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

No I don't "know". Midichlorians converted the Force into something unreachable and unbelievable into something you can touch and fantasize about and scientifically percieve. The Chosen One who would bring balance to the Force is kind of the point of the whole story. (The films, that is.) It's not just "hip" or "gimmick-y," and that's quite offensive.

I think that people hate the Prequels and the EU because they have something that they rigidly identify as "Star Wars" and which really isn't, because Star Wars isn't the OT or the PT or the EU, at all! It's the Saga as a whole and what you take away from it.

 

Well I lived through the release of both OT and PT and I did read many of the reviews at the time. With no internet these reviews were from newspapers and TV shows.
I read about 10 or so reviews of ANH and ESB and slightly more for RotJ because by then I was older. On average ANH and ESB both got 4 stars out five with a slightly bigger spread for ESB, in other words there were more 3 star and more 5 star than for ANH.
With RotJ there was a turn downward, the average dropped to about 3 stars and I did not read any 5 star raves like I had for ANH and ESB.
I realize this hardly conclusive proof but from my experience, going only from newspaper reviews, ANH and ESB had better reviews than RotJ and the PT. Not by a huge margin but noticeable.

Will the PT be regarded as well as the OT several years from now? I do not know but one thing can not be denied, none of the PT films caused as big a stir and made as big a splash as ANH. ANH came out of nowhere and stunned everyone. It would be hard for the PT to do something similar but there are cases where the sequels do better or leave a bigger mark than the first film. Terminator is one example, the Bond films is another where Goldfinger and Thunderball were much bigger than the two previous films.
So the OT did have an advantage in that it had one huge film that got lots of raves and caused quite a stir.

As for how the OT is viewed today compared with yesteryear, from what see and hear it seems that ESB is being raised upwards compared with then while RotJ is lowered somewhat.
This also fits for me personally, if I were to rate the OT films based on initial viewing then it would be ANH, RotJ and ESB. But now, as I gotten older, ESB is a far better movie than my 11 year old self could appreciate and RotJ has fare less well.
The somewhat uninspired acting, the recycling of ideas and the whole "sequel" feel of the movie has made is less good to me. But still a good film, just not a great one.

So since RotJ has not gotten a significantly better appreciation since 83 I doubt that the PT film will either, but we'll see.

Regards
Nordom

 

I've read many of the original notices too, and agree with pretty much everything you've written, but wouldn't you say TESB and Revenge of the Sith got the same reception? That is, an even mixture of raves and tacitly positive reviews?

 

Well, that depends on what Lucas has had for breakfast the day you talk to him about this stuff.

Sometimes he says Anakin was always the main character of the 'saga', even back in the OT days when everyone in the audience thought he was dead.

Other times he admits that the PT is just the back story he created for the original films, which he decided to flesh out and show in movies of its own.

Personally, I tend towards the belief that the OT is the main story, and everything else is an expanded look at the galaxy in which that story takes place.

 

I tend to think of the Prequels that way too.

 

I guess I should also mention that I consider the original film the primary document of Star Wars, so to speak.

It's the only film in the series to have a satisfactory introduction AND resolution. RotJ lacks an introduction, TPM lacks a resolution, and ESB, AotC, and RotS lack either (TPM comes closest by wrapping up the major plot point of the invasion, but it leaves so many things hanging that it's unsatisfactory as a stand-alone film).

Therefore this is my order of primacy:
Star Wars (the original film) tells a complete story.
Star Wars, Empire and Jedi together tell a complete story.
All six movies together tell a complete story.


HOWEVER, there are many EU stories that tell compelling, complete stories on their own. They are still subordinate in primacy to the original film, without which these stories wouldn't exist, but they may or may not be subordinate to the other five films. Some examples:

Splinter of the Mind's Eye is on the same level of primacy as any film other than the original. The original film contains the only story necessary for Splinter to be effective. The book is a sequel to that film in much the same way as TESB, although TESB ends with a cliffhanger (necessitating RotJ to complete the story) whereas Splinter is a self-contained adventure.

The Thrawn Trilogy is on the same level of primacy as the Prequel Trilogy. Both trilogies build on the three films of the OT, and both require the OT to complete their stories: The PT requires the OT to resolve its narrative, while The Thrawn Trilogy requires the OT to introduce the main characters and GFFA.

