The sad truth of the prequels...

Not suited for work or children

Honestly: does anyone think that a competent storyteller couldn't do wonderful things with that?!

The Clone Wars series showed me the potential of the story you described. They hit many of the notes the movies missed while still having plenty of action, comic sidekicks, and even Babyfett. In some ways the clone wars made the prequel movies more palatable, in some ways it made me hate them more. Imagine the series' story telling with the movie's budget.

But I keep coming back to the ARC, I want one of those way more than an E-Wing.

All of this.

Except that I want a Typhoon more than an ARC. Don't get me wrong, I love the ARC. My greatest lego-regret is not having the ARC. But I still like the Typhoon more.

Ok so I know this is controversial and it may be the wine talking but I don't think so.

I'm 40 so I lived with the original trilogy and I still seriously think that the prequels have their place in Star Wars law, I know they aren't as good as the originals but they were never going to be.

But they still have fantastic moments in them, apart for the obvious superior lightsaber action, The whole tragic story of Anakins downfall is immense, the dialogue in the battle between Obi-Wan and Anakin just superb. I could go on but really guys I just don't understand the beating these films get I know they are not as good as the originals but at the end of the day they tell a story and it's Star Wars!

I started off in agreement until you listed two of the things I hated most: the cackhanded way Anakins downfall was dealt with, and the god awful dialogue between Anakin and Obi-Wan. Add in Jar-Jar Binks, the cringeworthy romance between Padme and Anakin, and those all too often scenes where the actors are awkwardly trying to interact with a CGI character to finish off the rest of my gripes.

I will say though that the end of Attack of the Clones with the montage of the launching of the republic fleet etc and the contrast of the wedding all to John Williams music was my favourtie scene in the prequels. Its a pity RotS didnt live up to it

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sM12I9qCmo4

The last 2 minutes afterr "begun this clone war has" are to my mind excellent

Red letter media really puts in perspective

just how big of a pile of bantha fodder the

prequels are.

The best thing about the prequels IMO is that the Clone Wars Animated and Clone Wars CGI series exist because of them. Both are great, minus the first season of the latter when they were still trying to get their footing.

I don't appreciate having my "credibility" questioned simply because TESB is not my favorite star wars movie.

I'm not saying I don't like it, just that it's not one of my favorites if I had to rank them. Everyone has their favorite star wars movie and I get their reasons why.

Go look at the movie rankings on places like the theforce.net, you will see every ranking possible on there, it's great.

I've been a huge star wars fan for most of my life, so my opinions are just as "credible" as any other fan's.

I think that the original trilogy is viewed very much through rose tinted spectacles.

It wasn't perfect by a long shot.

If we are talking bad acting then Mark Hamill must come into criticism for his performance; one expression - confused/angry/sad all exactly the same.

If we are talking bad scripting then what was the whole point of that Vader duel on Dagoba in TESB? And the most dangerous species of teddy bear in ROTJ, can completely wipe out the blaster toting Empire with stones and flint spears; seriously? There wasn't even numbers on their side, there was like 30 of them.

No the prequels, with the exception of 12 year old Ani trying to cop off with a 20 year old Padme, the Binks irritation, the rediculous amount of subliminal racism, and the killing off of Maul far too early, okay about 50% of the Phantom Menace, well the next 2 films are actually just as good as the original trilogy.

The downfall of the senate, the rise of the clone army and Palpatine, the fall of Anakin into deperation and dispair, They are all actually quite good with half decent scripting and acting. In no way inferior to the OT.

I must admit to having a Tim from Spaced moment after seeing The Phantom Menance. That movie alone almost destroyed what was once a great trilogy, but the next 2 prequals have more than made up for it.

Christ the Yoda saber battles alone are enough to almost wipe the impage of Binks stumbling about. Almost.

To flat out hate the prequels is nonsense - yes, the acting is awful (Keira Knightley in EP1, dear god..). Yes, the writing is awful ("She died of a broken heart!"). Yes, Yoda jumping around was a gratuitous excuse for CGI...but you must give credit where it was due. There were bits of great acting in it too (I'm looking at you, Christopher Lee), great writing ("You wanna buy some deathsticks?) and great CGI - Arc-170 fighters, pew pew!

