But Frenchaise sauce makes for lowsy Eggs Benedict!...

(Another )

I thought we were discussing whether or not the prequels ruined the whole Frenchaise.

Simple answer: they objectively didn't!

Complex answer: Cup of tea, a drop of milk and two sugars please.

Just to bring in some outside opinion on the prequel movies here is the Nostalgia Critic from YouTube.

Everyone has different preferences and although many folk don't like the prequels they will differ on what are the worst parts. As the Nostalgia Critic says there were some good bits in those films and yes we may disagree on exactly which parts were decent, but not every moment in the prequels was bad.

My feelings on the films and the trilogy as a whole

TPM=Flawed but entertaining. I still think Jar-Jar's character needed serious rewriting, and that making Anakin a nine year old was a massive mistake. There are some movies I love with kid heroes but it just doesn't work here because none of those movies involve Nine year olds winning the Indy 500, or jumping into an F-16 and taking out an enemy Battleship/Supercarrier. Which are basically IMO the equivalents of what Anakin did in the movie.

AOTC=The worst of the trilogy by far. It would have been ok but honestly the bad writing and abominable romance scenes killed it. I would have loved to see the Republic fleet fighting through the Separatist defenses en route to drop their troops off but I seriously doubt even the best space battle I've ever seen on screen could have been much help here.

ROTS=Better than AOTC but worse than TPM IMO. The Battle of Coruscant was a massive disappointment. Whereas ROTJ had Endor as an Epic Multifront battle, and showed us what was happening on each front by switching the viewpoint among various cast members ROTS reduced what was probably one of, if not the, biggest battles in galactic history into the Anakin and Obiwan show with guest stars Dooku, Grievious, Palpatine and R2-D2. Than they rushed Anakin's fall, and at times it felt like the Jedi Council was going out of its way to turn Anakin against them. And Palpatine's personality shift from evil mastermind to cackling madman was atrocious.

Overall=I think the trilogy made a number of serious errors. First all of the main heroes were either Jedi, Politicians, or assistants to the above. Second there weren't enough members of the main cast to go around which led directly to my complaints about the Battle of Coruscanr. They couldn't show what was happening elsewhere in the battle because the only main characters who would logically be involved in the battle at the point the film started were concentrated in one group.

Also I think the trilogy needed to be expanded to four or even five films. As it stands after TPM we only see Anakin at his low points. Because of this its very hard to reconcile what we see onscreen in AOTC and ROTS with the description of Anakin that ObiWan gives in ANH. The Clone Wars movie and Series did a great job of fixing that flaw but the fact remains they shouldn't have needed a sidestory film and TV series to show the Anakin of this era described in ANH.

Good

-Art Deco/Flash Gordon stylized look of Coruscant skyline and speeders and such

-General Grievous

-Space Battles

-Lightsaber duels

-Ewan MacGregor's scene with the final confrontation with Anakin mourning his fall to the dark side

-Kamino

-Jango Fett

Bad

-Jar Jar

-The entire Anakin Padme relationship

-Dialogue and acting of Anakin and Padme's characters

-Ground battles

-C3PO

Some of both really. Worth seeing, not great, but they kept the universe alive and expanding.

I'll agree with 2P51, except I think the plot of the ground battles was much better than the space battles...makes me think of that video that asks "why is Anakin even at Naboo instead of in the Jedi Temple learning" in Ep I and suggests Obi-Wan should've been the main character of the PT.

Okay, once more then but this will be the last thing I will say about it.

Now your study-movie example. As with the above, your knowledge lets you recognise and gives you more pegs, so to speak, on which you can put your observations, that is it gives you tools to analyse it differently and with different premisses, but it doesn't make you taste any better and also there is no objectivity in it, nor is it more valid than any other. It is based on taste, and perhaps yours is more refined and educated, but that, when it all comes down to it, is meaningless.

Again with the taste thing? I think I don't need to address this any further right?

So, I have just established I can (and will) take taste out of the equation whenever it is possible, therefor it seems illogical to continue in this vein.

Our discussion basically, and in spite of all the big words and numerous, numerous examples that have flown back and forth just boils down to "It is all a matter of taste" vs. "No, it isn't." Rather a childish discussion if you look at it. Objectively

My interpretation of your statements cannot be untrue

Sure it can. And this is just a cop out as far as I am concerned.

If I would interpret "It is based on taste, and perhaps yours is more refined and educated" as you thinking all Chinese people should be deported from Finland immediately then my interpretation is just plain wrong.

