Troll Lord Games

Posted: **Wed Jun 15, 2011 7:01 am**

I like the Red Letter Media webpage for hilarious reviews of popular (Mostly sci-fi) movies. He has done all the Star Wars prequels, now, and it inspired me to go back and re-view the three movies to see if they where really as bad as I thought they where the first time around.

After my "experiment" was complete I have concluded that yes... yes they are. I couldn't finish watching any of the three, try as I might.

One thing that Mr. Plinkett mentioned was parts of the movie that was totally forgettable. This struck home, when watching the movies, it occurred to me that I had forgotten many scenes and in ways it was like watching new scenes from the same movie I watched years ago. Where as, the first three Star Wars movies I remember pretty much from beginning to end and enjoy watching over.

How, in the world, could have Mr. Lucas gotten it so wrong with the prequels, when he got it so right with the first three?

Laziness? Too many, employed, yes-men? Too enamored with CGI? Who knows!

Anyone else feel the same?

Posted: **Wed Jun 15, 2011 7:25 am**

Sir Ironside wrote:
Anyone else feel the same?

I have made the observation many a time that there are any number of directors (Lucas...Spielberg et al) who made better movies before the CGI came along and more or less acted as a crutch for creativity and a solid plot.

Not that the newer Star Wars films (or even Indiana Jones IV) were bad, just not as good as the first three which relied on story more, and not fancy gadgets.

Posted: **Wed Jun 15, 2011 1:48 pm**

The first three movies(Star Wars,Empire Strikes Back and Return of the Jedi) he was telling a story as he wanted to. The prequels he had to tell the story that he had already established from the first movies.

Not every story makes a good movie and while the first set made a great story the next set did not. Plain and simple.

Why he couldn't have just gone on and made the next movies instead of going back to make prequels is beyond me.

Also the whole EGO thing got to him. He obviously did NOT have all the movies worked out in advance (other than perhaps a very rough outline) as can be seen in the MANY mistakes he made...Brother and Sister making out,50 years of empire history then changed to 18 years to reflect Anakin/Vader's time-line,race changes to major Galactic races so that now they live a long long time in order to let certain characters make sense(Chewy I'm looking at you).

Posted: **Wed Jun 15, 2011 2:02 pm**

Sir Ironside wrote:How, in the world, could have Mr. Lucas gotten it so wrong with the prequels, when he got it so right with the first three?

This bit is the flaw in your thinking, and it's a common mistake. The first three are not so right. Quite the opposite. Bad directing, bad acting, horrific dialogue and generic plots.

The first one was, without a doubt, a seminal work, and I give him full props for that. It blew me away when I saw it on the big screen, but that was due to the speed of the FX and the scarcity of SF movies with a budget. These days the first three are too painful for me to watch, and thankfully, given the host of SF movies I have to choose from, I'm not tempted.

The prequels I find mediocre mind candy with some good moments scattered here and there. Give the FX a decade or two to age, and I probably won't bother with those either.

As for Plinkett, I once managed to get through part one of his Phantom Menance review. I didn't agree with much of what he said, thought much of the rest could be said about Star Wars as well, and wasn't amused by his presentation. Never bothered with the rest of it or any of his other reviews.

Posted: **Wed Jun 15, 2011 3:35 pm**

I think Lucas got it 100% right.

The prequels were fantastic and finished the overall story giving us all the excellent details needed to complete the tale.

I'm not a big fan of too much CGI, but I thought Lucas did it well - and what else can you do these days for special effects. Going back to the old way, which I thought was great would probably be too costly these days.

As for the originals - absolutely stunning movies. Fabulous in every way. Star Wars was a watershed event in film making history!

I watch the prequels recently and liked them more than ever.

Well done, George Lucas.

Posted: **Wed Jun 15, 2011 4:41 pm**

Yes they were that bad. But the bad started in Jedi and continued over.

The Luke Leia thing- that was just bad. I kind of get Obi Wan not telling about avader until Luke was "ready" - although he didn't, but dude, cant give a homie a hint he's macking with the sister?

Ewoks- if ever there was a case for xenocide, well

Phantom Menace- a movie made just for merchandising to kids- what was the purpose of the pod scene again? Why hvae the lead be a child? And an annoying one at that?

