Fans who grew up with the OT-Do any of you actually prefer the PT?

I pity all who like the PT over the OT. I really do.

It's like everyone is forgetting what makes a movie... oh, I don't know... GOOD!

As Sean Connery would say "This is intolerable!"






I pity many qualities in you also.

 

In response to the original question, I'd guess I have to say yes. I'm in the "30+" crowd who has had the honor of seeing them all in their original releases since '77. Looking at all 6 films, two prequels are in my top 3. Here's my rankings:

1. ROTS
2. ESB
3. tie: ANH&AOTC
4. TPM
5. ROTJ

I don't think that takes away from what the OT meant to me growing up. ANH is obviously the catalyst of the whole thing. I personally think the three "darker" films of the 6 had the best stories, and PT had two of them.

 

The only OT character that seemed pointless to me in PT was Chewbacca. R2 & 3PO were important links. I found that their appearances in PT added to the characters in OT. Anakin actually building 3-PO..R2's association with Anakin and Obi-Wan in PT made the whole "I don't recall ever owning a droid" look he gives R2 seem like he's hiding something. (I got that feeling without the PT..)

The PT had to be more serious because of the events that were taking place. I thought TPM was a bit stale because it was a serious movie, with mostly new characters we didn't have any attatchment to. AOTC and ROTS started bringing back some of the wit I grew up loving in the OT..I also think part of the PT problem was that GL decided to direct all 3, and we all know that he doesn't write the easiest dialogue to deliver!

I prefer to look at these movies as six chapters of one story, and I love them all. All this PT/OT crap bothers me.

 

I prefer the OT. The PT is great though.

I cant realy tell untill I see them all on DVD from I-VI

1. ANH/TESB
2. ROTJ/ROTS
3. AOTC/TPM

 

I love both equally. The OT was my childhood. The PT was the backstory I had wanted to know for years! I wasn't disappointed in any respect.

 

I have a lot of mixed feelings between the OT and the prequels...I feel like my loyalty has to lie with the movies I grew up with, the ones that started it all. But I really do like the prequels too. Not TPM so much. I guess that if I have to rate them...

1. ESB
2. ROTS
3. ANH and AOTC
4. ROTJ
5. TPM

After the prequels, it almost seems like the OT needs to be remade, not just doctored up. Not to replace the REAL OT, but just to fix the holes and give it a new look. It's treason to say it, I know. One reason a remake could NEVER be as good is the cast alone. There could never be a cast like the OT.

I don't know...I love the Star Wars Saga. I saw ANH for the first time when I was 7, and opening where the Tantive IV is being pursued still takes my breath away. My oldest son prefers the PT, but it's the fact that we both love Star Wars that makes the whole thing special to me. Isn't that one of the things that makes it all so great? The Star Wars Saga has crossed over and bound whole generations to the same love.

 

There are only two Star Wars films: 1) Star Wars; and 2) The Empire Strikes Back.

OT=Original Two

Irvin Kershner is the true author of Star Wars.

Deal with it.

 

Irvin Kershner only directed ESB, Lucas(who is the true author of Star Wars) directed Star Wars.

 

I'm a 33 year-old '77 Original Star Wars fan and always preferred the OT until I had my lobotomy. Now the duh, PT, duh, is duh, betterer.

 

I can only hope that one day, the people who have seen all six movies - from 1977 to present - will GROW UP and learn to appreciate all of the movies as one big saga . . . and stop trying to get the fans to choose between the Original Trilogy and the Prequel Trilogy.

I am getting so sick and tired of the constant Prequel Trilogy bashing - especially by people who wanted the last three movies to be exactly like the first (as if that could happen). And if it continues, I guess I'll end up disliking the films that were released between 1977 and 1983.

 

RamRed,

Are you threating us with not liking the movies we like? That is fine with me and with, I would imagine, everyone else who prefers the OT. Like what you like and let others like what they like. We were just answering a thread question, and most of us in the 30-40 year old range prefer the OT and don't see it as "one saga" like you do. I agree with the poster who really one liked Star Wars and Empire Strikes Back. I never much cared for Return of the Jedi and thought that Phantom Menace and Attack of the Clones were still worse. Return of the Sith was probably my third favorite, but a distant third. Would RamRed like a thread where everyone just agreed with him/her all the time (i.e. Who agrees with RamRed on everything? replies: DarthPoppy: I do., SithLordMoby: I do., Bungo Fett: Oh, RamRed is God! How does he/she think this stuff up?!, etc. etc. ad nauseum).

