Re: Why does the Star Wars OT slide on so many of the same issues people hold the PT to?
Originally posted by relentless1
over reliance on special effects...
The thing that sets the OT VFX apart from PT VFX is the OT had to rely on practical effects, real sets, models, miniatures, etc. whereas George just went full CGI except for the Phantom Menace's Yoda puppet in the PM theatrical version of the film. Everything looked real in the OT because, for the most if not all part, it was, which was the highlight of Abrams' Force Awakens: a return, in part, to that principle of using practical effects, but in combo with CGI.
Besides that and some of the really bad dialogue, I thoroughly enjoy the prequel trilogy, and actually regard ROTS as the 3rd best in the entire Star Wars series, IMO.
Originally posted by Lord Lucien
It's almost like the rabid fans who have strong emotional attachments to these films have put more thought and energy into analyzing them and deconstructing them than the writers and producers of the films put in to making them.
Which is kinda strange, since the film makers are working on it for two years.
Originally posted by queeq
They are as much prequels as the SW PT is. These new movies tell us how the apes came to ruling the planet. The original POTA starts when a couple of astronauts land in earth in the far future.You can argue it any way you want, but the new Apes movies ARE prequels. And as a series of prequels, they are also a reboot. Just like the SW PT was (as it turned out).
Do you have anything that says they are prequels because everything I could find calls them a reboot, not prequels.
It doesn't matter, though, because it does prove your point. Even if you're wrong about them being prequels, you still viewed them that way and, thus, it proves your point that you do find some prequels to be good.
But did you disagree with my point about you generally not liking prequels because writers seem to **** up quite often what your vision was?
How could I be wrong about the new POTA films being prequels? The original POTA is about the Icarus landing on a strange planet where apes rule and men are considered pets that can't even speak. At the end we find out the Icarus landed on Earth in the far future, blown up by men leaving apes ruling the planet.
The new POTA films tell us how that situation came to be. So they are prequels. And great prequels, but still prequels.
Whether I like or dislike a movie has nothing to do with it being a remake, a reboot, a prequel or a sequel. It has to do with: is it a good movie, do I get to see things that are new and surprising.
The inherent problem in most cases of prequels is that we usually know how it's going to end. If the filmmakers can't find a way to move us along a story that unpredictable, fresh and new it's great.
But that goes for an original film as well: if we get to see stuff we already know very well and the ending is predictable, it's also not good.
However, in the case of prequels you have a bigger handicap... the known ending. Requires more filmmaker skills. The other handicap is that prequels, or even sequels for that matter, are made with the idea of banking on the original. Not on whether it would make a good story. So if motive is money, not making a good movie, than in some cases it will make money but that doesn't mean it's good movie or a movie springing forth from imagination.
the new long form tv series show one can tell great stories many hours long. I suggest the filmmakers of prequels and sequels considers their work a bit more like the film maker of great series.
Originally posted by queeq
How could I be wrong about the new POTA films being prequels? The original POTA is about the Icarus landing on a strange planet where apes rule and men are considered pets that can't even speak. At the end we find out the Icarus landed on Earth in the far future, blown up by men leaving apes ruling the planet.The new POTA films tell us how that situation came to be. So they are prequels. And great prequels, but still prequels.
Your ideas and theories are great. Brilliant, even. But I did not ask for you to support your point with your ideas. I searched and nothing comes up, nothing official, that states it is a prequel: only that it is a reboot. There are many contradications to why it cannot be a prequel such as nods and homages to the original series that do not make sense if it is a prequel.
It does not matter, however. It is a tangent. As others pointed out, many of those movies in your list are not prequels.
Originally posted by queeq
Whether I like or dislike a movie has nothing to do with it being a remake, a reboot, a prequel or a sequel. It has to do with: is it a good movie, do I get to see things that are new and surprising.
The inherent problem in most cases of prequels is that we usually know how it's going to end. If the filmmakers can't find a way to move us along a story that unpredictable, fresh and new it's great.
But that goes for an original film as well: if we get to see stuff we already know very well and the ending is predictable, it's also not good.However, in the case of prequels you have a bigger handicap... the known ending. Requires more filmmaker skills. The other handicap is that prequels, or even sequels for that matter, are made with the idea of banking on the original. Not on whether it would make a good story. So if motive is money, not making a good movie, than in some cases it will make money but that doesn't mean it's good movie or a movie springing forth from imagination.
the new long form tv series show one can tell great stories many hours long. I suggest the filmmakers of prequels and sequels considers their work a bit more like the film maker of great series.
Okay, this is all fair and I cannot disagree with it. I was just basing my assumption about why some people hate prequels partly off of what you said about writers seeming to **** up prequels with writing that is not as good as your imagination (before you mistake this, again, as sarcasm, I am not being sarcastic). You stated you liked it open ended and did not want someone to come along and damn a half-assed story telling of something you could quickly imagine. I am paraphrasing and taking liberties with your words, of course. But I feel I have captured the essence of what you were trying to communicate about how you feel about poorly written prequels.
Or about any poorly written movie. I don't really make a distinction between the two. Except maybe that a prequel or sequel is suspicious by its very nature. Therefore, I expect filmmakers of such movies to work harder.
Originally posted by dadudemon
YI searched and nothing comes up, nothing official, that states it is a prequel: only that it is a reboot. There are many contradications to why it cannot be a prequel such as nods and homages to the original series that do not make sense if it is a prequel.
I don't consider terms like 'prequel' or 'reboot' as official qualifications given to movies. I just go by 'if it sounds like a duck and it looks like a duck, it probably is a duck'. So the new POTA films are prequels (and also a reboot as such, the two don't contradict)