Immaculate conception?

Jar Jar Binks, if ever ther was a case for homocide, well

Anakin, the greatest pilot in the galaxy saves the day by...accidently getting traped in a fighter?

In a society of robot technology, there are slaves...slaves who have the means to own...robots....that just lazy writing

Natalie Portman, very innappropriate cougar

I absolutely believe that Lucas had too many yes men surrounding him. He needed people to say , nope, bad idea there George.

The pity is that I thought the prequels and Jedi could have been great by changing a few things...

Jedi- why did the other have to be someone we "knew"?

The Pity is I think the prequels could have been great

Posted: **Wed Jun 15, 2011 5:05 pm**

In a nutshell: Jar Jar binks for the first prequel; Hayden Christensen for the other two. What was the casting director thinking when they cast this bonehead? He couldn't properly play "clone trooper #318" much less the lead role in the trilogy. Other than that, I could nitpick all day, but the deal breakers for me are Jar Jar and the horrible actor that was supposed to convincingly portray Anakin/Vader.

Posted: **Wed Jun 15, 2011 5:06 pm**

Sorry cut off

So anyway, Jedi. Boba Fett takes off the helmet and....Lukes sister

Think about if you split the kids, why not leave one in the care of a badass. A bounty hunter that could protect the kid given the right incentive...

That has the advantage of introducing the Action girl theme

Gets rid of incest

Continues the han leia luke love triangle, which had the potential to be tragically beautiful

Ewoks, hell, just hire and much of Ucla basketball platers and through them in fur suits and what do you have- Wookie homeworld. Whats with the Lucas dwarf fetish anyway?

Phantom. Make Anakin a Han Solo expy, seriously, swagger arrogant, badass pilot. He and his family are homesteaders on Tatoonie, old west kind of feel, The sand people are an indigeous population fighting encrouchment, not just mom torturing dks. Anakin pod races, but owes the Hutts money (sound familar)
Owain just wants to farm and stay out of trouble.

Liam neilson sees how strong Anakin in is the force, and decides to train him despite his age. Sparks between Natalie Portman and Anakin that are not creepy. Even the possibility of another love triangle with Anakin, Obi Wan, and Amidala.

Clone wars. Have Dooku be exactly what he says he is, a third party. Make his rebellion legitimate. There really is a Sith controlling the Republic. When he fails, that knowledge helps put Anakin over the edge... He stoped a true Jedi from thwarting the Sith... It makes Dooku more than a cardboard villian and gives him a sense of pathos that is more befitting Christopher Lee.

Which brings us to the Sith apprentice- Darth Maul. Killing in the 1st movie was a mistake since he was the only thing worth watching in the first movie. Badassery should be rewarded- after killing their mentor the two young Jedi have an ulterior motive, a non-Jedi emotion- revenge. Build it through all three movies...and in the final scene, a three way battle between Anakin, Obi Wan, and Darth Maul. Anakin has been lured to the darkside, but still wants revenge (as well as a promotion). Obi wan wants to defeat both Anakin as well as Maul. And Maul wants back in Palpatines good graces.

Oh, and have someone else play Palpatine. Someone with charisma and looks, someone other than Joe Lieberman.

Posted: **Wed Jun 15, 2011 5:24 pm**

Rhuvein wrote: Going back to the old way, which I thought was great would probably be too costly these days.

Not true. It would still be just as inexpensive. I know FX people.

Posted: **Wed Jun 15, 2011 8:57 pm**

Rhuvein wrote:I'm not a big fan of too much CGI, but I thought Lucas did it well - and what else can you do these days for special effects. Going back to the old way, which I thought was great would probably be too costly these days.

I picked up a "making of" DVD for the original trilogy, mistakingly thinking it'd be the "making of" TV specials from back in the day. Loved that modeling and puppetry stuff. No, it was all about the more recent CGI.

Posted: **Wed Jun 15, 2011 9:31 pm**

I thought the "prequels" took away from the original trilogy...not added anything to it. I've only watched them once...and that was almost too often.

Posted: **Wed Jun 15, 2011 10:01 pm**

Go0gleplex wrote:I thought the "prequels" took away from the original trilogy...not added anything to it. I've only watched them once...and that was almost too often.