 

I believe Ramred was only speaking out of frustration. He sounds annoyed - not threatening. I can understand where he?s coming from though. I?m 38 and I too grew up with the entire Star Wars Saga (all 6, as I see it) and although, I don?t have a problem with people bashing the prequels, I get pretty tired of it sometimes, especially when some people resort to the most ridiculous ways to bash them and George Lucas (one even going as far as saying that Empire is not George?s movie - as above. Plllllleeeeasssseee?)

Regardless of that, nothing will influence my view of any of these movies, and I will continue to love both the OT and PT equally

 

The original series had much better effects--models and real explosions will always beat CGI effects hands down! CGI is cheaper--not better. But one thing that the prequels do (at least for me) is give the impression of a living, breathing, universe.

 

Actually from my understanding CGI is more expensive and harder to work with than models. I believe you need to know a certain amount trigonometry in order to make a CGI model or character. Also,as seen in some of the documentaries,CGI artists put a great deal of care and effort into their creations just as much as model makers put into their models.

 

I grew up with the OT and it's like choosing between my oldest child and my youngest. Oh sure, I really screwed up my older kid but I love him just as much as my youngest child who is pretty spoiled and dresses better (hence the special effects). So I can't choose! I love the OT for the nostalgic and surprising twists and turns I remember as a child, but I really loved watching Anakin turn into "lukes father."

 

I love all Star Wars movies and can watch them endlessly, but ANH & ESB are the only 2 classic Star Wars movies. ROTJ, TPM, AOTC, ROTS, all great in their own ways, but all have some problem in each movie that I wish Lucas did another way. ANH & ESB are flawless movies, and that is why I still prefer the OT.

 

I think the same way. OT and PT are just different but special in their own way. This is how I rank them:

1) ESB - The characters are developed, the plot/storyline moves well, the acting is better because the actors don't have to imagine their surroundings, and the special effects really don't look "old" to me.

2) ROTS - I really loved how Ewan McGregor portrays Obi-Wan; and it amazed me how engrossed I was with the movie even though you know what is going to happen. The actors are much more comfortable in their roles compared to Ep1 and Ep2.

3) ANH - Just a classic movie with the first scene of the Star Destroyer coming across the screen as it chases after Leia's ship! Alec Guiness and the guy who played Gov. Tarkin were excellent.

4) ROTJ - The scenes between Luke, Yoda, and Ben as well as the scenes with Luke and Vader as well as the Emperor were rather intense. The storyline with Jabba the Hut took forever.

5) TPM - The relationship between Qui-Gon, Anakin, and Anakin's mother really impressed upon me how important my own family is to me. Separating children from their parents is rather harsh I think, which sort of makes sense to Anakin/Luke bringing the balance to the force. It is very low on my list because most of the scenes can be removed and the story doesn't really change.

6) AOTC - I hated this because the lines between Padme and Anakin were so bad. I was laughing at what was being said. It just did not make sense to make Anakin a whiny teenager - Anakin was not a whiny brat in TPM so it did not make sense.

Anyway - overall the Star Wars Saga is a wonderful story for the moviescreen.

 

1) ESB - The characters are developed,

Not that much. Yes, they're developed more than they were in ANH, and they undergo further development in ROTJ, though people like to claim they don't, but ESB is hardly the deep character study that some people treat it as.

the plot/storyline moves well, the acting is better because the actors don't have to imagine their surroundings,

What does an actor imagining their surroundings have to do with the quality of their acting? Actors regularly perform plays on stage, with few or no props or background. In fact, Christopher Lee and Ian McDiarmid have both praised bluescreen because it makes them feel like they're acting onstage (which is McDiarmid's milieu).

 

I greatly prefer the OT.

My ranking...

1) A NEW HOPE
The movie just creates a world to me, and I love it. Great, high adventure.

2) THE EMPIRE STRIKES BACK
Just a hair behind ANH. It's the classic feel that propels ANH to #1 for me. But TESB is by very far the best written, the best directed, and the best acted Star Wars film. Just great filmmaking.

3) RETURN OF THE JEDI
Okay, things slip a little. The direction is lacking, the production values aren't up to par with the first two. The acting is also not like it was in TESB. But it's still a fun movie to me. I like the pace, I like Ewoks. The film holds an element of nostalga to me even though I was born a month after it's release. I like Jabba's Palace, and the space scenes and the Death Star scenes are great. I like the feel of a lot of the film.

4) REVENGE OF THE SITH
Can't wait until it comes out on DVD. I have to see it again to really begin to form a deeper opinion. Still, I was sorta let down. It had some good scenes, but a lot of it felt very rushed to me. The scene before the duel is the best in the Trilogy, but the duel itself underwhelmed me. I just feel there was much more potential for the whole film.

