Differences between the Original and Prequel Trilogy

This thread is a general discussion on the differences between the Original and Prequel Trilogy.

1) Perceptions. It seems many people make a distinction between the Original and Prequel Trilogies and view the OT as far more superior. Why is this? It is after all, all Star Wars. IS the Original Trilogy Superior? Why?

2) Effects Are you a fan of CGI? Would you have preferred to have seen more ?traditional? effects in the Prequel Trilogy. Bear in mind that the effects seen in the OT were seen as cutting edge. Does the Prequel Trilogy contain too much CGI.

3) Characters Has seeing some of the characters in the PT added so much more to the OT. Who is the most endearing? Is the criticism that some characters in the PT ?wooden? fair? Were there ?wooden? characters in the OT? What of the villains of the trilogies? Are the OT villians more menacing?

4) Story What are the differences of the way the Story is told? Do both trilogies use the same formula?

Feel free to add your thoughts on any other subjects on this topics. The points above are just to start us off.

 

1) Perceptions. It seems many people make a distinction between the Original and Prequel Trilogies and view the OT as far more superior. Why is this? It is after all, all Star Wars. IS the Original Trilogy Superior? Why?

I think the OT is viewed as superior because it was first and has been around for so long. The story arc in the OT was tied up nicely in ROTJ and could've easily been the end of Star Wars. It will take time for the PT to catch up with the OT in terms of appreciation and love.

2) Effects Are you a fan of CGI? Would you have preferred to have seen more ?traditional? effects in the Prequel Trilogy. Bear in mind that the effects seen in the OT were seen as cutting edge. Does the Prequel Trilogy contain too much CGI.

I'm a big fan of CGI. I don't mind it at all. I don't think there is too much CGI at all in the PT. I look at like this. In times of Empires, technology and growth are stymied. The OT was supposed to look old. It was a nice affect to show how the Empire was drawing the life out of the galaxy. The PT is supposed to look newer because they're still in a Golden Age.

3) Characters Has seeing some of the characters in the PT added so much more to the OT. Who is the most endearing? Is the criticism that some characters in the PT ?wooden? fair? Were there ?wooden? characters in the OT? What of the villains of the trilogies? Are the OT villians more menacing?

I think it's great to see Anakin, Yoda, Palpatine and Obi-Wan in the PT. I think it adds a ton of depth to their overall characters. I think the story of Anakin is the most endearing. We really get a chance to see where he came from and we know where he's going. It makes it hard to watch at times. I don't think any characters in Star Wars are wooden. Darth Vader will always be the most menacing because we saw him first. The way he just strolls along Tantive VI is breath-taking.

4) Story What are the differences of the way the Story is told? Do both trilogies use the same formula?

I think the story is told the same way in all five movies thus far.

 

1) Perceptions. It seems many people make a distinction between the Original and Prequel Trilogies and view the OT as far more superior. Why is this? It is after all, all Star Wars. IS the Original Trilogy Superior? Why?

Most people prefer the OT because it's the trilogy they grew up with. I like the OT more for that same reason, and the story contains more humor, and I think better characters.

2) Effects Are you a fan of CGI? Would you have preferred to have seen more ?traditional? effects in the Prequel Trilogy. Bear in mind that the effects seen in the OT were seen as cutting edge. Does the Prequel Trilogy contain too much CGI.

CGI is fine with me, but how much is too much? It seems like every scene filmed in the PT is against a blue screen. I also don't like the idea of creating new characters and making them a key part of the story simply because they are a technoligal achievement. Jar Jar Binks anyone?

3) Characters Has seeing some of the characters in the PT added so much more to the OT. Who is the most endearing? Is the criticism that some characters in the PT ?wooden? fair? Were there ?wooden? characters in the OT? What of the villains of the trilogies? Are the OT villians more menacing?

I like most of the characters in the PT. Count Dooku, Padme, and Watto are my favorite PT characters. I also feel that the younger versions of the old characters have been presented well, especially Obi-Wan. I don't there are many wooden characters in the OT. I pretty much liked them all.

The villains in the OT were far superior though.

4) Story What are the differences of the way the Story is told? Do both trilogies use the same formula?

I think they use the same formula but the politics of the PT are what turns casual people away from the movies. The story in the OT is simple, Rebels against Imperials. I think that's another reason people like the OT more.

 

1) Perceptions.

I think the PT can stand up to the OT on many aspects, but where it falls short is directing. I think acting in front of blue screens has an effect on an actor, and the comraderie of the actors may not be like what Mark, Carrie and Harrison had.

2) Effects

Effects are nice and there's no doubt that the landscapes adn such look amazing. After watching Fellowship of the Ring a bunch of times and diving into the DVD special features... I am now a big fan of models, and think more of them should have been used in these SW movies.

3) Characters

Some of the acting is wooden, yes. Sam Jackson is great, but so far Mace has been one dimensional. Hayden is alright, but I find myself not feeling sorry for him at all. Christopher Lee is wonderful, but Dooku just isn't that scary. The best actor in the movies has been Ewan. Even some of Portman's performances leave something to be desired. I think Anna Paquin would have been a better choice... but then again, I blame directing, not the actors.