Whether you wife is a good cook or not is irrelevant, I'm referring to how I interpret your statements. I might interpret them "wrong", i.e. not as you intended, but then you have not expressed yourself precisely and clearly enough for me to understand you as you want me to understand you.

So basically, you not understanding my intend is my fault? That's easy! It could also mean that you looked at a statement with a premade mindset and started to inject a tone or intend to my words that isn't there or, you know even simpler, you misread something. Why is it only the speaker that is wrong and not the listener?

Just like you probably think that I'm an arrogant s#it for still discussing this like I do

I don't. But that doesn't mean I agree with you.

Now, your examples I agree with, but that is not how you've come across to me (in this particular exchange of arguments about this topic, today) - however others might also think that I've misunderstood you and then that's my bad, but that is how I've interpreted your statements, because while you've said one thing (not judging people for instance) your statements have seemed, at times, judgemental to me

I guess that is the curse of injecting comedy and color into a conversation and you most likely wanting to read such judgements. It is all good though!

Edit: I do think we should really stop this discussion on these boards, neither of us is going to convince the other and we are clogging up the forum with our continuing back and forth...

There are more things that I dislike about the prequels than like, moreso than some people.

For instance? I really hate the ubiquity of the lightsaber in the prequel trilogy. I don't like the super-flashy, all-over-the-place acrobatic lightsaber fights, and I loathe that Yoda had a lightsaber fight at all. Ever.

I view the prequel trilogy as a dark reflection of the Originals. That is, in terms of quality, they're basically photo negatives:

A New Hope was a bombastic adventure film that did everything it was supposed to do almost perfectly while introducing audiences to an amazing setting in a galaxy far, far away. It wasn't perfect in and of itself, but it piqued our interest. The Phantom Menace bored me to tears, had a nonsensical plot, and added unnecessary details that made the universe feel less interesting (midichlorians). Liam Neeson and Samuel L. Jackson were miscast, and Obi-Wan didn't do anything interesting. A movie ostensibly for children spent too much time focusing on trade disputes, politics, and boring stuff like that. It wasn't the worst, but it tempered our expectations and made cynics out of naive fools.

The Empire Strikes Back was a perfect sequel. The universe got bigger, the stakes got higher. Costumes, sets, and production overall was tighter. New, iconic characters got introduced (Yoda, the Emperor, Billy Dee Williams, Boba Fett). The Imperial March was added! It set the bar for what a Star Wars movie should be, and had the most triumphant "downer ending" possible. Attack of the Clones was a really bad CGI mess. We discover just how unlikable our POV character is, we explored the depths of wooden, faux-romantic dialogue. Jango Fett was a huge disappointment. It was basically the opposite of Empire.

Return of the Jedi was...okay. It capped off the original trilogy, tied up the loose ends. Not as good as the two before it, but certainly not bad. The Ewoks were a thing. Silly, yes, uninteresting, yes. But they didn't derail the whole movie or anything like that. Revenge of the Sith was...not terrible. It tied up the loose ends of the prequel trilogy and led into the originals in somewhat hamfisted, unsubtle ways. It had Wookies instead of Ewoks, which was great, but at the same time it managed to make me hate lightsaber fights (I really hated both fights at the end).

I love how mustache-twirlingly evil Count Dooku, General Grievous, and Darth Sidious are in the prequels. I want my villains in space adventure flicks to be like that. But then, I also missed there being a pure menace character like Vader. Count Dooku tried but bless Christopher Lee's heart he just didn't have enough to work with.

Somebody mentioned earlier on in the thread that midichlorians were Lucas's attempt to ground the universe in a more scientific way, and then defended this. I'm fine with trying to create upper bounds and the like, but remember that in The Force Unleashed, a game that Lucas liked so much that he made it top-tier canon, the main character pulled down a Star Destroyer. This was post midichlorian. Making The Force based in science did nothing to limit its power, it only made it less interesting.

This is where we fundamentally disagree. Going over our interactions earlier I'd say that this little part is what our entire discussion boils down to. You seem to think taste is an indicator for quality and hinders objective judgement or that it is impossible to take it out of the equation and I feel the exact opposite.

I dislike some things I think are good (for instance the paintings of Rembrand, hate them eventhough I find to be good paintings), I hate other things I believe to be good (the movies of Tarkovsky for instance) and love some things I believe to be bad (the music of Lil Wayne comes to mind.)

