...originals vs. prequel trilogy, at last the truth!...

My sentiments exactly (Assuming I'm correct in thinking that was entirely sarcastic).

Frankly, I don't agree with this fellow's appraisal of the situation, and I'm not one of those allegedly bitter fans who was "Too old" to appreciate the PT. I first watched the Star Wars trilogy when I was around four or so. I saw the Special Edition versions in theaters, and when I saw TPM I was 10. TEN. I was that giddy little kid loving every minute of it when I saw it on the big screen. It was freaking Star Wars, and I thought that anything George Lucas did was holy writ.

I am no longer ten (Pay attention, this is the key to my argument ).

When I re-watch the films now, I still have very distinct memories of an equal, or possibly even greater, love of those prequel films when compared to the originals. They were my trilogy. I watched them as they came out, not the OT. I had to wait like everyone else to find out what happened in AotC, not simply pop in my cassette to find out what happened in ESB. I remember holding these movies as the pinnacle of cinema.

That being said, I wonder just how much I took for granted as a kid. The dialogue truly isn't as good, the CGI really is unrealistic and/or over-the-top at times, and I'm offended at the thought that I was ever supposed to relate to Anakin (Ironically, the character who was my exact age at the time of TPM was and is my least favorite, even then). The OT as a collective whole, in my opinion, is just plain better than the PT as a collective whole. (That's not to say I dislike the PT, I actually enjoyed and still enjoy RotS more than RotJ, and possibly even more than ANH)

However, even now that I've typed this up I wonder if that's the whole of my disapproval of this essay. Perhaps not. Perhaps it's more the seeming smugness that seems to permeate the writing, as if the author is the final authority on the matter. He isn't. As has been mentioned by posters before me, the superiority/inferiority of the PT vs. the OT is a matter of opinion. I don't need my opinion erroneously explained for me.

 

I was not focusing on the original movie which was discredited by a couple of movie critics as being soft on substance, however, they may not have been in their 30's or 40's since they were older critics like Pauline Kael who actually knew what Saturday matinee serials were while us kids didn't have a clue.

Touting Oscars awards and nominations mean nothing to me. They only mean something to people who work in Hollywood. The AMPAS is an obviously biased and flawed organization when Michael Moore's "Bowling For Columbine" can win an Oscar for Best Documentary when in reality "Bowling For Columbine" is nothing but a visual opinion piece that is no more a documentary than Star Wars and when "The Sting" beats out "American Graffiti" for Best Picture then you know the awards are based on cronyism and popular opinion instead of merit.

 

I know you said you love the prequels but at the same time you were saying you stand by the opinions of the PT detractors. This comes off as wishy washy. Take a stand, Man! Love is a pretty strong verb to use to then just turn around and side with people who loath the very thing you love.

I say the PT is every bit the equal of the OT and I don't buy into any of what the detractors say because what I have found is they don't know what they're talking about.

"Serenity" and "The Dark Knight" are not good comparisons to "Star Wars" to because they are hardly the same. Star Wars is mythology and mythology is about fatalism. If you're going to compare Star Wars to something then try "Clash of the Titans" or perhaps "Constaintine" or even "The Matrix" movies.

 

You're kidding, right? I mean, I could understand if you wanted to bring up Star Wars vs. Annie Hall, but The Sting vs. American Graffiti is at best a toss-up. It's debatable which is better, but it's certainly no grave injustice that a fine movie like The Sting won.

 

Okay,screw the oscars. Hugh Hefner used to regularly take a limo ride full of centerfolds from the playboy mansion down to the chinese theater for repeated showings. The appeal was slightly beyond grade schoolers. You had playboy centerfolds and Isaac Asimov praising this thing. The appeal was plenty broad.

 

Please, there is no comparrison. American Graffiti is an American masterpiece about Americana. I bet some old guy back in the 70's told you The Sting was a good movie and you believed him? They told me the same crap but I always knew The Sting is the biggest, most boring snoozer out there. The only reason that trite movie won anything is because Paul Newman and Robert Redford were the IT guys of Hollywood back in those days.

