MovieChat Forums > Star Wars > Are The Prequels Defined by their Shortc...

Are The Prequels Defined by their Shortcomings?

posted 8 years ago by Jammer81386
7 replies | jump to latest

Over the course of the holiday season I rewatched some of the Star Wars movies. Including Return of the Jedi and Revenge of the Sith back to back. After rewatching them I saw pros and cons that I didn't before. I subsequently came to think that fans were more forgiving of the shortcomings of Jedi then they were for Sith.

As always I want to make it clear that there are legitimate reasons to hate the Prequels as there are legitimate reasons to hate any movie. So I am not trying to bash any part of the fandom. This is just be pointing a personal observation. And for the record, I do prefer the Original trilogy over the Prequels.

With that said, the aspects of Revenge of the Sith that seem to get the most attention are its negative ones? Particularly the balcony scene, Padme's death, and Vader's "NOOOO!!". But rewatching the film I realized that those scenes are a very small part of the movie. I certainly didn't care for them, but I can easily overlook them and focus of the good scenes. The Opera scene, Order 66, Anakin's "death", and all the fantastic action scenes were the highlight. So why do all these more major scenes get overlooked in favor of the scene's that are viewed poorly?

Let's be honest the OT had some questionable parts as well: For example; Luke's "NOOO!!!" after Vader's revelation, Kenobi "point of view" rationalization in Jedi, and all the Ewok comedic relief. Fans generally do view these parts negatively and will joke about them, but they certainly don't harp on about them like they do with the aforementioned scenes of the Episode III.

Basically from my point of view it seems like fans of more willing to overlook the shortcomings of the Originals that they are for the Prequels. I haven't rewatched The Phantom Menace or Attack of the Clones yet so I can't comment on how applicable all this is to them. But in regards to Revenge of the Sith, I think it might be getting unfairly scrutinized.

(edit add)
Similarly, I have found that many criticisms of the Prequels(acting, story structure, etc) were shared by the recently released Star Wars: Rogue One. But again, the faults of Rogue One were generally overlooked in favor of its positive aspects. Unlike the Prequels. (end edit)

But that is just my own subjective view of the series. If you don't like the Prequels I'm not trying to convince you otherwise. But I am starting to see a trend where fans focus on the negative. I just hope the fans try to keep a open mind about the Prequels and the upcoming films.

--
VOOTE:
http://www.voote.com/jsp/WAppServerPage.jsp?TransID=USERPAGE&UserID=B11808&Status=X

[–] Kruleworld 8 years ago

I think the point is, those movies shouldn't have had such glaringly obviously bad bits. i mean these aren't the low budget experimental films that George was making in the 70s. there's no excuse for clunky dialogue and questionable scenes in a film that is a professional, mega-budget tent-pole, which already has a built-in fanbase, established universe and a loosely mapped out story. all they had to do was get the 'little things' right to make it a perfect movie. (and yes, this can be said of any film that fits those criteria)

I just hope the fans try to keep a open mind about the Prequels and the upcoming films.
so do i, but i DOUBT it.

I liked Luke's "Nooo, Nooo" as it was heartfelt, passionate and real, compared to Vader's clunky "Nooooooooooooo". this is probably because we get JEJ's booming voice instead of Hayden's real voice, and we don't see any anguish on his face because of the mask.

"He's dusted, busted and disgusted, but he's ok"

[–] Nocountryforoldmovies 8 years ago

Top 10 things i loved from the prequels

1.Qui Gon Jinn
2.Mythology of the sith/the rule of 2
3.Ewan Mcgregor as Obi Wan
4.Darth Maul and Count Dooku
5.The character of mace windu
6.The Fighting
7.Emperor Palpatine
8.The Prophecy
9.Duel of Fates
10.Seeing yoda get down

http://www.imdb.com/list/ls063670214/

[–] MovieManCin2 (26342) 8 years ago

The Top 10 things I loved from the prequels:

Um.......let's see.........uh...........oh crap, I got nothin'.

😎

[–] bubblegum_jenocide 8 years ago

I subsequently came to think that fans were more forgiving of the shortcomings of Jedi then they were for Sith.That's because overall, Jedi was the stronger movie.

We still had Han and Leia and Luke and the rebellion going on with Lando. We were invested in the adventure before we ever got to this film. So it gets a pass, despite being almost universally recognized as the weakest film in the original trilogy. The prequels stumbled from the very beginning. Phantom Menace gets a lot of hate I don't think it deserves, but it's still a mediocre movie. Attack of the Clones and Revenge of the Sith were disasters top to bottom. The point I'm trying to make is, I just didn't care about the characters in the prequels because they were all written and acted so poorly. So by the time got to Sith, yeah, it was defined by its shortcomings because its shortcomings are what stands out.

[–] TheMovieDoctorful 8 years ago

We still had Han and Leia and Luke and the rebellion going on with Lando. We were invested in the adventure before we ever got to this film. So it gets a pass, despite being almost universally recognized as the weakest film in the original trilogy. The prequels stumbled from the very beginning. Phantom Menace gets a lot of hate I don't think it deserves, but it's still a mediocre movie. Attack of the Clones and Revenge of the Sith were disasters top to bottom. The point I'm trying to make is, I just didn't care about the characters in the prequels because they were all written and acted so poorly. So by the time got to Sith, yeah, it was defined by its shortcomings because its shortcomings are what stands out.

I never got why people use investment as some kind of definitive example to show why a movie is objectively better than another. You can make that point in a review, certainly, but investment all comes down to personal preference.

For example, I was far more invested in the characters of Attack of the Clones and Revenge of the Sith than I EVER was for the characters in the original trilogy. (Even Empire Strikes Back, which I think is a stronger movie than Attack of the Clones over all.) I personally found the acting much more nuanced and human and the characters much more relatable and realistic. A lot of the characters in the original trilogy felt like tropes and archetypes without much development. Don't get me wrong, there are exceptions (Vader and Luke are the only ones that come to mind...Han a BIT, but not much), but in general I feel like the characters in the prequels were much more likable, developed and relatable.

[–] bubblegum_jenocide 8 years ago

but in general I feel like the characters in the prequels were much more likable, developed and relatable.
And it's great that you feel that way. I'm not going to tell you you're wrong, because you're right: It does come down to personal preference.

But for me, personally, I just didn't care about any of the characters. So, their predicaments meant nothing to me. If Anakin won the lottery or got hit by a bus, my reaction would have been the same: Meh.

How can I get invested in a story if the characters within said story fail to illicit any passion from me?

----
Pidder Padder? Make my Heart go Boom Bap and Then We'll Talk!

[–] Strannger (2007) 8 years ago

Yes they are. If the story was worked out, rewritten and given more insight into character development they would be held higher up instead of below the originals.