How is objectivity possible? Tell me how you can distance yourself completely from any and all emotional and subjective factors so that it does not in any way possible affect your thoughts, actions and choice of words? Tell me. Explain it, argue for it (find me a reference if possible), if it's only an opinion that's fine, but then it carries no weight. You examples are not good enough, because they do not offer an explanation, only your opinion and conviction.

The dislike of something you think is "objectively" "good" doesn't make it "objectively" so, that is what symbolic violence references, the belief and acceptance of a (repressive) hegemonic discourse.

Then perhaps there was something wrong with your reading...

Right. Clever ... or there's a combination of the two - I'm not claiming to be perfect, but you seem to be.

Music: Again, you value "taste too much" I do not like Blues for instance but it is undeniable that B. B. King was a better guitar player than Kurt Cobain was, no matter how much more I appreciate Nirvana's music.

Food: This might be the example where I see that you are wrong most of all, if there is ever anything that shows you that taste is in no way an indicator of quality it is here. Quality of food is determined by so many things that are so much more important than "I like it" or "I don't." It is dependend on freshness, sustanance, content, preparation, etc. Just because I dislike tomatoes I can never say they are "bad food" they are not. Objectively. Taste is overrated in such discussions especially since tastes can develop over time or through the right "training".

You continue to avoid seeing the point and distinction between skill and quality. Being the better skilled doesn't automatically mean that what you produce are better, more appreciated and "higher value". That fallacious perspective is part of the reproduction of social stratification. There is nothing inherently "better" or "bad" about something you don't like, whether one or a million people like it, whether they are educated or not. Taste is important, to ignore that is playing straight into the hands of a cultural and dogmatic elitist mindset that is counter productive and causes social stagnation. But sure, a lot people seem to live under this illusion, letting their "betters" tell them what is good and what isn't. It's reactionary and archaic. To recognise the merits of a piece of art is one thing, whether one likes it or not, but to let someone else define the quality as an "objective" fact, is backwards. Taste is the only thing that really matters, the ability to argue for ones taste is secondary, but useful - and here education enters and becomes a force of repression.

So, I have just established I can (and will) take taste out of the equation whenever it is possible, therefor it seems illogical to continue in this vein.

Our discussion basically, and in spite of all the big words and numerous, numerous examples that have flown back and forth just boils down to "It is all a matter of taste" vs. "No, it isn't." Rather a childish discussion if you look at it. Objectively

No. From your point of view, not objectively. Sure you want ignore taste, at your own peril, but this is central to social stratification, social repression, social reproduction of inequality. That I dare say is a (social) scientific fact (look up Pierre Bourdieu). If you don't want to believe it, fine - some people don't want to believe in evolution either.

Sure it can. And this is just a cop out as far as I am concerned.

If I would interpret "It is based on taste, and perhaps yours is more refined and educated" as you thinking all Chinese people should be deported from Finland immediately then my interpretation is just plain wrong.

Now you're just being silly and avoiding the issue. As I said, my interpretation is true, whether or not it fits with your intention is a different matter. The distinction is important.

So basically, you not understanding my intend is my fault? That's easy! It could also mean that you looked at a statement with a premade mindset and started to inject a tone or intend to my words that isn't there or, you know even simpler, you misread something. Why is it only the speaker that is wrong and not the listener?

No, of course it's not that simple. Misreading happens, but of course one tries to understand and get what the other is saying, but communication 101: what one has said is what the other heard. A basic premise to this is that both are interested in understanding each other and having a conversation/discussion that is productive (ulterior motives degrades the discussion to something else entirely). So, instead of telling the recipients they are wrong, one could for instance say, "that's not what I meant, but this is what I meant" and then explain it in a different, perhaps clearer way. It's less confrontational and accusing. I'm trying to understand you, not find faults or points of attack, so when I do interpret something of what you said, it's nice to be corrected in a nice way, not by "you're wrong" or "that's untrue!" - that would be less than productive. Sure, I can probably try harder, but so can apparently you.

Edit: I do think we should really stop this discussion on these boards, neither of us is going to convince the other and we are clogging up the forum with our continuing back and forth...

You're probably right.

cool thesis, bros.

My issues with the prequels stem more from the fact that the story wasn't what I thought it would be. I didn't really feel Anakin fell to the Dark side rather than went there because the script said he did. I also had the impression that the Jedi fought the clone army and lost, hence the rise of the Empire. But those were my issues. I found the movies real pretty though.