Explaining "The Force". Ugh. The first movies never exactly said just what the force was. I usually don't like movies with religious overtones (Usually too preachy.) but the force in the originals was vague enough that it should have been left as a mystery.

R2 D2 is older than C3 P0. And, C3 P0 was built by Anakin. And, C3 P0 was on Tatoonie, before and in the originals never suggested he had been there before.

Why in the world did Mr. Lucas think that Star Wars had a undying need for wacky hijinks or long boring scenes of people talking. And, talking and talking. God, Lucas tried his best to ruin the originals, in the remastering, by adding wacky hijinks.

The Amidala/Anakin love scenes could of been handled better than it was... ponderous, slow and out of place.

The dialogue... ugh... I can't think of anyone being able to save that dialogue. It was beyond even the best of actors.

On second viewing, the CGI was really noticeable. Just proves that half assed CGI can really ruin a movie. Either go full on CGI or do a masterful mix like we saw done in; The Lord of the Rings trilogy. To me CGI is not good enough to pull off being as good as real sets. Plus it was more than obvious that acting on blue/green screens is really tough and demanding. I figure that part of the bad acting was influenced, by the fact, that most of the scenes the actors had to pretend as to what they where interacting with.

The Ewoks seem likes an awesome idea if you put them head-to-head with Jar Jar Binks and his people.

And, plot holes. The prequels are just riddled with them. It seemed like Lucas forgot what was in the originals, said, "Fuck-it" and took the easiest route, to writing the scripts, using just a skeleton of his original idea for the whole story.

And really, the three prequels really where all about how Darth Vader was born.

I know it is "Space Opera" where things really don't need to be explained, but the whole Naboo thing with the center of the world just being one large, tepid ocean was too much to suspend belief.

The rehashing of ideas from the first films. Hey, we had an awesome scene of an asteroid field in the first trilogy, lets put one in the first three. Hey, Luke was trapped in a gladiator fight lets do the same only BIGGER. Three is better than one, am I right?

Fuck character development, CGI will make you forget that making memorable characters, that you can identify with is really not that important if you put enough stuff on the screen.

Posted: **Wed Jun 15, 2011 11:22 pm**

Breakdaddy wrote:In a nutshell: Jar Jar binks for the first prequel; Hayden Christensen for the other two. What was the casting director thinking when they cast this bonehead? He couldn't properly play "clone trooper #318" much less the lead role in the trilogy

I once watched Star Wars and Attack of the Clones back to back. Hamill and Christensen performances were on the same level, although I'd tip the scale slightly in Christensen's favor. (I say performances, not acting ability, because Lucas has demonstrated an ability to extract a lackluster performance from even great actors.)

Posted: **Thu Jun 16, 2011 2:59 am**

Too many points to cover, but I'll touch on a few. Phantom-Jar Jar(Uugghh), dry dialogue and poor direction with the actors. Everybody pounds little Jake Lloyd, but Portman was dismal as well. Actually, Watto, Sebulba, and(God forbid)Jar Jar were the only characters(by and large)with some emotion. Nitpick...GL hires a good British actor(sometimes OTT), Brian Blessed a.k.a. Prince Vultan, and uses him as a Gungan who was hard to understand. The same Brian Blessed who acted with Branagh in Henry V. Then again, Costner used Blessed in Robin Hood Prince of Abominations for five minutes before killing him. hat film needed MORE British actors, but I digress. Back to Phantom...Kabuki Queen and boring old Naboo sucked, so did the voice acting for the Trade Fed aliens. "Rook! Godzirra!!"

