PT What do people mean when they say the Prequels lack 'heart and soul'?

Sure but you can't deny that those quotes are a glaring roster of criticism. I can't think of any major movie series ever with that much negative commentary from its cast. How it relates to this thread is, if the cast think that some or all of the prequels are flat/wooden/cold etc, how can anyone be surprised that alot of other people think they lack heart & soul? There's too much volume of that sort of opinion to dismiss it all by saying "it's subjective".

 

All the cherry picking I see within this thread is enough to make the head spin. I suppose the motto is 'when you can play it loose with the facts, why not?' I won't even give my reactions to some of the replies here. Just the fact that such baloney gets liked by a lot of people saddens me enough, especially when it's based on things that aren't true or didn't happen. But alas... Anyway, carry on, carry on.

 

If we focus on the negative, sure. But what about the positives?

“No!”, grinned McGregor. “I made three movies amongst however many others. And that’s what they were to me, three movies amongst a bunch of other ones. I was very happy with them, I’m very happy to have been in them. I like that they were films that children could watch, for the first time in my career!”

“I was very happy to be in them, and that’s where it ends for me. I don’t have a burning need to do them again.
http://dorksideoftheforce.com/2016/...ds-the-star-wars-prequels-doesnt-regret-them/

About TPM
"I watched it once, at the premiere, so I'm not in a good position to judge. They had a tall order, the three films I did. The fans waited so long and wanted to feel like they did when they watched the first film, but they were grown-ups by that time. I don't mind the criticism. I've heard it to my face." which kind of refers to what I was saying.

We asked the 62-year-old actor whether he’d be up for a spin-off film featuring his character (watch the video above) and he told us, “Yeah, I’d say so. Yeah, that would be terrific.”
http://www.cinemablend.com/new/What...tar-Wars-Phantom-Menace-Retrospect-67890.html


“I certainly loved shooting the prequel [‘Star Wars: Episode I – The Phantom Menace’] but that was many years ago now.
https://uk.movies.yahoo.com/star-wars-liam-neeson-wants-to-return-as-qui-gon-107494863626.html

Surely if their experiences were as negative as we make it out to be, they wouldn't want to return, right?
And yet, Leeson still came back for TCW and wants to come back for more, same for McGregor.

 

100% right. They all seemed to enjoy their experiences. Why wouldn't they? They were getting well paid to work with good people. They liked each other & they liked George. It's the movies themselves that they criticised. With any good movie series, all you read from the cast is praise for the experience and the movies.

 

While directors choosing whom to work with is kind of a much more specific and nuanced issue, people who thought she was "horrible" based even on TPM, were selective in their judgements I'd say - a director might've concluded that she isn't reliable or has a limited range, but a critic would have to balance their conclusion between all the various scenes.

Then why did his scenes with Watto (or Jar Jar) ((or the bad kid actor)) stand out as the NOT wooden parts of his acting?
The most wooden he got was when arguing with McGregor - I guess they were exhausted from all the drinking

Peter Serafinowicz is a stereotypical "basher type" - a moderate version of his buddy Simon Pegg, but they're all from that subculture that talks lots of nonsense about these movies.

Didn't he also say they had no sets, while promoting TFA? Suspicions of shill-en-hood are not unfounded.

Wasn't he interacting with human actors in the 3rd one, in every scene except cockpit and Utapau stuff?

This sounds more like a description of Clones, with him sneaking around a lot and talking to grey aliens etc.

Well those two bits are classics



Anyway, are actors really inherently reliable when it comes to this stuff? You would certainly think so... a priori.

 

I personally didn't have a problem with Neelix and there were quite a few great voyager episodes-Living Witness, Relativity, One and so on.

As for the PT cast criticizing the movies-I wouldn't get to upset actors shouldn't be taken as gospel that's not their role anyway

And as for Voyager while it's on my mind-Jeri Ryan and Picardo shined and made the show(IMHO) very good. Beltran I think was more offended he didn't get as much screen time.

 

Neelix looked annoying and was annoying a lot of the time, especially when he was calling himself an expert in xyz and then sucked the moment he was appointed - but of course he got appointed.