_{As I read the title of this thread I have decided to give those here a little food for thought:}

_{A young man on a desolate world is rescued from a life of boredom by this man due to his own unique abilities. However, just as their adventure begins it is cut short as the young man's teacher is killed and he must now make his way through life and the galatic conflict he is thrust into with little direction. As time goes on the young man learns the ways of the wizard slowly and at times clumsily and dangerously. He is given guidance by another wizard who helps him develop his abilities but perhaps of his lack of affection or just that he is who he is the young man often acts recklessly and often doesn't listen to his master. As time continues on he becomes stronger and more skilled thinking of himself more than he is perhaps at times, and pulls off daring rescues. FInally, he reaches the end of his journey where he must face down his adversary who he has grown to care for and in a lot of way loves like his own blood. In the end though only one can be victorious and the other made to die.}

_{So which movies am I talking of the PT or the OT? Think about it and we shall see what the answers are.}

_{I do have an observation fo the PT in which I thought the lightsaber combats were great but almost entirely one sided if you look at all six movies. To be honest as bad ass as people think Jedi are they sure do get killed and maimed ALOT (this also includes the Clone Wars cartoons too if you like)}

--snip--

Bull, while I hear you, I'm not sure I agree with you. For instance, The Phantom Menace wasn't about Anakin. It was about...Qui-Gon, I guess? It was confusing, one way or the other.

Now I grant you that Attack and Revenge were about Anakin, but that doesn't mean that they were like the Original Trilogy at all. Even those weren't primarily about Luke, there was a lot going on around him and involving entirely different people. He spends most of Empire Strikes Back on Dagobah while the real action is happening around Han and Leia.

And then there's the question of which one did it better, and the answer is overwhelmingly the original trilogy. And had more likable characters.

http://www.giantfreakinrobot.com/scifi/star-wars-prequel-trilogy-good.html

I think the PT IS good. At least no worse than A New Hope. ANH is so **** slow and boring with the worst lightsaber fight and the worse space battle. Ugh. Plus Luke is just as annoying as Jar Jar in ANH. No thanks.

One thing the prequels did not lack for is cool lightsaber battles. They were actually quite thrilling IMO. I hope that tradition will carry forward to the new films.

One thing the prequels did not lack for is cool lightsaber battles. They were actually quite thrilling IMO. I hope that tradition will carry forward to the new films.

While I agree that they were choreographed well and were very fast, I preferred every lightsaber fight from the OT to ones in the PT. Yes that includes Obi-Wan and Vader's in A New Hope. I prefer them because there is a good reason for them to be there in the narrative, and none of them overstay their welcome.

For instance, while it looks pretty, the fight in The Phantom Menace is one of my least favourite because right before it there's a BS command from Qui-Gon for the Naboo troopers to stay away and "We'll handle this". Tension destroyed, and I was pulled out of the movie because I could tell that Lucas just wanted a Jedi fight but couldn't think of a better way to separate the characters.

For instance, while it looks pretty, the fight in The Phantom Menace is one of my least favourite because right before it there's a BS command from Qui-Gon for the Naboo troopers to stay away and "We'll handle this". Tension destroyed, and I was pulled out of the movie because I could tell that Lucas just wanted a Jedi fight but couldn't think of a better way to separate the characters.

Huh. IMHO, that comes off a bit like a "trying to find something to not like about it" opinion.

Qui-Gon, as I interpreted it, was saying, "This guy is way too badass for you guys to handle. We are training for this. You'll just get yourselves killed and/or get in our way. So best you go make yourselves useful somewhere else while we take care of this scary mofo."

And I thought it was one of the most epic and cool of any lightsaber fight in any of the films.

But to each their own...

I really hated how lightsaber fights turned into parkour kung fu matches versus the OT fights which alternated between fencing and hammering each other with broadsword-style blows. I think the fights in TPH stayed kind of true to the old-school, and then AotC threw that out the window. Especially with Yoda, but virtually everyone was an offender, and that continued into TCW (which if viewed from the lens of a Republic propaganda piece, makes more sense portraying their military leadership as high-flying larger-than-life heroes for morale purposes).

I mean I see how it makes sense, using the Force, for Jedi to more ably fight in 3 dimensions when most of their foes cannot do that. It's an advantage they would be stupid not to exploit. Just, after all the EU I read in the 90s before the PT came out, lightsaber fighting was never once described like it was portrayed especially in Ep II/III (and no I don't care that it's no longer canon, that's besides the point).

The prequels showed us that George Lucas is a great idea man, but he is a poor writer and lazy director.

George Lucas wasn't this powerhouse figure when the original movies came out. if he had a poor idea, other people involved in the movie would tell him so. When the prequels were being made, he was surrounded by 'Yes' men who wouldn't question him on anything, because they were scared of losing their job.