The PT is subordinate in primacy to the OT, but the DVD-SE version of the OT is arguably subordinate to the PT. This is one of many reasons I prefer the O-OT to the SE or DVD-SE. The PT's relation to the O-OT is self-explanatory. The reason I'd say the SE-DVD is subordinate to the PT is because of added elements such as the ghost of Hayden which would be out of place when viewing JUST the OT. One MUST have seen the PT to understand that that is Anakin Skywalker.

Finally, I'd like to note that this issue of primacy is not an attempt to rewrite 'canon'. Canon is whatever you say it is. You can agree with LFL's definitions, or you can hold parts of the EU to be canon while the PT isn't. It's really up to the individual viewer/reader/player.

My personal ranking is as follows:

Star Wars (the original film in its original theatrical version)
Empire and Jedi (non-SE versions)
Most of the pre-1999 EU
Some post-1999 EU (KotOR, for example)
The PT and OT SEs
The rest of the EU

 

In 1980 Empire became the second biggest movie of all time, ever. The way the movie was released back then, (in a limited, staggered release eventually spreading out and playing for many months and months) that is impossible without really, really good word of mouth. Some Gen x'ers remember their own mixed feelings on the playground and have applied it to the whole world.

 

The prequels are only surpassed in quality by say Plan 9 from Outer Space, but only by a little!

 

Whilst it would be nice, I think this will never happen. ANH is preserved as an important cultural document by the US government and ESB is nowadays recognised as one of the best sci-fi flicks ever. The PT will never be able to reach those levels of recognition ever.

I've said this before but I believe it bears repeating: the failure of the PT is no surprise given a cultural and historic context. Consider the fact that by the end of the 70's, both Lucas and Spielberg practically invented the summer blockbuster and from 1975 to 1984, they were the undisputed kings of the summer blockbuster. Lucas himself practically reinvigorated the dead sci-fi/fantasy/adventure genre in a time of cynisism and it struck a chord with audiences of all ages. Jaws and Star Wars made movie history and it's safe to say that without these two movies, the movie industry wouldn't be the same today.

These men had four golden years between 1980-1983 where their movies (ESB, Raiders, ET, ROTJ) all grabbed the top spot at the box office. But after 1983, everyone else was starting to catch up. By 1989, the Last Crusade was beaten at the box office by Tim Burton's Batman. Spielberg himself hasn't topped the box office with a summer blockbuster since Jurassic Park in 1993 but that has a lot to do with a shift in a directorial and narrative focus.

So it is no surprise really that Lucas, who had been out of the directorial chair for 16 years, had his work cut out for him by 1999 and the hype did not help. Because a lot had happened since 1983. People had taken the formula laid down by Spielberg and Lucas and improved on it. The new Star Wars trilogy would emerge in an age of James Cameron, Micheal Bay, the Wachowski brother, Roland Emmerich, Peter Jackson etc. Whilst the OT would face virtually no competition at all in '77, '80 and '83, the PT ended up facing competition from franchises with well-established fanbases such as Harry Potter, Spiderman, Lord of the Rings etc. Not to mention a demanding audience who had seen the ante constantly getting upped every summer but still expected to be dazzled by the new Star Wars trilogy.

For me, the odds seemed to always be stacked against the PT and therefore the fallout was no surprise. Whilst Lucas helped form the summer blockbuster, he is in no way the master of it and it is no surprise that he has been outdone by those that watched ANH in the theatres in '77. Whilst there is legitimate criticism to be raised at the PT, I think looking at it this way helps explain the viscious (and in some places exaggerated) backlash TPM received (raped childhood, sullied legacy, ruined franchise, hack director). This backlash was also amplified on the internet and I believe has crippled any chances the PT has of having a resurgence. People who haven't even seen either trilogies somehow seem to be aware that the PT is subpar to the OT or that they are terrible movies in general.

So it is ironic that in the end, Lucas was crushed by the very thing he helped create. It also makes me wonder that if ANH had been released in 1999 under the same circumstances as TPM, would it have been the same success like it had been in 1977? Especially considering that the audience of the new millenium seem to want their heroes flawed and everything to be darker and edgier.

What I can hope for however, is that the PT in general gets recognition for being a good adventure series rather than a mediocre one which seems to be the consensus nowadays. I think that will eventually happen, but recognition at the same level as the OT? Never...

 

Luke is the second main character next to Darth Vader, calling him a wussy means that you arnt a TRUE SW fan.

 

I've got news for you guys, the prequels didn't fail.

They may have failed to impress some of you on a personal level, but they all did more bank than most, even if another movie that year did better at the box office. At the end of the day we have a 6 film saga made up of nothing but box office smashes. How many movie series out there bat 6 for 6 like that?