4) Story

The ways the stories are told are completely different. The OT has a simplicity to it. ANH is Good v. Evil, David v. Goliath. ESB is more complex, with a love story, betrayal and redemption, heartbreak, surprises and sorrow. RotJ goes back to the Good v. Evil, David v. Goliath, but adds the redemption of a once great man. In TPM and AotC... we've got alliances... three villians... possible traitors... clone wars... assassin attempts... love story... a man turning toward the dark side with each passing day.

Is it necessarily better? No... but it's what saves the movies.

SH

 

Thankyou for the responses thus far.

---

[b]Perceptions[/b]

As far as I am concerned, the Original and Prequel Trilogies on an equal footing. I think we need to wait until Episode 3 when we can put them both together revealing the whole saga which we can sit back, relax and enjoy.

In my opinion, the only reason fans make a distinction is that they remember seeing the Original Trilogy as a Kid. They didn't nitpick it, they didn't criticise it, they saw Star Wars for what it was - entertainment. Now they look back at the OT with fondness and just can't view the PT in the same light they viewed the OT as a kid[hr]

And something else for us to chew on: [b]Is it too easy for George to make the Prequels? Is he in his best form when facing challanges?[/b]

 

UP!

 

The OT and the PT should NOT be compared.

-They are on EXTREMELY different levels of technology in filming, effects, etc.

-They serve a different purpose in story telling. The PT is a BACKSTORY. The OT is what GL's vision of the saga was condensed to, it's what started it all.

-The influences of pop culture then and now. If that's what you use in assessing both sagas.

That's what I feel.

 

The OT and the PT should NOT be compared.

I share your sentiments, but for entirely different reasons.

For me, we should step back from the PT and the OT and look at it as one big story. There is no need to split it down the middle to two.

The purpose of this thread is to ask why some fans see the two parts as entirely different.

 

They are viewed that way because they are split up purposely (but not necessarily wisely, in my opinion) into 2 totally different, seperate, and self-contained stories.

I believe the 2 trilogies were MEANT to be looked at AS "2 trilogies" not one saga of 6 movies. GL talks about his "rhyming" betweent the 2 trilogies. How could there be such "rhyming" if the stories werent seperate?

Both trilogies start out with a dirty Tatooine boy who dreams of seeing the stars. Once they each get off the sand ball, father and son are faced with the exact same situations, obstacles, and choices. The father falls. The son, makes every decision the exact same way his father did until the very last second, and redeems them both.

You see? They are two seperate journeys. Ep3 is the end of Anikan's journey, and it will be a definate ending point. It will leave almost no room for continuation. Ep 4 is a definate starting point. It needs no background story to be filled in.

Even the fact that Ep4 will LOOK different, (and Im not just talking about the film or special effects, but story wise), feel different, everythings changed, with no vestiges of the previous 3 movies anywhere in sight. The fact that there will be 20 to 25 years between eps3 and 4 adds to this.

A story ends. And another begins.

It seems obvious to me that GL is purposely intending it this way, and thats why most people view it that way, in answer to your question.

It would have been easy (even easier) to make Anikan turn at the end of ep2, and have a whole 3rd movie with the Darth Vader we all love. Even better to do so. But GL is very conciensciously trying to make ep3 the END of one, and ep4 the BEGINNING of another.

Thats why he introduced this motif of the "rhyming." To show how seperate yet similar the 2 heros are, until the very end.

 

I love all 5 SW movies.

I see not one similarity between the 2 trilogies, other than the side-to-side wipes for transition scenes. Im not saying thats a bad thing, but that is the way it is.

The story, the look, the style, all very, VERY different from one another. 4-6 match each other perfectly. Same goes for 1 and 2. Especially in the story dept., there is no similarity whatsoever between the 2 trilogies. They each have their own personality.


I was watching AOTC the other day, and was saddened to realize that at no time during the movie, did it feel like a Star Wars movie to me. I enjoy it much more that TPM, yet TPM seems like a true SW movie to me. I think the feeling or lack thereof has to do much with the music, and AOTC did lag in that dept. Maybe thats where its all at for me. It just doesnt give me the "Star Wars Feeling" without the Star Wars music, and I think that AOTC didnt for a second have SW music. I still love it though, like I said, more than TPM, and immensely more than ROTJ, it just isnt "Star Wars."

In fact the only scene in the entire PT that gives the "Star Wars Feeling" to me is from the moment the solarsailer's sails retract, to when Sidious says "...planned." That really gives me the feeling, and I think its because of the music.

 

I agree with Darthweenie on this one, but even though I agree, that's not how I would have liked the 2 trilogies to be. I would have liked it better if they were more connected as one 6-part saga. That's just me though. Do I like the PT any less for it being what it is, no. So far it's a really good trilogy and that's fine with me, as long as it's Star Wars.

 

Once again we find ourselves in agreement, slob.

I also know the reason why many who dont like the PT, dont like the PT! (You know the critics and stuff.) I think I know whats missing/present in the PT that drives so many SW fans away.

Its deep and psychological. *waving fingers* oohhhh. Ill post as soon as I get a chance to get off work.