great thing about the OT that I see in hindsight is that the heroes were always on the outskirts, with the larger politics happening far away, only mentioned, it gave the story a mystique, a feeling that the story was larger than the movies, as though no movie good contain a story this large. In this way the OT is equal to the Lord of the rings NOVELS, while the prequels end up being about as enjoyable as the LOTR film(s)
    The spirit is there, but its just not the same expirence.

    Anyways, I've given up on hoping for the prequels to involve me the way the OT did, In stead of griping about what GL "should of done" I'm just going to write my own PT scripts, and consider that the back story.
  15. EMK

    EMK Jedi Youngling star 1

    May 18, 2002
    Only major complaint I have about PT as opposed to OT are:

    1. Lack of Space Battles; and

    2. Ships with textured details.. i wish Lucas would go back to using models on the ships they look more detailed and rich and 3 dimensional

  16. Darth-Richard

    Darth-Richard Jedi Youngling star 1

    May 22, 2002
    No, Rebel Scum. Don't write your own Star Wars PT. What you need to do, along with some others who have fairly good ideas, is make up a whole new universe and make your own money. Stop giving all the ideas to Star Wars or trying to fit them into the Star Wars universe and context. Tweek it a bit and make it yours. Make your own franchise. If you're actually serious about writing, that is. You might have the next Star Wars, LOTR, MATRIX, SPIDER-MAN, blah, blah, blah. Or, the very 1st WHATVER IT IS.

    Don't make your ideas a bandaid for the Star Wars PT's bruises and scrapes (if that's your opinion). Make something new.

    And if you were just kidding, ignore everything I just said.
  17. Rebel Scumb

    Rebel Scumb Jedi Knight star 6

    Feb 22, 1999
    Waaaaaaaaay, ahead of you Darth Richard, I've got several universe on the go, 3 in the form of comic books, 6 others as film scripts, and another half dozen that live entirely in my head. Ideas arent a problem for me, it doesnt take a lot fo time out of my day to retool Sw for my own satisfaction. I've put about 20 years of interest and speculation into the SW franchise, the scripts practically writing itself.

    To me its just more a matter of wanting to see how difficult it would be, everyone bashes GL for the 'mistakes' he's made (though I perfer to call them artistic miscalulations), but to actually offer an alternative, as opposed to jsut saying "jar jar sucks' I'm attempting to see if a better a prequel can be written.

    In principal I know how I'm going to attack the script, but a few things still need to bne figured out, I'm trying not to have any repetition of planets ( Idon't like the Naboo+Coruscant+Tatooine triple team that seems to be the staple of the PT) The OT was all about going to new places, so I'm trying not to have any repeat visits, or aat least keep it to a minimum.

    But afew things remain in the air, so any suggestions would be welcome

    -should Qui-gonn and Ob1 be merged into one character as GL originally considered?

    -What should be Padme's occupation? (she won't be a queen in my version, Bail Organa is the royalty in distress, Padme is going to be the Han Soloesque character)

    -should the prequels reveal Anakin is Vader, or keep it a secret?

    -Should Yoda appear on screen at any point? This may sound strange, but I'm considering keeping him a secret, a great warrior often described by OB1 with affection, yet never seen, until ESB.

    -the sith? Sidious, Maul, and Tyrannus? Rule of two? Sith Council? Dooku as Palpatines master? More sith? Less Sith?

  18. Jedi_Lite

    Jedi_Lite Jedi Padawan star 4

    Jun 2, 2002
    6. People won't let it.
  19. Twelve_Motion

    Twelve_Motion Jedi Padawan star 4

    Feb 12, 2002
    Hey Friends.

    When I watch Star Wars, meaning... the OT and the PT, I dont judge the episodes on which ones are better. I love the story. That's all I care about. But if CGI is the main issue here, you must realise that we live in a different age then the late 70s-early 80s. The OT had the best CGI of it's time, it blew people away. AND today the PT has the best CGI of it's time, and it's blowing people away! Lucas said on many occasions that he will use technology as a tool. And I think the PT is what Star Wars should look like. Try looking at the Star Wars Universe for what it really is.

    300th post, whoo-hoo. I'm on a roll!
  20. Rebel Scumb

    Rebel Scumb Jedi Knight star 6

    Feb 22, 1999
    I'm trying very hard, but as it stands the story is going to make no sense when put all together.

    juast because the over all SW story is good, does not mean GL should not try and make each episode as thoughtful as possible.