So you can go on all day about how many weren't impressed, but in the interest of honesty, stop pretending the prequels "failed".

My sig makes a nice bookend for this post.

 

Michael Bay's Transformers did really well at the box office, too. That doesn't mean it's going to be a must-have home video title the way the OT has been for nearly thirty years.

The films of the PT have not achieved, and likely never will achieve, the feat of becoming as treasured as the films of the OT. Until 2004, the OT topped nearly every single "Most-wanted DVD" list in existence. Of course the PT is likely to find its way onto the Blu-Ray versions of such lists, but only by tagging along with the OT as the begrudgingly-accepted first part of the "saga".

But honestly, the REAL reason I consider the PT a "failure" is the way that it, along with Lucas's SE tinkering, has managed to diminish the name "Star Wars". "Star Wars" no longer means 'three of the most beloved movies ever made, the "Holy Trilogy" that, despite some funky episode numbering issues and a noticeable dip in quality with the last installment, tells one of the most entertaining stories ever committed to celluloid'. Now "Star Wars" means 'A space fantasy series that can be a reasonable amount of fun if you take the hokey story with a grain of salt and just focus on the impressive special effects'.

It may not be that way for you, but it is for me, and certainly within the realm of public discourse the title has come to mean that. And this is entirely the failing of Lucas and his prequels.

 

Your sig shows why the PT is so bad and disliked by so many. A guy who makes movies doesn't care if they are liked or not and only cares if they are good to him.

Its like when a prize fighter stops fighting to win and starts fighting for money.

 

Not everyone liked the classic trilogy either, that didn't matter to all the people who do.

Same goes for the prequels.

We can split hairs about box office, or adjusted for inflation, or the critical reaction of each film as it was released, but the bottom line is they all did similarly well.

Just because some of the people who treasured the classic trilogy don't see the good in the prequels doesn't mean anything to the people who loved them.

And because there are enough of us who do, Lucas doesn't have to worry about the people who don't.

Think about this the other way around.

You make a movie, and it's wildly successful, would you feel compelled to cater to the outspoken group who thinks it sucks?

Of course not.

Why should he?

It's not like a prize fighter selling out, it's an artist who had the courage to make his movie the way -he- wanted to make it.

That is called artistic integrity.

The success of the prequels wasn't dependent on the people who didn't like them.

So you can sit there and say the prequels failed you or your buddies, or the people you always talk to about it (and pretend that represents the rest of the world), but at the end of the day, there were plenty of people who thought they were great movies.

No movie is universally loved, and it sucks that so many of you who loved the classic trilogy find yourself on the other side of the "taste" fence this time around.

But there was no way to avoid that. There was nothing he could have done that would have been embraced by everyone.

If he had somehow pleased you, someone else would be unpleased in your place.

And to say that Lucas has diminished the Star Wars brand is literally not facing up to reality.

The Star Wars phenomenon was in drastic decline after ROTJ. They kept putting out EU stuff, but it certainly wasn't very popular. With the special editions and the prequels, Lucas kicked off a new stronger era of Star Wars, that has parlayed itself into a popular cartoon and the plans for a live action TV show certainly do not indicate a lack of interest in the Star Wars brand.

Even if you have a lack of interest in them.

 

That's a long lecture, but why should anyone care about "the brand" unless they're a shareholder? Walker, Texas Ranger ran for nine years and is considered hugely successful, and is loved by many. Big deal.

 

I'm just trying to get you guys to realize that despite the fact that a lot of you -really- didn't like them, the prequels were hugely successful for Lucas.

It's like you guys think that if you refuse to give them credit, that cancels out all the people who loved them.

Wake up and smell the diversity of opinion that allows the prequels to be loved by millions.

 

I DID like them, this broad analyzing and dismissal of people's honest reactions I don't like.

 

I'm not analyzing them or dismissing them.

I'm just saying they didn't keep the prequels from being wild successes for Lucas.

There is a difference between saying they were let down on a personal level and saying the prequels failed.

Imagine someone trying to tell you that the classic trilogy failed and maybe you will be able to better understand where I'm coming from.

 

Which is natural for any film series that has reached its completion. Other than toys and role-playing books, the only Star Wars releases from LFL in the years immediately following RotJ were Ewoks TV-movies and the Ewoks/Droids cartoons, both of which suffered from a combined lack of quality and of relevance to the main narrative of Star Wars. Contrast this with The Clone Wars, which clearly has a high production value, as well as telling a story that takes place smack dab in the middle of the movies (one might even argue that some of the ground being covered on the show SHOULD have been covered at some point in the PT films).