This is something we concluded on our movie run on May 4th - all the movies, even the original trilogy, is rife with plotholes and wooden acting. As movies, episodes I-VI are great. As pieces of Star Wars canon, they are all pretty bad. That is where the EU came in.

And that is why I am giving VII a chance.

The fight between Vader and Luke on Dagobah was to show Luke that like Vader, Luke could fall to the dark side if he wasn't mindful of what Yoda was trying to teach him.

I love the original trilogy light saber duels.

In Empire there is a lot going on in between the characters as they duel. Luke is being pushed to his physical limits, and Vader is just toying with him, and finally drops the "I am your father" revelation after he has kicked his ass. Luke is in way over his head.

In Jedi, he has matured and improved his ability. Yet both characters are conflicted on the inside between what they both feel they must do, while battling personal feelings. All the while the Emperor is pulling the strings on both Vader and Luke. Some really great stuff!

I'd much rather see that then a cartoon Yoda flipping around fighting a guy who the film had just introduced not long before that and we know nothing about besides he wants to fight the Republic for... some reason... Yeah not much to get invested in here.

The Episode III fight was WAAY too long, and was obviously just a guy with a fancy computer saying "SEE LOOK AT ALL THE LAVA! LOOK AT ALL THE CRAZY STUNTS THEY ARE DOING!!" It going on for so long lessened the emotional impact. It could have been five minutes long and had the same impact.

And yeah the dialogue during that scene was pretty silly in my opinion. "Only a sith deals in absolutes." Wait what? Isn't that an absolute? And the Grievous fight and Obi-Wan chasing him down had nothing to do with the main plot and point of the story (which was just to get Anakin in the Vader suit).

Eh that's just how I feel about it. More power to you if you liked the prequels.

In the original films, the lightsaber duels serve as a frame for character conflict. When Obi Wan fights Vader in the first movie, it doesn't matter that the action isn't spectacular; the viewers are engaged because we care about Obi Wan, we are getting a glimpse into his past, and he is tying the villain to the heroes.

Any given prequel fight is a just gratuitous use of special effects to wake you up from the thirty minutes of boring dialog that preceded it.

I don't appreciate having my "credibility" questioned simply because TESB is not my favorite star wars movie.

I'm not saying I don't like it, just that it's not one of my favorites if I had to rank them. Everyone has their favorite star wars movie and I get their reasons why.

Go look at the movie rankings on places like the theforce.net, you will see every ranking possible on there, it's great.

I've been a huge star wars fan for most of my life, so my opinions are just as "credible" as any other fan's.

It was meant as a joke. Don't take it personal. I have friends that hate Star Wars and I still talk to them as if they were normal... This was a joke too. I don't really care what the others think of Star Wars or how they rank each episode. To each their own. But it can fuel good conversations.

For me, The Empire Strikes Back is hand down the best of the 6. We get the Battle of Hoth, the Jedi training and Yoda's wisdom, the duel between Luke and Vader where we clearly see that Vader is just playing with Luke and testing where he's at in his training, Lando Calrissian treason and redemption, Asteroid chase, Solo's cleverness in space to escape the imperials and the Falcon malfunctions (might be the fastest, but god is she unreliable! no wonders Han and Chewie are good mecanics..) From start to finish, everything is good. For me, TESB is the essence of Star Wars philosophy.

As for my ranking:

1-TESB

2-ANH

3-ROTJ

4-ROTS

5-...

6-TPM and AOTC

Or that there was some link between Vader and Luke or that Luke was to one day become Vader.

Doesn't remove the fact that it was a bit.... meh and totally had you scratching your head as to what it was all about at the time.

A lot of people are over analysing what was a good original trilogy into the next Bible and finding symbology and subtext when to be honest there probably wasn't any.

As for the prequel lightsabre duels being OTT and filler, pish-tosh.

The Yoda saber battles had just as much character conflict as the OT.

The Obi Wan vs Vader battle in a New Hope was a joke compared to Revenge of the Sith. They were the last 2 Jedi and both reportedly the best lightsaber fighters (save Master Yoda) and it lasted 6 hits before Obi Wan gave up. The prequels gave the fans what they truelly wanted - a sabre fight to rival Luke vs Vader from ROTJ.

