Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

corny scenes, hammy dialogue, over reliance on special effects... I'm talking about the Star Wars original trilogy of course...

these and more issues are some of the problems of the OT and the PT shares some of the same issues so why had the OT been given a pass and the PT hasnt?

Is it all just nostalgia holding it together or is there something inherently different about these movies compared to one another?

Originally posted by relentless1
nostalgia

Bingo.

Lol...at him pointing out the dialogue in these movies, Never was about suppose A+ grade dialogue.

Originally posted by relentless1
corny scenes, hammy dialogue, over reliance on special effects... I'm talking about the Star Wars original trilogy of course...

these and more issues are some of the problems of the OT and the PT shares some of the same issues so why had the OT been given a pass and the PT hasnt?

Is it all just nostalgia holding it together or is there something inherently different about these movies compared to one another?

These and many other points are why it the PT haters are just a bunch of whiny hypocrites.


One of the stupidest arguments about the PT being bad is the complaining about the politics being boring. It is like they never paid attention to the OT politics, at all. They are central to the OT and the OT is rife with them.

Anyway, I just call it "blankie syndrome." It is the same thing small children do as they get older. They can't let go of their "blankie" and still hold onto it for years as though it is the best thing ever.

Blankie syndrome is not just for Star Wars. There are many other instances where people think the "beginning" movies/games/books are better than the sequels or prequels.

Some people just HATE prequels of all kinds, like Queeq, because it messes with their creative vision and world building they do in their own mind. I think that is fair. If something comes along and destroys something they imagined while watching/reading, it can be quite irritating. Some people really enjoy using their imagination to fill in the gaps or write back stories to their favorite story.

It is nostalgia plain and simple. Im sure you'll hear some of the crybabies tell you why it's difference but they are lying to themselves.

Originally posted by dadudemon

One of the stupidest arguments about the PT being bad is the complaining about the politics being boring. It is like they never paid attention to the OT politics, at all. They are central to the OT and the OT is rife with them.



Yes, politics is boring to watch. Especially when it's visually unnecessary to watch in a sci-fi movie.

Politics was a plot device in the OT. There was no need to waste time with scenes of the senate meeting or Jedis gathered to whinge about their diminishing status.

And who really cared about a trade embargo when there's no mention of the actual plight it would lead to?

Originally posted by dadudemon
Some people just HATE prequels of all kinds, like Queeq, because it messes with their creative vision and world building they do in their own mind. I think that is fair. If something comes along and destroys something they imagined while watching/reading, it can be quite irritating. Some people really enjoy using their imagination to fill in the gaps or write back stories to their favorite story.

Oooh... getting personal again.

I liked Godfather II... that was part prequel and that was really damn good. It can be done but only if you consider it as a separate movie with a real story, without depending on the original (or its pre-existing sequels).

Here are some prequels I liked a lot (proving you wrong, dadudemon!):
Monsters University
Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom
Casino Royale
Batman Begins
X-Men: First Class
Rise of the Planet of the Apes

Originally posted by queeq
Monsters University

What? No sense of humour?

Originally posted by relentless1
Is it all just nostalgia holding it together or is there something inherently different about these movies compared to one another?


Originally posted by Khazra Reborn
Bingo.


Yes. It is Nostaliga but it is that exact NOSTALGIA that have lead to all of the Modern Movies being big Blockbusters....even tho they suck bantha balls.

Originally posted by queeq

Here are some prequels I liked a lot (proving you wrong, dadudemon!):
Monsters University
Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom
Casino Royale
Batman Begins
X-Men: First Class
Rise of the Planet of the Apes

Begins, Royale and Rise aren't prequels they are reboots

Nostalgia+likeable characters.

Actually I would say its more of Likable Characters = Nostalgia.

Plinkett's review of the prequels does a good job of telling us the differences between the films. People just are more engaged with the characters from the OT.

The prequels seem dull and sterile.

Rots was awesome. That was a prequel.

Originally posted by quanchi112
Rots was awesome. That was a prequel.

Sure it was Skippy... Sure it was..

Originally posted by quanchi112
Rots was awesome. That was a prequel.

If you delete every love scene with Anakin and Padme, sure.

Originally posted by Flyattractor
Sure it was Skippy... Sure it was.. It is awesome. My ou have terrible taste and should self harm yourself ASAP.