 

Eh, Hef was probably just elated he could take them to a movie they could comprehend.

But seriously, Star Wars got raves all across the board. The only negative reviews I recall reading were from Kael and Harlan Ellison (hilarious write-up, BTW).

 

Thanks for the quote, Master Starwalker, and I have been an owner of "The Making of Star Wars: Episode I: The Phantom Menace" for many years now and that's where that particular Lucas quote comes from. I want you to notice that Lucas does not say his characters can avoid destiny. He just says they can follow it or not. Destiny is not just some simple word, Master Starwalker. Lucas is using the word destiny as it pertains to fatalism and that's why he threw in the adjective cosmic earler in the statement. Fatalism is an ideology that suggests that mortals are not in control and/or are only partially in control of their reality but that instead there are cosmic forces about that are really able to see the bigger picture and have a "greater, cosmic" plan for the mortals that the mortals are not consciously aware of. So just because a character in Star Wars does or does not choose to follow their destiny does not automatically mean they are escaping Providence.

Again, a character's ability to choose between right and wrong does not mean they can escape Providence. When the Old Jedi Order chose a path of evil then Palpatine beat them. When the New Jedi Order chose a path of righteousness then Palpatine lost. Just because Palpatine chose an evil path does not automatically mean that Providence didn't have a use for him in a greater scheme of things that was beyond the comprehension of the mortal characters and obviously the fans as well. Palpatine only thought he was serving his own means but he was also serving Providence as well. This is what Lucas means by having control of your destiny.

But don't take my word for it just listen to Lucas:

"There's more of me in Star Wars than I care to admit. I was trying to say in a very simple way, knowing that the film was made for a yound audience, that there is a God and there is both a good side and a bad side. You have a choice between them, but the world works better if you're on the good side. It's just that simple."
---George Lucas, Time Magazine-May 23, 1983

See, within Star Wars, divinity is one of the characters that watches over and guides the mortals and this divine Star Wars character is probably polytheistic since Star Wars is based heavily upon the ancient myths.

 

The OP should strive to give us reasons to like the PT instead of bashing the OT, because that's just not gonna work. Constructive ist the keyword here.

I want to like TPM and AOTC but I need something I can appreciate about them. Because right now, I'm bored when I watch them.

 

What do you want from them? Do you want a deep meaning plot?

 

Maybe some background info that helps me see scenes from a different angle.

 

Ha ha, exactly. I have already spawned a little eht13, and I'm just delighted that he already appears to be interested in Star Wars. I look forward to many viewings and discussions together, hopefully of the whole saga, which will not include any bashing or attempts to "steer" his evaluation of things on my part. Having said that, I was three when ANH came out and I grew up with the OT... but I came to the PT movies with an open mind and for the most part I thouroughly enjoyed them (although I agree with most in this thread that the OT movies are superior in general). My personal ranking goes like this: ESB, ANH, ROTS, ROTJ, AOTC, TPM.

 

A greater cosmic force doesn't necessitate fatalism. The two are certainly compatible, and there is certainly a degree of truth to it within the Star Wars universe, but we never see proof that the "Will of the Force" is inviolable. One can assume that the Chosen One's fall and redemption were pre-ordained by the Force and inevitable, but there is similar evidence that while he was destined to destroy the Sith, it wasn't inevitable and could have at the very least been delayed indefinitely.

After all, the future is always in motion and one of the reasons the Jedi fall in the Prequels is because they had become too focused on the future and not enough on the moment. If the galaxy is indeed completely fatalistic, then the Jedi had the right idea in trusting their visions of the future and Jinn was wrong to emphasize the Living Force.

 

I_M, opining that certain criticism is valid, whilst embracing the thing being criticized, is not wishy washy. It shows a recognition that the world is complex, multi-faceted, made up of shades of gray. I love and accept the prequels, even though they are flawed. What is so difficult to grasp about that?