Just like Jar Jar gets taken along everywhere... I dunno is there a trope name for that? Like "scrappy sue" or something?


Anyway he had a few good episodes, but that was when he got serious.
It should be noted that Ethan Phillips actually played a Ferengi leader in Enterprise, and singlehandedly made the Ferengi physically imposing and intimidating - after having played an annoying hapless comedy Ferengi in TNG.

So Neelix' actor is boss

 

The two trilogies do ultimately clash stylistically and regarding characterisation, but if you don't resolve this disparity and make it one story it is easy to miss how well connected they are. They are numbered one to six for a reason, I would retort to claims of Lucas's design of them as lazy as coming from people who aren't trying hard enough to look themselves.

 

The RLM reviews are pretty damn funny, but what's even funnier is that some of this fanbase is still taking those videos waaaaay too seriously.

 

It's less my taking them seriously and more my being perplexed at why people consider it as gospel when it gets so many things wrong about the plot that anyone with a functioning frontal lobe can figure out.

 

I'm fascinated by this in a visceral sense, but people believe in nonsense all the time so objectively this isn't perplexing at all.

The unreasonable viewpoint they channel was widespread and rampant (and already mainstream and dominant, if I remember propery) by that point, so of course people would swarm around a charismatic piece that made their viewpoint look even more intellectual.
That, plus there are many fence sitters who can be swayed rather easily when not paying attention - which in itself is also nothing out of the ordinary.

So this is par for the course, really.

 

Love how you ignored the rest of my post. Well done.

 

Who and where are these "Lucas fanatics" I keep hearing about from PT-dislikers? You know, the pitiful band of Kool-Aid drinkers, who number maybe 100 worldwide, but who somehow control discussion of SW both online and offline, and refuse to hear anything even slightly negative about the prequels or Lucas?

Because I've never met any, or seen evidence that they actually exist.

On the other hand, I have seen a ton of people who rant nonstop about the prequels and how much they hate them, and how much they hate Lucas. If someone posts anything even slightly complimentary, or even neutral, about the prequels, or Lucas, it takes roughly sixteen seconds for these people to show up at the scene to shout that person down. Indeed, many people who like the prequels have simply given up talking about them, online or offline, because they don't want to deal with the rude remarks, mocking, and bullying.

Oddly, many of these same prequel-dislikers are devoted to Plinkett and his reviews, to the point of fanaticism. They quote and refer to him just about everywhere they go, they talk rapturously about his "extensive knowledge of film," and gush about his flawless technique in "ripping those pieces of &^%$ to shreds." Usually right before or right after they accuse anyone who dared to say they like the prequels of being Lucas's love slave (though put in much cruder terms). And they never see the irony, either.

 

"Lack heart and soul?" Idk. Idc. Either way it's a subjective opinion. The Prequels is the heart and soul of SW to me. Imaginative, creative and endless. I love every line, every scene, every planet and every moment. Still holds up as my favorite trilogy of all time. It's not what people expected, it's not what they wanted. Their loss. They got the OT and Disney giving him them as much content as they can hope for. The great thing is no matter how many bashes, reboots, reimaginations, etc., the prequel trilogy will still exist and younger generations are watching them and loving them just as much as mine did.

 

A lot of them actually reside right here

 

I have nothing intelligent to add to this post haha it was that good! I completely agree with you. I think one problem with franchise fans -- not meant as a criticism of anyone, it's just part of human nature -- is that they build up expectations in their mind for CERTAIN events or certain things to happen. I remember specifically thinking when I was 16, waiting for TPM to come out, how I didn't have any expectations of what to see. I just wanted to see the world that Lucas creates and I wanted him to make an amazing trilogy of movies. I was not disappointed. I was very happy! From the moment that opening crawl came up and Star Wars was back to the end of ROTS, I was loving it. I didn't get "let down" because I expected Anakin to be an adult in TPM. I think that's a major problem when you're not rooting for the filmmaker to tell his story, but rooting specifically for what YOU think you should be seeing.