Midichlorians and immaculate conception...eek! Liked most of the Brit actors, the pod race, and the saber duel. Attack of the Clones...less Jar Jar! Natalie's poorly directed acting may have been worse in that one. Hayden as well. I see comparisons between Hamill and Hayden. Taking off my elementary-middle school dork-colored glasses...Hamill was better than Hayden overall. Same for Fisher. She had more emotion in her pinky than Portman had in her entire body. Maybe Jedi was weaker, but most of that cast had chemistry vs. Hayden and Portman. Anyway, love scenes excepting maybe one(AOTC)were dreadful, Obi Wan was knocked out too early in the saber duel, etc. I'm forgetting a few things, but I still cringed a little less because JJ was largely gone. ROTS...once again Portman and Hayden love scenes and general interaction were bad, Chewie meeting Yoda(even though wookies have a long lifespan)was too Kirk meets Picard for me. Anakin being convinced to kill younglings at such an early stage didn't work for me. Better for him to have accompanied troops to the palace and have them kill the kids, maybe realizing he got in over his head with Palpatine. Maybe Vader post armor would have killed younglings, but not to save his wife. I know Lucas wanted to show how bad he could be, but it was too early in the Anakin-Vader transition. Nitpick again...seems liked Yoda had more backwards speak when he was younger than he did when he was older on Dagobah. haha I'm sure I could come up with more good and bad points, but that'll suffice for now. They're not half bad in spots, but Lucas was fighting an uphill battle. When I used to work in radio, I interviewed film critics, Michael Medved, and Leonard Maltin. They and I agreed Lucas wouldn't have pleased every fanboy. He was damned if he did, damned if he didn't. Too many years had passed allowing people to come up with their own back stories, theories, and "I thin such and such SW novel should have been a movie." Still yet, he could have done better. I'll save Indy IV for later. Many Bothans died to bring you this information.

Posted: **Thu Jun 16, 2011 5:45 am**

I think he nailed it with asking people to describe the characters from the originals without resorting to role or appearance and then trying to do the same with the prequels.

I randomly tested his idea on my mum & dad, girlfriend (all non fans but have seen the movies) & my brother (massive fan).
They could all do:
Han - dashing, rogueish, dodgy
C3PO- prissy, fussy, reluctant

even non speaking characters they could describe their personality
Chewie- loyal, emotional, short tempered
R2D2- naughty, clever, cheeky

But when it came to the prequels... They could only do Anakin slightly, everyone else was just a blank.

Posted: **Thu Jun 16, 2011 12:59 pm**

I lay a lot of it at the feet of Lucas. And that's pretty sad, because I did have a ton of respect for him previous to the prequels.

But then again, I think time has a way of distorting my view of the past. I remember the original trilogy as being the best thing since sliced bread. It still stands up well, mostly, but there are a lot more teeth-grinding moments I notice now than I used to.

The dialogue in both trilogies is brutal. I read somewhere once that Harrison Ford once threatened to tie Lucas to a chair and force him to read his own dialogue because it was so hideous. Whether that was before or after edits, I have no clue. In the original trilogy it didn't feel bad when I watched it, but I can look back and see that they weren't all that great either. "Mos Eisley spaceport... you will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy," only works as a line because you have Sir Alec Freaking Guinness delivering it. If Ewan McGregor, Hayden Christensen, or Natalie Portman delivered that same line with the same inflection, same tone, same everything, it would be the butt of every geek joke around.

The acting is worse, but after seeing the Behind the Film segments on the special editions, I can understand why. There is at least one point where Lucas specifically tells Christensen that he's putting "too much emotion" into a scene. And watching the actors interact while working in front of green screens is painful... after a while, it just feels like they're a step away from saying the hell with it and just doing "Madden 2011"-style motion caps to create the movie.

One other thing that personally makes it hard for me to enjoy the prequels is the revisionist history to it all. It almost seems as though parts of the story were created to try to tie up any loose ends from the original trilogy (Where did the droids come from? How did Yoda end up on Dagobah? What happened to all the Jedi?) ... and in so doing they created more WTFisms.

I would have personally preferred Lucas to do a sequel trilogy than a prequel one. Then it could have stood a little more on its own merits. But that's just me.

Posted: **Thu Jun 16, 2011 2:44 pm**

tylermo wrote:dry dialogue and poor direction with the actors

What I always find frustrating about this discussion (in its many iterations) is that so many of the criticisms aimed at the prequels are equally valid criticisms of originals. And I remember thinking the same thing during the portion of the Plinkett review that I watched.

Posted: **Thu Jun 16, 2011 2:58 pm**

I think Ford's comment was, "George, you can write this sh!t, but you can't read(or say)it."