5) THE PHANTOM MENACE
This might take the number 4 spot. I'll have to see ROTS again. The ROTS, by the nature of it's story, is more dynamic. But I feel TPM is pretty solid. It could have used a little energy at times, but I think it was a good start to the Trilogy. It set things up very well, and it gave a lot of room for II and III to develope and improve. It also gave us Qui-Gon Jinn, who I think is the best character to be introduced in the Prequels.

6) ATTACK OF THE CLONES
I hope we see a totally new edit of this film for the 2007 release. The editing is my big problem with the movie. That, and it just doesn't feel like the others. I looks too much "computery". I think it actually looks like a Playstation game. The pacing is very.... Not what it should be. It just fails to strike a chord in me, and it's the only film of the Saga that doesn't.

I'm not sure what is going on here with "bashers" or "gushers". I don't really want to labeled either one. I just think the Prequels fall way short of what they could have been. So, I prefer the OT.

 

I forgot to comment on this last night. I think a real set vs. a bluescreen one can actually have a huge impact on an actor's performance. I'm not conerned with Christopher Lee or Ian McDiarmid. You could give them a scuba mask and throw them in a pool and they'd still be able to hold a scene. They're Christopher Lee and Ian McDiarmid. Classically trained actors with a lot of experience. I'm more concerned with the likes Hayden Christensen and Natalie Portman. I don't think they're bad actors (especially Portman), but it can affect a performance.

Regardless of the level of skill of an actor, where they act affects. A good actor lets the set openly affect them. It changes the way you move, hold yourself, talk, etc. depeninding on your character's relation to the setting. Now I don't expect deep, method acting in Star Wars, but having a real set can help an actor tremedously. That's just my opinion. Though I'm aware some setting like Kamino would be impracticle to build, I like to see as many real sets as possible. They also just look better in my opinion.

 

I enjoy them both, equally. The OT and PT each have something to offer in their characters and overall stories that will keep me interested for many years to come.

Viewing Revenge of the Sith makes me just as happy as viewing A New Hope.

 

Then why did you just say that Lee and McDiarmid are classically trained actors who'd be able to hold a scene if they wore a scuba mask and were thrown into a pool?

By the way, I think Hayden is a good actor, not a great one, but good. IMO his acting in ROTS is on par with his acting in "Shattered Glass." Hayden was good in it, but frankly, I thought Peter Sarsgaard stole that movie.

I think Natalie is horribly overrated. IMO she's a competent, modestly talented actor who gets cut way too much slack by the critics because of a decade-old good performance in "The Professional." Sometimes she's more than competent, sometimes she's less. And she's been less-than-competent, or simply "eh," in movies that had real sets.

Ewan is a great actor, and though he's publicly said he doesn't care for bluescreen, he nonetheless buckled under and delivered a good performance. Not on par with what he's done in "Trainspotting," but then it's not supposed to be.

A good actor doesn't need a set. A good actor has something called "imagination," in which they can immerse themselves into the character regardless of their surroundings. It's been done since acting was invented.

How? Are you now saying that the acting of people who do the voices for animated characters is affected? Because they don't have sets either.

Not in mine. I usually can't tell the difference. And I'm betting most of the self-appointed CGI bloodhounds can't either.

 

I was just reading through the forums,(and being only 14, my assessment bares little gravity, but...) I thought the fact that I spent most of my earlier years watching the OT over and over and over again before I ever saw the PT might bridge some of the age difference. But, in my opinion, despite all the new special effects and visual wizardry in the PT, it still pales in comparison to the original trilogy. I mean when I look at it, Harrison Ford and Carrie fisher made a really good couple, dont you think? And even now every time I watch ESB I can't help but chuckle at the senile old Yoda tossing the utilities out of Luke's storage bin.

 

No, you're mistaken. Gary Kurtz directed Star Wars. Francis Coppola and Brian De Palma wrote the screenplay, which was based loosely on Lucas' ideas. Irvin Kershner directed The Empire Strikes Back (which was written by Leigh Brackett and Lawrence Kasdan), the single best installment in the series, something which has much to do, I suspect, with George's negligable amount of artistic involvement in the production. Lucas pulled strings in the background, attempting to secure finances.

Kershner took a meager storyline and infused it with visionary brilliance; he was able to take the ideas of the first film and transform them into something very special.

Irvin Kershner is the true author of Star Wars.

Deal with it.

 

Inside information from your movie biz contacts Mr Travers? Care to offer any proof?