If you want to be a filmmaker, go for it. I did. When it's my project, I get to put my vision on the screen, but when it's someone else's, I just look forward to entering the world they show me. Sometimes, I'm let down because it's not my cup of tea, other times, I love it. As I think George Lucas is a master filmmaker and visionary, I indeed agree -- the prequels were masterpieces. I think in every sense they fulfill the meaning of that word. The vast majority of films are made with a certain degree of expediency and involvement from a number of people who are thinking about the audience. The prequels were made exactly as I wish all movies could be made, in a perfect world, with no regard for the audience at all, just for the story. I don't think the audience should ever be taken into consideration in a creative project, only for marketing videos. I make marketing videos as my "day job" and the most important thing is identifying the target audience, the buyer profile, what they're looking for in a product / service, and how we can maximize our efforts to drive sales and conversions.

If that's how you make an artistic movie, you're going to end up with a sad, sorry result much of the time. Tell YOUR story and odds are, if you make it well, you'll find your audience. Try to tell a story that's partially yours and partially what you think other people will like and you'll usually end up with a mess, mainly because you never really know what people will like. It's a guessing game. Every frame, every minute of each prequel was lovingly crafted by some of the best in the industry. There's never anything left to chance. There's never a camera rolling and just "whatever happens, happens." Each little detail is put into the film for a reason. That's why I can watch them over and over again because there's always something more to appreciate.

I felt, for me anyway, that carried over to TFA in the sense that they let artists create a piece of art and a great story, without it feeling like Batman vs. Superman did -- a commercial endeavor made to launch this bigger universe and generate Marvel-type money. It just seemed crass in some ways, like the commercial elements overtook the story elements. I was skeptical before TFA, because I'm such a big Lucas fan, but I actually felt that with people like Kathleen, JJ, and Kasdan, they worked really well together to make a loving continuation of the story. Small things contributing to that feeling, for me, was the riskiness of not putting Luke Skywalker in the movie at all until the end, not having all 3 classic OT stars in the same scene for "marketing benefit," and not, let's say, having the ghost of Yoda come back and talk to Rey. If you want to talk about how things could have went REALLY wrong with TFA, a marketing department takes a poll and figures out that X, Y, and Z characters are the best selling toys and most popular, then they basically figure out a plot around that information. "Alright, so we need as much Luke, Leia, and Han as possible, in every scene, introduce new characters sparingly because audiences love the old guys. Also we need Yoda, which is great, because he can be a ghost! It'll be perfect. Forget this idea of just showing a Vader helmet melted, we need a new Vader, like maybe someone comes along and just copies his armor perfectly and has a voice modulator -- we can get James Earl Jones back right? -- so that he basically sounds like Vader and it's like Luke, Leia, and Han have to stop the new Vader! With Ghost Yoda giving advice along the way."

I know not everyone LOVED TFA, some people just liked it ok, but I'm just saying if you actually think Disney ruined Star Wars with TFA, uhh, I would say you haven't used your imagination for just how awful it could have been if you let a bunch of marketing execs input their creative decisions into the filmmaking process

 

This is to me a key point.

If someone wants to have an actual conversation about the specific execution that they have a problem with that is totally fine. I can argue how bloody awesome it is no problem.

That is saying that basic agreement is reached that those elements of "heart and soul" are there but maybe not exactly as one might want them.

The trouble is when talking to those who totally refuse to believe that they are not only not there in the first place but on top of that do the tired old dance of saying that they are "objectively" not there and that the person that disagrees with them is delusional in the extreme.

If that person doesn't see it I say fine. Then move along because there really is nothing to talk about. If the one person say it's there and the other person doesn't then there is no basis to continue discussion.

As ever if they despise the movies so blasted much then why in all sanity are they coming to the PT forum over 10 years since the last and near 20 years since the first movie came out?

Just to tell us that we shouldn't enjoy something we obviously do?

Exactly. The chances that anything like the prequels will ever be made again in SW is next to zero.

So as the corporate Star Wars goes on and makes a lot of entertaining movies that like TFA can be enjoyed as the mainstream Hollywood movies that give the audience (and more specifically a segment of fans) what they want the way the prequels (and I would say the OT as well) stand out will just add the weight of history and originality to all six of Lucas' movies.