Posted: **Thu Jun 16, 2011 4:33 pm**

Just Jeff wrote:
Breakdaddy wrote:In a nutshell: Jar Jar binks for the first prequel; Hayden Christensen for the other two. What was the casting director thinking when they cast this bonehead? He couldn't properly play "clone trooper #318" much less the lead role in the trilogy
I once watched Star Wars and Attack of the Clones back to back. Hamill and Christensen performances were on the same level, although I'd tip the scale slightly in Christensen's favor. (I say performances, not acting ability, because Lucas has demonstrated an ability to extract a lackluster performance from even great actors.)

I think Lucas has demonstrated an ability to make blockbuster movies by extracting very good to great performances from lackluster actors.

Besides Alec Guinness and Liam Neason, most of the remaining actors were never considered great actors from what I recall.

I thought Mark Hamill did a great job, considering he had very little acting experience. Lucas did indeed pull a great performance out of him.

I didn't care for Christensen in the 2nd movie, although he did seem to get better (either later in the 2nd movie or into the 3rd one).

Posted: **Thu Jun 16, 2011 4:42 pm**

ArgoForg wrote:
*snip*

It almost seems as though parts of the story were created to try to tie up any loose ends from the original trilogy (Where did the droids come from? How did Yoda end up on Dagobah? What happened to all the Jedi?) ... and in so doing they created more WTFisms.

I would have personally preferred Lucas to do a sequel trilogy than a prequel one. Then it could have stood a little more on its own merits. But that's just me.

Well, isn't tying up loose ends the point of a prequel? And I don't necessarily mean the minor ones you mention. The prequel movies provided an important, maybe key part to the overall story.

I think the prequel story was better and more interesting than the story in the originals, even if some of you don't like how the movies were presented (I certainly have some criticisms of the movies, but for the most part they are minor).

With regard to the WFTisms as you say, I think there are always questions anytime you have a huge story and sub plots . . after the final editing - I'm sure scenes got cut that may have helped the overall continuity and understanding of what occurred before and after.

Originally, Lucas was going to make sequels after he finished the prequels.

Posted: **Thu Jun 16, 2011 4:49 pm**

Sir Ironside wrote:Explaining "The Force". Ugh. The first movies never exactly said just what the force was. I usually don't like movies with religious overtones (Usually too preachy.) but the force in the originals was vague enough that it should have been left as a mystery.

What? Your comments seems contradictory.

I thought they sufficiently explained what the force was (in one or two scenes) and I didn't get any religious overtones - more like energy+the spiritual nature of creatures relating to the world around them.

Posted: **Thu Jun 16, 2011 6:38 pm**

Rhuvein wrote:I thought Mark Hamill did a great job, considering he had very little acting experience. Lucas did indeed pull a great performance out of him.

I'm trying to remember if I've heard this notion before, but I'm thinking not. Something new every day.

Posted: **Thu Jun 16, 2011 7:09 pm**

Rhuvein wrote:
Sir Ironside wrote:Explaining "The Force". Ugh. The first movies never exactly said just what the force was. I usually don't like movies with religious overtones (Usually too preachy.) but the force in the originals was vague enough that it should have been left as a mystery.
What? Your comments seems contradictory.

I thought they sufficiently explained what the force was (in one or two scenes) and I didn't get any religious overtones - more like energy+the spiritual nature of creatures relating to the world around them.

Bald face rip off of Buddhist philosophy is what it was. Even Lucas has admitted that.

Posted: **Thu Jun 16, 2011 7:31 pm**

Rhuvein wrote:
Sir Ironside wrote:Explaining "The Force". Ugh. The first movies never exactly said just what the force was. I usually don't like movies with religious overtones (Usually too preachy.) but the force in the originals was vague enough that it should have been left as a mystery.
What? Your comments seems contradictory.

I thought they sufficiently explained what the force was (in one or two scenes) and I didn't get any religious overtones - more like energy+the spiritual nature of creatures relating to the world around them.

I do guess that an original contradictory statement only makes sense if you follow it up with one of your own.

(Though I still don't see my statement as contradictory, the process was talked about, but what exactly "The Force" was, was never really touched on.)

To me your statement supports the vagueness that I was talking about. Everyone perceives "The Force" in a different way, almost all has a mystical bent to it. Unlike say; I am Legend the religious overtones was really down-played and just left it as a confident belief in "The Force" to make it work. The whole midiclorian explanation took all that mystery away and set it in "hard" science. I'm a science/atheist type and didn't want of need a scientific explanation for "The Force". IMO the film would have been better if they just would have left it as a mysterious thing.

