Star Wars: The Complete Saga (1977-2005)

[EddieLarkin]

The later two films attempts at relating to the overall story are diabolically bad though

[ozzsoad]

It amuses how blinded a lot of people are by nostalgia. The original Star Wars trilogy isn't as perfect as everyone makes them out to be. They're great movies, but if you actually watch them the same cynical way you do the prequels, you'll find they have many faults. Return of the Jedi for example has just as many faults as any of the prequels. Anyone who disagrees is fooling themselves. People have no problems pointing out everything wrong with the prequels yet ignore anything wrong the first trilogy, I find that funny.

[stvn1974]

I actually like The Phantom Menace also. Attack Of The Clones is not only a crime against cinema but humanity. Revenge Of The Sith is half good half crap.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by ozzsoad

It amuses how blinded a lot of people are by nostalgia. The original Star Wars trilogy isn't as perfect as everyone makes them out to be. They're great movies, but if you actually watch them the same cynical way you do the prequels, you'll find they have many faults. Return of the Jedi for example has just as many faults as any of the prequels. Anyone who disagrees is fooling themselves. People have no problems pointing out everything wrong with the prequels yet ignore anything wrong the first trilogy, I find that funny.

I feel the same way, but the originals ARE better movies by dint of their charm and charisma, something which is sorely lacking from the cold, calculating, computer-aided precision of the prequels.

[HylianBowcaster]

Originally Posted by EddieLarkin

The later two films attempts at relating to the overall story are diabolically bad though

Considering the other two films have more to do with the central character of the PT, Anakin/Vader, I think they do a good job linking with the OT. TPM's only allusion to the OT is really Palpatine and the downfall of the Senate, which is also better carried out in the next two films. Sith in particular relates to the OT hugely more than TPM, I don't see how it's links are "diabolically bad". Maybe you could elaborate on that more.

[octagon]

Originally Posted by ozzsoad

It amuses how blinded a lot of people are by nostalgia.

Ahhh, this takes me back to the first time I read this argument.

Good times.

[EddieLarkin]

Originally Posted by HylianBowcaster

Considering the other two films have more to do with the central character of the PT, Anakin/Vader, I think they do a good job linking with the OT. TPM's only allusion to the OT is really Palpatine and the downfall of the Senate, which is also better carried out in the next two films. Sith in particular relates to the OT hugely more than TPM, I don't see how it's links are "diabolically bad". Maybe you could elaborate on that more.

My biggest beef is the characterisation of Anakin. In the OT Obi-Wan remembers him as a "good friend" yet in the PT he is nothing but a petulant little *******, that Obi-wan is constantly frustrated with.

I always figured that his turn to the dark side would be similar to the Emperor's attempts at turning Luke in Jedi. The Emperor seems pretty confident that Luke will turn, even though he's a complete goody-two-shoes, once Luke realises all is lost for the rebellion and is consumed by hatred.

"You underestimate the power of the Dark Side". As in, the dark side is so powerful that I'll kill my only son regardless of how conflicted I am about it. I always figured Anakin was a truly good person like his son that got seduced and then trapped by the dark side. This is really the only impression you can take from the OT.

Yet in the PT, he's just a complete bastard who murders children in anger. He was built for the dark side, and it's shocking none of the other Jedi saw it coming (even though they were prophesying about the danger of Anakin right from the beginning).

So sure, the later two films have a lot to do with a central character from the OT, but writing that character in a way that doesn't match up to his characterisation in the OT is, in my opinion, diabolically bad.

[motorheadache95]

Originally Posted by ozzsoad

It amuses how blinded a lot of people are by nostalgia. The original Star Wars trilogy isn't as perfect as everyone makes them out to be. They're great movies, but if you actually watch them the same cynical way you do the prequels, you'll find they have many faults. Return of the Jedi for example has just as many faults as any of the prequels. Anyone who disagrees is fooling themselves. People have no problems pointing out everything wrong with the prequels yet ignore anything wrong the first trilogy, I find that funny.

Nah, the prequels are way worse films, IMO. Nostalgia has nothing to do with it. The only argument I could even see at all is comparing the OT's weakest film "Jedi" with the prequel's best film "Sith." Even then I prefer RotJ, because I think the film has a brilliant finale (except for the ruined version on the Blu-Ray), whereas I felt that RotS had a strong few final moments but dropped the ball story-wise with Anakin's transformation.

But comparing Episodes I and II to the likes of the OT is a joke. Those don't just pale in comparison to the original films, they are just horrible, horrible films in their own right.

[ahossein79]

Look it is mind blowing and sad that people are arguing over SUBJECTIVE quality of the films for over 2100 pages. This goes to the bashers and the fans of the prequels, people aren't going to agree with the opposing view point, I see no point to debating the merits of these films. My mind is 100% made up on what I think about Star Wars I am sure everyone else here feels the same. Arguing over this leads down a endless road with no end.....

[motorheadache95]

Originally Posted by ahossein79

Look it is mind blowing and sad that people are arguing over SUBJECTIVE quality of the films for over 2100 pages. This goes to the bashers and the fans of the prequels, people aren't going to agree with the opposing view point, I see no point to debating the merits of these films. My mind is 100% made up on what I think about Star Wars I am sure everyone else here feels the same. Arguing over this leads down a endless road with no end.....