Further, I reject your prerequisites for comparing a particular film to STAR WARS. What's under discussion here is a person's capacity for immersing him/herself in an action-adventure-sci-fi film (as was done in childhood) -- not whether a particular movie can be considered "mythology" or not. That said, even on your terms, TDK easily qualifies, since Batman, as part of the contemporary superhero mythos, is modern mythology. A case could be made for Firefly as well, since it's based on the American Western which itself is a mythological construct.

My sole point in all of this is that even the harshest critics of the PT are still capable of immersing themselves in a particular genre of film, thus discrediting the thread author's accusation that they've cynically outgrown their capacity for imaginative fun at the movies.

 

Merlin, you've got to take t_i_o with a grain of salt. He's the type of PT-lover that makes your version of PT-love so refreshing to those of us who don't like the PT. He represents the unfortunate "holy crusader" segment of online fandom, for whom there is one truth and anyone who dares to have a differing opinion is WRONG.

Myself, I'm more like you, Merlin. I love RotJ and in many ways it's even my favorite of the OT, but I can still understand where others might not appreciate it so much or even consider it a bad movie. I don't consider that wishy-washy; I consider it open-minded and honest, and I salute you for showing the same open-mindedness that is often severely lacking in these parts.

 

The whole idea that if you find any fault with an aspect of something, you're somehow disqualified from liking it at all and part of an enemy force of haters is what gives hardcore fans of anything a bad name amongst the general population. That's no way to live people.

 

STAR WARS fans are the greatest fans in the world.

 

I don't have to be open-minded about Star Wars. It's just a fictional story.
No one is ever going to be hurt by discussing a fictional story unless they're irrationally sensitive.
So, yes, there is only one truth and when it comes to Star Wars, mine is the only truth that matters, because it's not like we're discussing real world politics here.

 

I agree...

...and anyone who has a bad word to say about them isn't a true fan of STAR WARS fans at all!

 

How about the images of cloned human babies floating in their embrotic jars is supposed to touch your heart and make you question the Jedi's egregious decision to accept ownership of the clones.

However, this is not backgroud information but simply another way of looking at the information on the screen.

A righteous people do not use cloned individuals who have been stripped of their free will as a means to an end.
So therefore the Jedi are not righteous.
Unrighteous people always get their cummeuppance in morality tales.
The Jedi are wiped out.
The moral to the fall of the Jedi is Power Corrupts, Ultimate Power Corrupts Ultimately.

It's just syllogism. It's about taking the information on the screen and coming to your own conclusions instead of solely letting the characters tell you how to process the information.

What Lucas has created isn't anything profoundly ground breaking but it's more than most people think it is.

And contrary to popular belief here at tf.n, I don't really understand why anybody who hasn't studied the movies would really think much of any of them; however, I will never understand why the older more mature fans don't appreciate what Lucas has carefully created over the span of many years.

 

The Jedi didn't choose to use the clones. The Republic did. The Jedi merely fought alongside them.

 

In some ways the Jedi's greatest flaw was blind loyalty. They were prepared to follow the Republic wherever it led them. It never fails to amaze me that they signed up to lead armies into the war the way they did, in light of all the strangeness which was going on at the time.

 

Not when half the fans accuse the creator of ruining his own bloody story.

 

Yes, if I just were a moralic person. Unfortunately I'm a moral relativist agnostic, one could almost call me a nihilist. For me, everybody is evil under the right circumstances, and justice (asteroids) or moral lessons don't concern me for that reason.

I always rout for the guys I like, whether they are good or bad doesn't matter in the slightest to me. In the OT I'll rout for Vader, C3PO, Han, Luke, Piett... but besides Anakin the PT didn't give me anybody I could relate to, nobody to connect.

Oh, and before you ask ROTJ isn't really my favorite film in the saga with its unrealistic ending. I like ROTS more.