Like I said the whole religious aspect was firmly, in the background, but was still there. Belief in "The Force" with no real explanation as to how it worked (Just have faith and don't rely on real world trappings.) Faith, belief... two hallmarks of religion.

gideon_thorne wrote:Bald face rip off of Buddhist philosophy is what it was. Even Lucas has admitted that.

Eh... lots of movies do this. Inspiration comes in all forms and emulating a real world religion is not high on my "distaste" list.

Posted: **Thu Jun 16, 2011 9:26 pm**

The worst of all is the first. The Looney Toons style battle between Jar Jar and the droids ruins the whole movie and perhaps the only great scene of that chapter (Jedis vs Darth Maul fight).

The double headed anchorman of the pod race seems a charachter of a Hanna & Barbera show.

Crappy movie.

Posted: **Thu Jun 16, 2011 9:37 pm**

Anyway, if the SW prequels has done something good is to show all the limits of a heavy CGI based movie. The Lord of the Rings trilogy (THE trilogy of 2000 taking place of THE trilogy of the 70s-80s) has shown that CGI must be used in conjunction with old good moviecraft abilities.

Also the strong desire of Lucas to attire children (new public) has produced a disaster in the first episode where everythin seems to be thought to attire not teenagers but KIDS in the theatres. But he used 60s and 70s old tricks that annoyed elder fans and made yawn today kids.

A critical failure.
Like the "Han Solo does not fire first in the bar" idea and the incredibly bad idea to put the Christiansen in the very final scene of Episode VI.

Posted: **Thu Jun 16, 2011 11:54 pm**

mostrojoe wrote:The worst of all is the first. The Looney Toons style battle between Jar Jar and the droids ruins the whole movie and perhaps the only great scene of that chapter (Jedis vs Darth Maul fight).

I had that problem with Revenge of the Sith. I thought the Obi-Wan/Anakin fight was a great, high-energy scene. Unfortunately, it's mixed in with the Yoda/Palpatine fight, which was...not. I like occasionally watching the Obi-Wan/Anakin fight. I have no interest in the Yoda/Palpatine fight. Navigating the two is hard on my thumb.

mostrojoe wrote:Anyway, if the SW prequels has done something good is to show all the limits of a heavy CGI based movie. The Lord of the Rings trilogy (THE trilogy of 2000 taking place of THE trilogy of the 70s-80s) has shown that CGI must be used in conjunction with old good moviecraft abilities.

Oddly enough, Jackson gives Lucas a lot of credit for sitting down with Jackson for half a day and educating him on what he could and couldn't do with CGI. Those who can't do, teach?

Posted: **Fri Jun 17, 2011 3:00 am**

I'm not gonna hammer GL for the cgi quality too much. I thought it was largely good. Someone will come along and make the LOTR trilogy look likes child's play. It's like comparing guitar players. Some might say B.B. King is nothing compared to the blues playing abilities of the late Stevie Ray Vaughn. Or, some would poo poo the simplistic stylings of Chuck Berry. Either way, his signature riff wrote a lot of songs for a million other acts to follow. Same for George's original trilogy and prequel trilogy effects.

Posted: **Wed Jun 22, 2011 5:54 am**

tylermo wrote:Too many points to cover, but I'll touch on a few. Phantom-Jar Jar(Uugghh), dry dialogue and poor direction with the actors. Everybody pounds little Jake Lloyd, but Portman was dismal as well. Actually, Watto, Sebulba, and(God forbid)Jar Jar were the only characters(by and large)with some emotion.

Nitpick...GL hires a good British actor(sometimes OTT), Brian Blessed a.k.a. Prince Vultan, and uses him as a Gungan who was hard to understand. The same Brian Blessed who acted with Branagh in Henry V. Then again, Costner used Blessed in Robin Hood Prince of Abominations for five minutes before killing him. hat film needed MORE British actors, but I digress. Back to Phantom...Kabuki Queen and boring old Naboo sucked, so did the voice acting for the Trade Fed aliens. "Rook! Godzirra!!" Midichlorians and immaculate conception...eek!

