I was born after the original star wars movies came out and after growing up in the day and age of modern Hollywoo the original movies seem to be much worse than eps. 1,2, and 3. Please explain to me why 4,5, and 6 are so much better. Besides Hayden Christianson.
__________________ Hey, I don't know why you say I'm so mean. I mean I have the heart of a small child....... in a jar on my desk- Stephen King
Registered: Sep 2005
Location: Picking up some power converters.
Episode 5 alone is better than the first three combined.
In the originals the ships were beaten up, unlike all the Naboo ships. Space travel wasn't done all whilly-nilly, it was a pain to get around Tatooine, never mind to Alderann.
It is much easier to relate to a young man who needs adventure but is stuck at home and eventually becomes a great hero than being a Jedi from birth or a very young age.
The rebels were the underdogs, they didn't have thousands of Jedis and clones to back them up.
The heroes knew that war didn't make one great, and laying down your weapon was better than rushing off and killing, unlike in the PT.
It actually had surprises in it.
It wasn't over the top.
The force was very mystical, not some scientific mumbo-jumbo.
Random characters weren't tied into the story, with the exception of the family bonds between Luke, Leia, and Vader. Boba wasn't related back then. Jabba was just a crime lord with no other relevance. Chewbacca was just a cool wookiee co-pilot.
Acting (Specifically Han, but the acting for other characters was just leauges above the PT).
The Catina scene.
Also much more, but I'll leave it to the rest of the people here.
I have to say what made the OT better was the fact you had no clue what was going to happen next. With the PT you already knew that Anakin was going to become Darth Vader and the Republic would turn into the Empire.
Not to mention then the Force was so strange and unknown you could only guess what it was.
Well i think the direction is better in the Original Trilogy and the acting, and personally i dont think that Mark Hamill is better than Hayden Christensen.
Lucas Directed Star Wars - A New Hope (He Got Lucky On That One)
Kershner Directed Empire Strikes Back (Fantastic Movie and Surpassed the Original)
Marquand Directed Return Of The Jedi, which wasn't great to be honest
The Phantom Menace felt like Return Of The Jedi in places and i cant think of anything Specific but i feel like am watching that kinda style of ROTJ
Attack Of The Clones was far better than The Phantom Menace and had a different feel than Phantom Menace, which was enjoyable
Revenge Of The Sith was brilliant and i feel that the second half of the movie is in the style of The Empire Strikes Back
So for me i think 3/4/5 are the better 3 of the 6 movies
I dont really think that i could say which trilogy i prefer,
Registered: Sep 2005
Location: Picking up some power converters.
AOTC had such a lame CGI- "Blow it up!" feel to it. Special effects should be used to tell a story, not to be the actual story. I mean, I realize it was about the beginning of the clone wars, but it was too much action and not enough storyline.
Registered: Jul 2004
Location: Ol'Blighty in the north
Re: What makes the new movies better than old ones?
The concept was new then, the special effects were a big thing then, the stories are better especially ESB, its also Nostalgic for someone like me who saw them first time round, if i had been born after they came out my view on it might be totally different.
The originals told the most important story, and had all of Lucas's best bits. Anything after that was superflous junk and special effects he couldn't do back in the day. The important, and best stuff, made it into the originals. Simple as that.
Registered: Apr 2004
Location: Impacting nations and generations
Agreed!
Those three there form the best trilogy!
The other three films could just as easily be two, with TPM and Clones being a single flick.
I too grew up after the original releases, (born in 1983) but watched them as a kid religiously, and saw the SE's in theatres.
I then saw the PT at 16, 19, and 22.
I liked them all too, so stick it if you didn't.
They took me where I wanted to go, and showed me what I wanted to see.
I understood from the beginning (in a very basic way, of course) what those films would be about, (the rise of vader/Empire and the fall of Anakin/Republic) and I wasn't dissapointed.
To the thread starter, its not really fair to say that the new films are "better" than the OT, they were just made differently.
Re: What makes the new movies better than old ones?
Prolly should have clarified that to say they are so much better to YOU. I was 16 when ANH came out and to me the OT is by far better than the PT. Its just a matter of taste.
Registered: Jun 2006
Location: in Lothlórien with my best friend
yeah i really like the first ones too. i think they are better because ( as most of you have said) special effects dont make a great movie. it has to do with the plot and also because you dont know what is going to happen. even though the first three are better i still like the other ones too.
The OT had more "soul" to it. It sounded natural, the dialogue flowed with more ease and grace, and charm that the PT. The special effects, while cool and nifty, take away from the homely feeling most original SW fans grew up with. The battered ships and grime and dirt looks normal, it makes it seem more believable. When I first saw TPM, the first words that came to mind concerning the film were "scripted, forced, wooden, sterile." Same AOTC and ROTS. The OT isn't like that.
__________________ Recently Produced and Distributed Young but High-Ranking Political Figure of Royal Ancestry within the Modern American Town Affectionately Referred To as Bel-Air.
Jul 3rd, 2006 03:45 PM