The whole tragic story of Anakins downfall is immense, the dialogue in the battle between Obi-Wan and Anakin just superb.

Really? He started as an annoying little brat, then became a creepy stalker, then an angry teenager. At no point did I ever feel any empathy for him so I just didn't care when he 'turned'. Similarly with the Jedi - we never really got to know many of them, so the impact of their slaughter and extinction was much less than it could have been. And don't even get me started on midichlorians . I could go on, but I won't

It would be interesting to see what the demographics are for who think the OT are better than the Prequels.

I watch a lot of movies every year and to be honest I think the prequels are every bit as good as the OT, with the exception of the Phantom Menace, which was good in parts but was generally terrible.

But it does have it's place in setting up the whole chosen one scenario.

If you think about it Anakin was a kid who finds out he is destined to bring balance to the galaxy. He gets cocky and a bit full of himself . Episode 1.

He falls in love with a woman out of his league and his Masters, though impressed by his abilities, try to keep him grounded. His ego builds but is constantly knocked by his peers. Episode 2.

Like every teenager he then rebels against authority and ends up falling in with a bad influence. Palpatine massages his ego and there after everything he does is in general to try and do good but is tainted with evil. Episode 3.

He kills Dooku to try to bring an end to the war. He stops Windu to force Palpatine to go on trial. He does what Palpatine orders to save Padme as by this point he knows his life is over and he must protect his wife and kids.

Poor kid cant catch a break.

It's only because we know he will appear in Episode 4 that we can't really feel what he is going through as we originally watch Episode 3.

I think that the original trilogy is viewed very much through rose tinted spectacles.

It wasn't perfect by a long shot.

If we are talking bad acting then Mark Hamill must come into criticism for his performance; one expression - confused/angry/sad all exactly the same.

If we are talking bad scripting then what was the whole point of that Vader duel on Dagoba in TESB? And the most dangerous species of teddy bear in ROTJ, can completely wipe out the blaster toting Empire with stones and flint spears; seriously? There wasn't even numbers on their side, there was like 30 of them.

No the prequels, with the exception of 12 year old Ani trying to cop off with a 20 year old Padme, the Binks irritation, the rediculous amount of subliminal racism, and the killing off of Maul far too early, okay about 50% of the Phantom Menace, well the next 2 films are actually just as good as the original trilogy.

The downfall of the senate, the rise of the clone army and Palpatine, the fall of Anakin into deperation and dispair, They are all actually quite good with half decent scripting and acting. In no way inferior to the OT.

I must admit to having a Tim from Spaced moment after seeing The Phantom Menance. That movie alone almost destroyed what was once a great trilogy, but the next 2 prequals have more than made up for it.

Christ the Yoda saber battles alone are enough to almost wipe the impage of Binks stumbling about. Almost.

I wrote out a long paragraph about thoughts on what you said. Because I agreed with some of your points. But then realized I'd never be able to communicate my thoughts half as well as someone else.

Please, go to redlettermedia.com and watch Mr. Plinkett's reviews of the prequels. Just click on his name at the top and go to his Star Wars reviews. I highly recommend them to Star Wars fans, and especially anyone interested in film making. You'll appreciate the original trilogy more, and have more insight to prequels. They are long reciews, but very in depth and also very entertaining. In fact I think all Star Wars fans should watch them at least once!

I feel the Red Letter Media reviews have done more to hurt Star Wars than anything Lucas ever did.

I can't count how many people I've read online who said they were kinda on the fence about the prequels, but then watched those reviews and now realize they need to hate them.

If he nitpicked and bashed the OT to death as well I might take his reviews a bit more seriously, or if he admitted it was all a joke to sound like a bitter fanboy. But since neither has happened I'm very disgusted with them.

I'm not saying none of his points are valid, but I think you could nitpick ANY film to death, and make it seem much worse then you originally thought. It's like why even watch movies?

Bad acting. Bad casting. Bad writing. I think that pretty much sums up the gripes.