Remember, Alec Guniness wouldn't do the original movie until the writing was fixed.

I don't know how late to this party I am but...

The pt can't be objectively bad because then we'd all agree. Maybe it is because I was 8, I think, when I first saw them, i remember them being fun.... But I don't think I cared about a story. When I go back to them, I'm disappointed by them. The story and acting are terrible. There are way too many holes in the story and about as many events that seem to happen just because the script says so and no one thought about why when they wrote it. 8 year old me didn't notice. 15 year old me does.

So, as I've said before, I was the target audience. I think the original trilogy was aimed at kids, too, but managed to pull the inner child out of the older audience. The prequels just didn't have whatever magic the originals did to do the same.

Huh. IMHO, that comes off a bit like a "trying to find something to not like about it" opinion.

Qui-Gon, as I interpreted it, was saying, "This guy is way too badass for you guys to handle. We are training for this. You'll just get yourselves killed and/or get in our way. So best you go make yourselves useful somewhere else while we take care of this scary mofo."

And I thought it was one of the most epic and cool of any lightsaber fight in any of the films.

But to each their own...

I promise it's not. I wanted, and still want, to like The Phantom Menace, at least more than the other prequels. It's the one that feels the most like the original trilogy (probably because it uses real goddamn sets), and Naboo was one of the more interesting planets.

But...there was so much about that particular scene that felt like it was there for the sake of it being there. Like Lucas said, "I want a fight between the Jedi and this badass Sith guy, but I can't be arsed to think of a good way to get them from A to B. Whatever, flashiness."

I'll gladly watch the fight on YouTube or something. But for what's supposed to be a scene in a movie it just felt jarring. Like a battle in a Final Fantasy game or something.

For instance, while it looks pretty, the fight in The Phantom Menace is one of my least favourite because right before it there's a BS command from Qui-Gon for the Naboo troopers to stay away and "We'll handle this". Tension destroyed, and I was pulled out of the movie because I could tell that Lucas just wanted a Jedi fight but couldn't think of a better way to separate the characters.

How about, he needed to gauge what the Sith knew since he had one short fight with him before and determine how much of a threat he was to the Jedi order. Or, the Nabooian security force had better things to do than to try to fight a Sith lord who would probably kill at least half of them, like get the queen to the throne room and retake the palace to destabilize the Trade Federations center of command on the ground and capture Gunray. As for the fights being "flashy," yeah that's what fights using force powers are. If you have something that you can use to your advantage in a fight, you use it. If that means using the force to make crazy jumps, swing harder, etc. then you do it. It's even part of the teaching for various combat forms for lightsabers. And the only reason they can fight with them in the first place as well as they can is because of the Force. And most of the fights serve a purpose in the narrative. Sure, they are used to make us like Jedi more, but that is part of the narrative for the fall of Anakin.

Also, in response to the midichlorian comment from your previous post, yes, Starkiller pulled down a star destroyer, with the help of a cannon that was blasting away at it throughout the fight and it was a star destroyer that was already damaged when fleeing from an exploding space station. Yes, it was still a bit overkill, but that is one of the few instances of something like that happening and almost all games made it to be "official canon" though if you look into it now, The Force Unleashed is not canon and has not been for at least a year.

As for your comparison of the PT to the OT, it is rather obvious that you see the OT through rose tinted glasses since you so fell in love with them. They aren't as perfect as you describe them. I'm not saying they're bad (I wouldn't be a fan if they were), however you are making an unfair comparison of the PT to something that is on a pedestal in your mind instead of seeing them for their flaws and strengths. It honestly just seems like you want to find reasons to hate the PT because it changed things about the OT from your childhood.

As for your comparison of the PT to the OT, it is rather obvious that you see the OT through rose tinted glasses since you so fell in love with them. They aren't as perfect as you describe them. I'm not saying they're bad (I wouldn't be a fan if they were), however you are making an unfair comparison of the PT to something that is on a pedestal in your mind instead of seeing them for their flaws and strengths. It honestly just seems like you want to find reasons to hate the PT because it changed things about the OT from your childhood.

I can understand why you came to this conclusion, but I was 12 when The Phantom Menace came out, and just as much as a sci-fi adventure fan then as when I first saw the OT. I acknowledge that the OT was not perfect. And I've tried to find good in the PT. I just honestly don't think they're good movies.

And you know what? It's cool that you like them. They're just not for me.