    The writing and editing were down write sloppy this time around. There were basic editing mistakes that would be obvious to a first year film student, much less an accomplished filmmaker.
  21. Darth-Richard

    Darth-Richard Jedi Youngling star 1

    May 22, 2002
    Cool! Keep writing Rebel Scum. And I'll yield to that argument on testing the miscalculations of George Lucas.

    One flaw I see in the whole story is the Chosen One aspect gets lost in the OT. And Anakin to bring balance isn't discussed, but maybe that EXTRA SPECIAL EDITION of the OT will have new voice overs and goofy things like Greedo shooting 1st to explain everything (although personally, I see that and the whole Midicholorians idea as an uncreative method of TELLING THE AUDIENCE how great Anakin is instead of SHOWING US; I also believe, if Qui Gon was gonna be a rebellious Jedi, he should've expressed that Midicholorians were just a theory and he thought the force was more spiritual and less scientific. It would've added to the Jedi being arrogant in starting to apply a science to their religion).

    And, maybe it'll be addressed in Episode III, but why does it suddenly go to Anakin our Savior to KILL HIM as Darh Vader, and that's not metaphorically either or certain point of view. Luke is ordered to kill Darth Vader no matter who he use to be, by Yoda and Obi Wan, not save him from the darkside. Infact, when Luke gives the idea, Obi Wan tells him it can't be done.

    MINI_YODA Jedi Youngling star 2

    Apr 25, 2002

    maybe you should have titled the thread "Why the PT will never be as endearing as OT" or "Why you liked OT more than PT" something along those lines.
    and state very clearly that it is your opinion.

    Me, I prefer not to break these trilogies into parts since I consider it all one big story.

    I'll try and discuss your points one by one.

    1) CGI- Honestly I think your taking a nostaglic view to this. The OT maintained a campy feel because of its use of models etc. Maybe that's what you feel is missing.
    Really the difference in special effects outside of the computer generated characters is not that large. They still make extensive use of models for rooms. They still go on location alot. Backgrounds have been replaced by computer generated backdrops as opposed to painted backdrops.
    As for the CGI characters versus puppets. Well there may be more substance to puppets because they are real like you said, BUT CGI characters offer more emotional range. They also allow for greater flexibility. Sebulba or Jar Jar would not have been as effective without the use of CGI.

    2) Characters- What you seem to like is the pure archtypical aspects of the OT characters. Each of the 4 main characters can almost be described very quickly and easily. PT's characters are far more complex than that. Count Dooku for example while one of the bad guys is not a character that is evil per say. He has other motivations that drive his character. same with QuiGonn Jinn who I thought added much needed depth and complexity to the Jedi character.

    3) Good vs Evil - I think you are correct in stating that the characters in OT were more clearly defined along those lines. PT is not a story about that however. It is the examination of what creates evil. It is sacrifice, commitment, mistakes, ambiguity. It is more adult in its tone.

    4) Acting/Chemistry etc. This is a hard one to explain. The chemistry in OT existed on the level that the characters were supposed to like each other. They were at war and thy were united against a certain foe. Thus chemistry would be naturally created.

    The chemistry on the other hand with PT exists in the constant changing dynamics between the characters. Anakin likes OB1 (so he tells himself) but on other levels he doesn't. This is the feeling I got from the 2 characters, and that's I think the delivery that had to happen. A certain chemistry does exist between the characters, just not the all-for-one, one-for-all comradarie that exists in the OT.

    5) Chewie... well this is a character you like and there's no getting around that. However I really liked Watto and Yoda is a far more interesting character now.

    I guess what it comes down to is what you are looking for in SW. If you just want a simple good vs evil, blow them up movie than the OT is right for you.

    On the other hand if you want a complex, political series with more tragic characters than PT is for you.

    I refuse to say that any of the movies or trilogies is better or worse than the others. To me they are all Star Wars, and they are all special.
  23. Rebel Scumb

    Rebel Scumb Jedi Knight star 6

    Feb 22, 1999
    I respectfully disagree.

    The OT had a much more powerful complexity, that which is unseen and unspoken.

    If midichlorians are any example, the more GL tries to explain things the less entertaining and incredible they seem.

    When the senate was just something I heard about it was infinitely more intriguing than when you see it in the PT. The monster on Dagobah which eats then spits out r2d2 is more terrifying and fantastic than any of the aquatic life opn Naboo.