When you said controversial, I expected it to be something race related, like a Drunk Uncle rant about how Ahmed Best ruined the prequels.

right, because mark hamil and carrie fisher were absolutely amazing in the originals. am i right?

pretty sure the only one to be really successful was harrison ford because he was the only one that could truly act

Bad acting. Bad casting. Bad writing. I think that pretty much sums up the gripes.

When you said controversial, I expected it to be something race related, like a Drunk Uncle rant about how Ahmed Best ruined the prequels.

right, because mark hamil and carrie fisher were absolutely amazing in the originals. am i right?

pretty sure the only one to be really successful was harrison ford because he was the only one that could truly act

Now this is where I have to slightly disagree.

Harrison Ford is playing Harrison Ford. The same character he has played in both Indiana Jones & Star Wars. I would argue that he was cast better then acted better.

He can act, Witness and Blade Runner showed that but to say that he was acting in a New Hope. Nope. He was just better than the other two. Well Hamill really. Fishers part was so small it was hard to tell.

As for the Red Letter Media reviews, I have to firstly say that I have never seen them. Secondly I would say that if I do watch them I will take them with a massive pinch of salt.

I absolutely dispise being told by some film critic (or a designated expert) how I should be viewing something. I cannot watch the new BBC Film show for that reason alone. Two self appointed experts discussing the psychological and metaphorical turmoil inherent in a commercialist state after watching Toy Story 3 get's on my wick.

When you make 6 hours of moving pictures, something is bound to be good. Some shot amongst the thousands is going to look beautiful and some moment is going to provoke a rush of appropriate emotions. The prequels aren't the worst films ever made, not by a long shot, but they're inferior to the original films because they are inferior, not because of expectations or anything. Their principle failing is that they fail to tell the story of Anakin well. On paper, it is a good story (and was a great background story for decades), but the execution was poor. And that's why Revenge of the Sith is the worst of the prequels, where the purpose of the trilogy is rendered so cackhandedly, you wonder why tell it.

I think the point we've missed is Lucas

clearly had to be drinking paint or huffing

dust off when he wrote the prequels over a

long weekend.

I think that the OT really is seen through rose-colored glasses. To put it in perspective: Star Wars was the first movie I saw in a theater (before it was renamed A New Hope ). I've been a fan for a long time, and I love the movies, but I don't think that at their core, they're great filmmaking. The prequels are a lot closer to the OT than most fans would admit.

Are you saying that Lucas wrote the Original Trilogy without drafting the background of 4 of the main characters? I'm not saying that he had everything on paper (Binks was clearly a marketing ploy), but he for certain would have had the timeline of Vader down.

I remember reading somewhere back in the 80's (in an offical piece of literature - possible one of the script books) that Lucas had written a trilogy of trilogies - prequels & sequels to the OT.

It is only recently that I've heard that he is denying ever doing so. I'm thinking that is because with the sale to Disney, they have decided that they want to do something different. That is also the reason why he has been so indifferent to the EU.

Worst thing Lucas did with the prequels (besides Jar Jar ) was killing Maul at the end of Phantom. There is really no continuity between PM and AOTC. Lucas didn't kill of Vader in ANH? Why the hell did he think it would be a good idea to kill Maul in PM?

There literally is no reason to watch PM. There is nothing PM offers as part of the stroy than some introductions to a few characters. But you really already know the important characters. You know who the hell Anakin is, you know Obi-wan, you know Yoda, etc....

There literally is no reason to watch PM. There is nothing PM offers as part of the stroy than some introductions to a few characters. But you really already know the important characters. You know who the hell Anakin is, you know Obi-wan, you know Yoda, etc....

See I agree with this as someone who watched the films in the release order, but to someone younger this isn't necessarily the case.

If you watch the films in order without knowing what and who people are or to become it makes the films totally different.

I agree that killing Darth Maul in the first film was a complete waste of what could have been an excellent foe to both Jedi and Vader.

A 3-way fight between Vader, Obi Wan and Maul in Episode 3 would have been sooooooooo much cooler and would have negated the need for Count Dooku and General Grievus (a shame to lose Christopher Lee but that to me once again looks like a marketing ploy - why have 1 figure when you can have 3?).

Darth Maul could easily have filled the Apprentice role through all the prequels.