This is flat-out false. The Thrawn novels and Dark Empire comics, and a good number of the novels and comics that followed, were wildly successful. Even people who'd never thought to buy a sci-fi novel in their life were picking these up, because they were the closest thing we were going to get to new Star Wars. Luke, Leia, and Han were fighting the Empire again, the stories were (generally) well-told, and people were eating it up. Sure, Darth Vader was missed, but as long as the MAIN characters were there Star Wars was still Star Wars. A bunch of successful video games soon followed, proving beyond a doubt that there was still a strong audience for the Star Wars brand of adventure.

Films like Jurassic Park showed that the technology was coming to the point that Lucas had been dreaming of, but it was the spectacular success of the EU that proved the audience was still there. If not for the early-90s success of the EU, it's likely that the PT would never have been made.

The key difference is that the OT didn't have three quality predecessors to live up to, or at the least not sully the name of. The PT changed "Star Wars" from 'a three-movie story that starts strong, builds stronger, then (despite a few last-act weaknesses) ends strong' into 'a six-movie story that starts weak, improves slightly and at the halfway-point makes a jarring jump 20 years ahead on the timeline into a storytelling world that bears almost no aesthetic resemblance to the first half but at least is drastically stronger, and finishes strong (though not near as strongly as it could if key dramatic plot revelations hadn't been given away in the first half)'.

In other words (and note here that I'm talking about reputation and not box office; "The prequels made lots of money" has no bearing on this):

-Star Wars made a pretty good name for itself. It was a success.
-TESB expanded and improved on the name of Star Wars. It was a success.
-RotJ satisfactorily completed the narrative but with a noticeable drop in quality at times. It was either a modest success or a modest failure.
-TPM made a significant drop-off in writing and acting quality, and for the first time associated the name "Star Wars" with the phrases 'fake-looking CGI', 'Jar-Jar Binks', and 'fart jokes'. It was a failure.
-AotC relied even more heavily on unconvincing CGI, while associating the name "Star Wars" with 'love' scenes the emotionality of which made Keanu Reeves seem like Olivier in comparison. It was a failure.
-RotS featured a drastic improvement in characterization relative to its two predecessors, but many of the key moments in the film (Anakin's turn, Vader's "NOoooo!") fell flat. Relative to the rest of the PT (and perhaps to Star Wars as a whole, given how much the other two films had diminished the franchise's name), it was a success. Relative to the OT (and what "Star Wars" used to mean before the SEs and prequels), it was a failure.

 

My point is to me what started out as a strong trilogy ended up being a fantastic saga.

The money is just proof that the prequels were very successful for Lucas.

Sure there was EU being put out such as the Thrawn Trilogy after ROTJ, but let's not pretend they were main-stream successes in the same way as the Clone Wars cartoons.

If it's traditional for a franchise to wane after the trilogy has been completed, then that's even more reason to consider the prequels as being successful, because the ancillary spin offs are still going full steam ahead.

 

ROTS was not a failure. It was a critical and financial success. It received favourable reviews, with most saying it had restored the good name of Star Wars and some even putting it within the presence of ANH and TESB.

As it stands, the Star Wars series has three strong episodes: ROTS, ANH and TESB with the two latter being generally deemed as classics. It has two episodes that are generally considered weak but who are liked by children (TPM and ROTJ). AOTC seems to fit nowhere which is due mainly to the lagging love story and plotting. It could be considered the weakest entry of the Saga.

 

Not by me. I can't separate them out because it's like one big movie to me.

Some may not like the romantic or more childish portions of the film, but to me it all fits together to paint a complete picture of Anakin Skywalker.

But that's just how I feel about it. Everyone around here has their own opinion.

The one thing we can say for sure is that each of the Star Wars installments were very successful at the box office.

So Lucas made the movies he wanted to make to his particular tastes, and they were wildly successful.

So while not everyone liked them, to call them "failures" is to not be paying attention.

 

Nordom's and Yoda's Waiter's posts on this page should be "MUST READS" for Star Wars geeks like us.

Good stuff? Nah, great stuff guys!

 

I'm sure that none of you are surprised that I found the article quite pleasing or that I had agreed with it. And I did. But . . . he called Luke Skywalker a sissy? Now that was going a bit too far.

 

As it stands, the Star Wars series has three strong episodes: ROTS, ANH and TESB with the two latter being generally deemed as classics.


I hope we're not expected to accept this as fact.