Originally posted by Surtur
If you delete every love scene with Anakin and Padme, sure. Its still an awesome film. You don't have my great taste, serf.

Originally posted by relentless1
corny scenes, hammy dialogue, over reliance on special effects... I'm talking about the Star Wars original trilogy of course...

these and more issues are some of the problems of the OT and the PT shares some of the same issues so why had the OT been given a pass and the PT hasnt?

Is it all just nostalgia holding it together or is there something inherently different about these movies compared to one another?

Corn, ham and cheese factors are something that often do better in the first outing than in follow ups. Not saying it's right or wrong; it just is.

Having said that, there are some people who do the opposite, they'll praise the newer films; yet smash the OT for the same factors they've enjoyed the newer films for. Granted, these people are few compared to the PT/Newer film bashers, but they do exist.

Originally posted by Surtur
If you delete every love scene with Anakin and Padme, sure.

Oh be thankful they cut as much as they did.

If you have seen the Special Features Cut Scenes....You will know what I am talking about....

I actually think we would have benefitted from a lot of the deleted scenes being put back in...specifically the seeds of rebellion sub plot

Originally posted by Surtur
If you delete every love scene with Anakin and Padme, sure.

You can always skip those.

Originally posted by queeq


Here are some prequels I liked a lot (proving you wrong, dadudemon!):
Monsters University
Rise of the Planet of the Apes

Bit of mistake here for Monsters university, Monsters Inc Sully tells mike that he's been jealous of his good looks since 4th grade, bit of a continuity error there

Is Rise of the planet of the apes really a prequel? Thought it was more part of a reboot

Originally posted by StiltmanFTW
You can always skip those.

I sure can, but when discussing the quality of a film I feel it best all scenes get included in such a discussion. Thus it would be wrong for me to not even consider the shitty love scenes.

Originally posted by Surtur
I sure can, but when discussing the quality of a film I feel it best all scenes get included in such a discussion. Thus it would be wrong for me to not even consider the shitty love scenes.

True.

Originally posted by steverules_2
Bit of mistake here for Monsters university, Monsters Inc Sully tells mike that he's been jealous of his good looks since 4th grade, bit of a continuity error there

Is Rise of the planet of the apes really a prequel? Thought it was more part of a reboot

So continuity errors made Monsters University less enjoyable? All the SW PT have serious, really serious continuity errors. But the PT lovers don't like us mentioning them.

And Rise... technically it is a prequel. So is Dawn and War... they all predate the original POTA chronologically and its sequels. So yes, it certainly IS a prequel series. And in doing so it is also a reboot. In that way it's identical to the SW PT: a prequel series. Except the new POTA movies actually make sense and are damn good (so far).

Originally posted by queeq
So continuity errors made Monsters University less enjoyable? All the SW PT have serious, really serious continuity errors. But the PT lovers don't like us mentioning them.

And Rise... technically it is a prequel. So is Dawn and War... they all predate the original POTA chronologically and its sequels. So yes, it certainly IS a prequel series. And in doing so it is also a reboot. In that way it's identical to the SW PT: a prequel series. Except the new POTA movies actually make sense and are damn good (so far).

Never said it made it less enjoyable. I enjoyed monsters university. And yes the Star wars PT did have plenty of continuity errors but I didn't wanna state the obvious.

Originally posted by queeq
Oooh... getting personal again.

It was a compliment.

I mean, really? Seriously.



Stop looking for reasons to argue. This thread is a trigger topic for both you and me, obviously.

Originally posted by queeq
Here are some prequels I liked a lot (proving you wrong, dadudemon!):

I don't remember posting that you hate all prequels, only that you hate prequels of all kinds.

Originally posted by Robtard
Having said that, there are some people who do the opposite, they'll praise the newer films; yet smash the OT for the same factors they've enjoyed the newer films for. Granted, these people are few compared to the PT/Newer film bashers, but they do exist.


I have never seen this person. Unless you're talking about Quanchi?

Originally posted by queeq
So continuity errors made Monsters University less enjoyable? All the SW PT have serious, really serious continuity errors. But the PT lovers don't like us mentioning them.