Well as with AOTC the audience didn't "get" TESB or ROTJ or TPM either.

Meaning not in the way that a certain segment of fans wanted them to for their own reasons. Between the audience, the critics and the various fans there were different reactions.

Now why you conflate the general audience with a segment of fandom I don't know.

As has been talked about ad nauseum the fact that all 4 of those movies are among the most successful of all time (unlike Gigli or Battlefield Earth) shows that they did connect with audiences.

I don't get this continual conflation of the actual general audience and the segment of fans we are talking about.

So what you are saying is that you think all of Lucas' SW movies are average or bad? Erm... OK then.

Now we know you are joking.

Yes. Again for some reason you want to merge everything into one thing. Both the PT and OT are that but in different systems. He spelled that out very clearly.

Which is exactly what happened but as previously not in the exact way that some fans wanted.

Anakin and Obi-Wan's relationship is far and beyond anything that was seen with Luke and Han. After ANH they barely spent any time together so the few minutes in ANH is the basis of their friendship. Odd how that works for them but not Anakin and Obi-Wan.

Except that you know they did. Hence their all-time success.

 

We can "conflate" them bcs they all seem quite well aligned. Take TPM for example. It's generally rated as an average-above average movie. Which places it last or occasionally 2nd last to AotC in every metric & rating. That's in fan polling and general polling:

6.5/10 on IMDb. 539,000 votes.
3.3/5 on RT. 1.2 million votes.
55% positive reviews on RT
Avg rating of 6/10 on RT

The movie (&/or AotC) also places last in fan ratings including here in our own polls. So it's all very consistent between fans & the general public & the critics. If fan opinion was out of whack with general opinion you'd have an argument. It isn't.

What does box office success have to do with it? The PT were Star Wars movies. Of course they were always going to make a tonne of money. They were carrying the brand of the most popular movie franchise of all time. Where the previous existing 3 movies were all in the highest bracket of success. As Mark Hamill correctly pointed out a while ago, box office success & acclaim don't always go hand in hand. Our colleague Mike carries that quote around in his signature, as if it was a dig at TFA. It wasn't. What Hamill went on to say was, movies like the Transformers series make a tonne of cash but are considered average at best. So it's never "a film has a huge box office so ergo it's considered good". Some movies however like TFA, the Avengers, TDK etc are massively successful and they're very highly rated & reviewed.

Good point, you've shown Ewan up as a liar:

 

Utapau ennit

 

I've read a few of the posts and a lot of them i don't disagree with. Personally my problem with the prequels is two fold first they're trying too hard to be star wars, in the documentaries i've seen George Lucas is saying things like '...we have to reinforce that this is star wars...' and i just wanna yell at the screen and say "no you don't it says it on the tin!" and it's obvious in a few scenes like when the queen (who obviously wasn't the queen) sends the maid (who is obviously the queen) out to clean a droid while they all talk about politics, i mean a droid is just a disposable commodity if it breaks you get a new one and it annoys me that R2-D2 is given special treatment because it's part of the star wars mythos, the same goes for C3PO being made by Anakin it's a nice aside and it would have been great if the prequels had been made first and C3PO could have dropped a few little references but ultimately it was done not to advance plot it was done to reinforce the mythos. And the second point is as has already been said since the acting is all done against a green screen across from imaginary opponents and backgrounds it comes across a little wooden.

 

R2 has just saved their ship though.

And I see C3POs origins as being more of a reversal. The grubby mechanic comes from royalty, while the upper class butler comes from a hovel.

And no, the PT was not all shot on a green screen, and is no different to any other movie in that respect.

 

It was obvious to you? I had no idea until the reveal.

 

Hmm... Seems to me that the big guy dressed in a blue costume on stage is a human after all (well at least in our real world)...

 

I'm kind of depressed when I look up prequel clips on YouTube-people are so cruel and ridiculous when it comes to bashing these movies-it's just not fair they don't deserve to treated that way-anyway I love ROTS had a lot of heart, and soul, personally I like ROTS more than say ANH-I know blasphemous right?