Well, yeah, but is that so wrong? We finally know the whole story. Darth Vader is not so much the ultimate villian but a sad, tragic man. I don't care about a few moments of bad acting or cheesy dialogue. This is space opera we're talking about, and wonderful space opera! And the wonderful allegories and mythology are still there in all six movies.
There's probably something to that. Lucas said in his speech to the AFI or whatever gave him a lifetime award last year that children are the most important thing in the world.
However, ask a parent if he or she thinks the same way.
Kids don't explain Lucas' switch to a PG-13 for ROTS, the beheadings in AOTC, and all the other stronger violence in the final two prequels.
Last edited by chinabing on Jul 10th, 2006 at 01:40 AM
I agree. Dooku should have stayed in longer, perhaps had a more spectacular fight scene. Greivous couldnt really be established as a character because we hardly ever saw him. He was introduced, seen with the CIS and then killed. We needed to see him with Count Dooku, perhaps watched them fight together. That would have added some depth to his character. I liked Mace's fight, however GL could have done a much better job with it eg choreography. And Anakins fall to the dark side was far too rushed, but this has been stated by fellow members many times before.
Basically GL made the PT seem to rushed. He let the story line drop slightly in place for speacial effects / CGI. Dont get me wrong I love the special effects, but GL could have done a lot more with some of the characters.
I love the PT, but the OT was groundbreaking - and each time you compare the two, it makes the PT look more worse than what it is - an average, but pretty good trilogy.
The OT has such a reputation, that by comparing the two, completley devalues them.
I don't think the PT was ever going to satisfy everyone... or even most people... And I think Lucas knew that... and in turn didn't really do his absolute best with the films because he knew that they'd never live up to the originals.
When you compare any of the PT films to some of the other blockbusters that have come out the past decade they really aren't that bad... But in the context of Star Wars, and the Star Wars phenomenon, they're lackluster at best...
I thinks thats a good point. ANH defined a new genre of movie and a revolution in film making.
The PT is not bad, i wouldn't call it lack luster, its just not revolutionary, but things did happen. While the OT revolutionized special effects, TPM had the first all digital charater (unfortunately Binks) and AOTC was one of if not the first film shot in all digital. ROTS had nothing new and exciting.
Artistically, the PT is as good as the OT and is a lot more artistic than the OT. The PT has some really good stuff in there too...it just moves to fast and covers too much ground to fit into 2.5 hrs. If Lucas would have concentrated less on action sequences and slowed things down, made them a bit longer (especially AOTC with its 43 plotlines)...they would have been much better films.
A lot of the enjoyment of the OT came from they mystery of Darth Vader. For 18 years we wondered. Now after the prequels, we know the why. When I watch the OT now, questions are answered and mysteries are revealed. Things we guessed we knew, we didn't. Motivations are turned on their heads.
I really don't watch movies to see the latest technical wizardry, they most often get in the way of the story because the director loves it so much. (How many times can the liquid-metal cop dude morph in "Terminator 2"? Too many for me.) It's fun being stunned, but not over and over again with the same thing. James Cameron and Peter Jackson are often so repetitive in their effects films.
Films don't have to be ground-breaking to be awesome, but while Lucas often pushes the envelope, (Binks, all-digi-camera in AOTC), he mostly hits a home run. The opening sequence of ROTS was stunning, as was the final battle between Yoda and Sidious. But they both moved the story. The prequels have wonderful stories, and fill in the pieces of the OT. I also happen to like politics and watching the rise of the Empire is a wonderful study, with parallels to modern totalitarianism.
Perhaps it might help appreciation of the prequels if one does what Lucas said, view them all as one big movie. Embrace a larger view of Star Wars to paraphrase.
Re: What makes the new movies better than old ones?
Visual effects, sound, intense lightsaber fights, better soundtracks IMO, the fact that we get to see what the pre-empire galaxy was like in something other than EU.
Especially the ending of the prequel trilogy sucked. Monster Sidious versus some CGI green dwarve fight a silly duel on a small pod, then pods go flying and they go away.
Then the final battle, master versus apprentice. fighting goes on forever above lava and extremely dangerous objects floating through it. Suddenly the apprentice jumps on hot slope and is left burning there. He is revived immediately afterwards.
What a lame ending! Way to end a trilogy!
I would've prefered Yoda losing horribly and perhaps with some remaining jedi with him who die horribly and Obi Wan cutting off a limb or two with Anakin screaming like a retard and falling in the lava without the scene where he is revived.
That would have felt like an ending instead of the completing transition to the OT. Padme's death was also pretty pointless. I should've walked out the theatre after the first half. Everything in the PT was good before the odd ending.
Jul 9th, 2006 08:15 PM