And Rise... technically it is a prequel. So is Dawn and War... they all predate the original POTA chronologically and its sequels. So yes, it certainly IS a prequel series. And in doing so it is also a reboot. In that way it's identical to the SW PT: a prequel series. Except the new POTA movies actually make sense and are damn good (so far).

Well...no...it is a reboot. It is pretty good, though.

Originally posted by queeq

And Rise... technically it is a prequel. So is Dawn and War... they all predate the original POTA chronologically and its sequels. So yes, it certainly IS a prequel series. And in doing so it is also a reboot. In that way it's identical to the SW PT: a prequel series. Except the new POTA movies actually make sense and are damn good (so far).

Yep, Even the Icarus ship which Charlton Heston character was on in POTA. Got a mention in Rise of the Planet of the Apes It got launched.

The OT are legitimately better films. All the negatives people say the OT shares with the PT, however valid, miss the point that the OT has far less of them.

The OT has largely better acting. Better scripts. Better direction. Better pacing. The only thing it really lacks behind on is effects, imo.

The PT does have good to it, but the OT still holds up today far better than the PT will in 10-20 years imo.

The PT wasn't that bad but I have to admit they're not as good as the OT. For me, Revenge Of The Sith was the best in the PT since it connected to Episode 4 of the OT.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Well...no...it is a reboot. It is pretty good, though.

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).

Originally posted by Igniz
The PT wasn't that bad but I have to admit they're not as good as the OT. For me, Revenge Of The Sith was the best in the PT since it connected to Episode 4 of the OT.

Despite the fact that even ROTS failed on the main plot points i.e. Anakin's fall to the Dark Side, which was utterly ridiculous?

The trouble with the PT was it was made by an old Out of Touch Grandpa who was trying to make something Dem Der Kids would Like and wouldn't listen to any one telling him he was being an old fart head.


But we still love ya Granpa Georgie!!!!!!!!

This is all subjective and the hypocrisy has been duly noted.

Originally posted by quanchi112
This is all subjective and the hypocrisy has been duly noted.

https://lindanee.files.wordpress.com/2015/01/black-kettle.jpg

Originally posted by Surtur
https://lindanee.files.wordpress.com/2015/01/black-kettle.jpg My opinion has always been my own. it isn't a fact but it's a highly informed, amazing opinion. I can't say the same for the peons out there such as yourself.

Originally posted by quanchi112
My opinion has always been my own. it isn't a fact but it's a highly informed, amazing opinion. I can't say the same for the peons out there such as yourself.

Your opinion being your own has little to do with hypocrisy. Nobody cares.

Anakin

Originally posted by Surtur
Your opinion being your own has little to do with hypocrisy. Nobody cares. Then tell me how I'm being hypocritical, trumps little minion. And you care since you responded.

its been stated many times in many interviews that ROTPOTA is a reboot not a prequel despite what you may think

Stated by whom? It IS a prequel.

read any article pertaining to the series and you'll see that Super Wyatt and the studio and anybody else whos reported on these films since 2011 have referred to them as a REBOOT; not a prequel which is a different concept altogether

Is it now? It's no different than the SW PT.

It's a prequel series and as such a reboot of the franchise, POTA brand. But it has certainly remained loyal so far to the story of the original movie with Charlton Heston, referring to the space flight taking off in Rise.

If its a reboot, Then why does the Icarus get a mention then?

no clue man, just going by what the creators of the film have to say about it...

Feel like that they're talking shit.

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.

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)

Soft reboot.

Well, TFA is more of a soft reboot. POTA is reboot by prequel.

Originally posted by relentless1
corny scenes, hammy dialogue, over reliance on special effects... I'm talking about the Star Wars original trilogy of course...

these and more issues are some of the problems of the OT and the PT shares some of the same issues so why had the OT been given a pass and the PT hasnt?

Is it all just nostalgia holding it together or is there something inherently different about these movies compared to one another?

The OT has never received a pass on it's weaknesses. The OT has always always been scrutinized for cheesy dialogue and occasional over the top acting. Although, i've never heard a complaint on the CGI direction. However, this wasn't a complaint that was said about the PT either. The only complaints about the effects in the PT Is that they often look like shit and the abandonment of practical effects.
The problems in the Original trilogy aren't compromising and are much fewer and far between. Unlike the Prequels the original movies did alot right. They also revolutionized a genre of film making, so they'll always be remembered for that first.

True.