    Jango has 8 dozen cool gizmos, he kicks jedi ass, Boba Fett did next to nothing in the OT and was ten times cooler because he was so mysterious. Ever scrap of dirt on his costume told a story.

    In my prequels, Coruscant will probably go unseen, as will much of the jedi order, and Yoda most likely will remain in the shadows.

    The simplest way I look at it is this. Think about how you feel when Yoda floats the xwing in ESB, and ask yourself if you'll ever get that feeling watching the PT. I can't describe that feeling, and I won't try.
    Its that complex.

    Don't get me wrong, the PT is a lof of fun. But like I said, miscalulated, in my opinion.
  24. tyronen

    tyronen Jedi Youngling star 1

    Apr 10, 2002

    Yes, models and puppets are real objects as opposed to computer drawings. But....


    The AT-ATs were real MODELS. They weren't really giant walking tanks spewing lasers. How a six-inch model of a giant walking tank is supposed to be better than a computer drawing of same beats me. Besides, the OT used plenty of matte paintings as backgrounds. Why is analog matte good in the OT but digital matte isn't good in the PT?

    Some of the OT's effects look terrible by today's standards - the Tauntauns and the Rancor come to mind.

    As to the Endor forest looking more realistic - it's not as if real backgrounds are absent in the PT. Most of the Naboo shots in both movies are shot in real forests, lakes, etc.

    Characters: Darth Vader IS present in the PT, as Anakin. The knowledge that he will become the later Vader is a large part of the fun of the films. Knowing that everything that is happening is part of a giant plot by Sidious/Palpatine adds a delicious irony to a lot of things.

    The characters in the PT are more complex. The OT characters were comparatively one-dimensional - each fit a carefully selected archetype (Luke=hero, Leia=princess, Kenobi=Merlin etc.) This may resonate more at first but also gets tired more quickly on repeated viewings.

    (This does mean the OT should be seen first, THEN the PT, but that's another issue.)

    Good vs. Evil: More simplistic, and again, this may resonate more on first viewing, but on repeated viewings can end up as banal and cartoonish.

    Chemistry: Actually I have to concede this one, the chemistry of the original cast isn't there. That doesn't ruin my enjoyment of the PT, but I suppose it might for some.

    Chewbacca: This is a good point, and it applies to Han Solo as well - there isn't anyone with Chewie's lovable-alien or Han's gunslinger attitudes.

    But consider the ways in which the PT is superior to the OT:

    1) Good/evil: No cartoonish, simplistic Rebels good, Empire bad. Here it's a lot more like real life, shades of grey, constant changes, no certainties.

    2) Special effects: the evocative landscapes of Coruscant, the huge sprawling land battles, the massive clone factory - these are visually stunning scenes that weren't possible in the time of the OT. Seeing the OT after the PT seems almost primitive in comparison. The same goes for sound effects.

    3) Social commentary: I'm not saying the PT is an incisive barb on today's society. Nonetheless, it does have some stabs in that direction. Militarism, commercialism, corruption, mob rule, political deceit, complacency and overconfidence - the OT didn't address these issues at all. The evil Empire is not much more than a cardboard.

    4) Stuntwork: The lightsaber battles. That has always been a large part of the appeal of Star Wars, and few would deny the PT's superiority there. After seeing TPM, the ANH duel seems laughable.

    5) Use of the Jedi: In the OT, lightsaber action and laser-gun action hardly ever take place in the same scene (except at the Sarlacc) so we wonder why even use lightsabers when surely guns are more powerful? The PT shows why.

    6) Foreshadowing: We KNOW so much here that the characters don't know. We KNOW Anakin will turn, so we watch him for signs of evil. We KNOW Palpatine is really Sidious, so all his lines take on a double meaning. We KNOW each apparently victory is actually a defeat. The OT has no double entendres like this.

    7) Musical cues: The music itself isn't better (especially since much of it is the same) but here, just playing a tune has significance. Every time you hear the Imperial March or Emperor's Theme you know it's foreshadowing something. Music says something not using words. The OT doesn't do that.

    8) Death and dying. When Qui-Gon dies, Obi-wan shows genuine grief and rage. When Shmi dies, Anakin shows genuine fury and grief. The OT deaths don't convey that sense of pain and loss. The worst is Yoda's death in ROTJ - Luke hardly shows any grief at all, only regret that he didn't get more training.

    9) Act
  25. Rebel Scumb

    Rebel Scumb Jedi Knight star 6

    Feb 22, 1999
    In my version Padme is the Han solo character
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.