Liked most of the Brit actors, the pod race, and the saber duel. Attack of the Clones...less Jar Jar! Natalie's poorly directed acting may have been worse in that one. Hayden as well. I see comparisons between Hamill and Hayden. Taking off my elementary-middle school dork-colored glasses...Hamill was better than Hayden overall. Same for Fisher. She had more emotion in her pinky than Portman had in her entire body. Maybe Jedi was weaker, but most of that cast had chemistry vs. Hayden and Portman. Anyway, love scenes excepting maybe one(AOTC)were dreadful, Obi Wan was knocked out too early in the saber duel, etc.

I'm forgetting a few things, but I still cringed a little less because JJ was largely gone. ROTS...once again Portman and Hayden love scenes and general interaction were bad, Chewie meeting Yoda(even though wookies have a long lifespan)was too Kirk meets Picard for me. Anakin being convinced to kill younglings at such an early stage didn't work for me. Better for him to have accompanied troops to the palace and have them kill the kids, maybe realizing he got in over his head with Palpatine. Maybe Vader post armor would have killed younglings, but not to save his wife.

I know Lucas wanted to show how bad he could be, but it was too early in the Anakin-Vader transition. Nitpick again...seems liked Yoda had more backwards speak when he was younger than he did when he was older on Dagobah. haha I'm sure I could come up with more good and bad points, but that'll suffice for now. They're not half bad in spots, but Lucas was fighting an uphill battle.

When I used to work in radio, I interviewed film critics, Michael Medved, and Leonard Maltin. They and I agreed Lucas wouldn't have pleased every fanboy. He was damned if he did, damned if he didn't. Too many years had passed allowing people to come up with their own back stories, theories, and "I thin such and such SW novel should have been a movie." Still yet, he could have done better. I'll save Indy IV for later. Many Bothans died to bring you this information.

Posted: **Wed Jun 22, 2011 8:42 pm**

Gotta respond here.
For the first time I agree with Sir Ironsides!

Concerning the plot holes...come on guys get a life. Its something he made up for Pete's sake.

Concerning the CGI...yeah lazy crap! it distracted me.

It was too kiddy kid for me. Didn't help my friend dragged me out on opening day and wedged me tightly between himself and squirming brats.

I do find the question of irony. Don't remebr the quote but during the Anakin Obi-wan fight he asked if the republic we have sworn to defend could become the very same evil they fear was kind of cool.

But I think the root of the question why does the prequels suck compared to the new movies is answered in this:

We are no longer 12 years old people! At 12 it was the greatest thing i could ever imagine.
At 30 stuffed between 12 year olds it was just a bit absurd.

Troll Lord Games

Star Wars prequels. Was it really all that bad?

Star Wars prequels. Was it really all that bad?

Re: Star Wars prequels. Was it really all that bad?

Re: Star Wars prequels. Was it really all that bad?

Re: Star Wars prequels. Was it really all that bad?

Re: Star Wars prequels. Was it really all that bad?

Re: Star Wars prequels. Was it really all that bad?

Re: Star Wars prequels. Was it really all that bad?

Re: Star Wars prequels. Was it really all that bad?

Re: Star Wars prequels. Was it really all that bad?

Re: Star Wars prequels. Was it really all that bad?

Re: Star Wars prequels. Was it really all that bad?

Re: Star Wars prequels. Was it really all that bad?

Re: Star Wars prequels. Was it really all that bad?

Re: Star Wars prequels. Was it really all that bad?

Re: Star Wars prequels. Was it really all that bad?

Re: Star Wars prequels. Was it really all that bad?

Re: Star Wars prequels. Was it really all that bad?

Re: Star Wars prequels. Was it really all that bad?

Re: Star Wars prequels. Was it really all that bad?

Re: Star Wars prequels. Was it really all that bad?

Re: Star Wars prequels. Was it really all that bad?

Re: Star Wars prequels. Was it really all that bad?

Re: Star Wars prequels. Was it really all that bad?

Re: Star Wars prequels. Was it really all that bad?

Re: Star Wars prequels. Was it really all that bad?

Re: Star Wars prequels. Was it really all that bad?

Re: Star Wars prequels. Was it really all that bad?

Re: Star Wars prequels. Was it really all that bad?

Re: Star Wars prequels. Was it really all that bad?

Re: Star Wars prequels. Was it really all that bad?