I'm fine with it as long as people don't resort to insults or being mean spirited about it. Star Wars is a big deal for a lot of people and that is why discussions and arguments go on much longer than most films. But yeah, sometimes it can get pretty nasty.

[Sith]

Originally Posted by EddieLarkin

My biggest beef is the characterisation of Anakin. In the OT Obi-Wan remembers him as a "good friend" yet in the PT he is nothing but a petulant little *******, that Obi-wan is constantly frustrated with.

I always figured that his turn to the dark side would be similar to the Emperor's attempts at turning Luke in Jedi. The Emperor seems pretty confident that Luke will turn, even though he's a complete goody-two-shoes, once Luke realises all is lost for the rebellion and is consumed by hatred.

"You underestimate the power of the Dark Side". As in, the dark side is so powerful that I'll kill my only son regardless of how conflicted I am about it. I always figured Anakin was a truly good person like his son that got seduced and then trapped by the dark side. This is really the only impression you can take from the OT.

Yet in the PT, he's just a complete bastard who murders children in anger. He was built for the dark side, and it's shocking none of the other Jedi saw it coming (even though they were prophesying about the danger of Anakin right from the beginning).

So sure, the later two films have a lot to do with a central character from the OT, but writing that character in a way that doesn't match up to his characterisation in the OT is, in my opinion, diabolically bad.

I disagree so much with what you said. First let me say I prefer the OT. But almost every paragraph you wrote I don't see what you mean.

You say it looks bad that in the OT OB1 considered him a "good friend" but in the PT he's a little !~@#$. In the PT OB1 says Anakin saved his life like 8 or 9times (I may forget the exact #). Anakin goes to Genosis to save OB1 and Anakin saves him from Dooku before he's going to kill him in Episode II. He caries his limp body off the ship in Episode III. Despite his immature behavior at times, loyalty, and always being there to save his Master would of course lead OB1 to call him a good friend.

As to the rest of your statements. Jedi don't get trapped by the Dark Side, they choose to turn. They choose the way of the Dark Side. At that moment the Jedi are the enemy, period. Killing the children in the temple is just being opportunistic and handling Sith business the way it is always handled. Ruthlessly, with no mercy.

[Canuck21]

Originally Posted by ozzsoad

It amuses how blinded a lot of people are by nostalgia. The original Star Wars trilogy isn't as perfect as everyone makes them out to be. They're great movies, but if you actually watch them the same cynical way you do the prequels, you'll find they have many faults. Return of the Jedi for example has just as many faults as any of the prequels. Anyone who disagrees is fooling themselves. People have no problems pointing out everything wrong with the prequels yet ignore anything wrong the first trilogy, I find that funny.

Nobody is saying ROTJ is perfect, but despite its imperfections, it's still miles better than the best of the prequels.

[JamesKurtovich]

Originally Posted by ahossein79

Look it is mind blowing and sad that people are arguing over SUBJECTIVE quality of the films for over 2100 pages. This goes to the bashers and the fans of the prequels, people aren't going to agree with the opposing view point, I see no point to debating the merits of these films. My mind is 100% made up on what I think about Star Wars I am sure everyone else here feels the same. Arguing over this leads down a endless road with no end.....

Might as well cancel your forum membership then.

Way more problems with the prequels than any of the originals. Even ROTJ. For example, we care about what's happening during intense scenes in the OT. Not so much with any of the prequels.. compare the Luke/Vader fight with the Maul/Qui-Gon/Ben fight or the Dooku/Yoda fight. Or compare the escape from the Death Star in ANH to the escape from Naboo through the blockade in TPM. One gripped you and one challenged your ability to pay attention.

[HeavyHitter]

Get rid of JJ Binks and replace Hayden Christensen with just an average actor and you have significantly improved the prequels.

[HylianBowcaster]

Originally Posted by JamesKurtovich

Might as well cancel your forum membership then.

Way more problems with the prequels than any of the originals. Even ROTJ. For example, we care about what's happening during intense scenes in the OT. Not so much with any of the prequels.. compare the Luke/Vader fight with the Maul/Qui-Gon/Ben fight or the Dooku/Yoda fight. Or compare the escape from the Death Star in ANH to the escape from Naboo through the blockade in TPM. One gripped you and one challenged your ability to pay attention.

I don't think you can really write off all the PT fights so easily. The PT has the one of the most meaningful fights between Anakin and Obi-wan. This only fights that were more engaging were the Luke/Vader fights in Empire and Jedi. There's no way you could tell me that the Obi-wan fight from A New Hope is more enthralling than this fight. By the time of ANH's duel we don't even know much about Obi-wan there's hardly any back story to the two combatants if you ignore the PT, as some people seem fit.

[HD Goofnut]

Originally Posted by heavyhitter

get rid of jj binks and replace hayden christensen with just an average actor and you have significantly improved the prequels.

+1.

[JayFank]

Lucas is still behind the camera and penning the script. lulz

[Indyjones]

Originally Posted by HD Goofnut

+1.

+2

Originally Posted by JayFank

Lucas is still behind the camera and penning the script. lulz

True, but Lucas also had compitent help in the screenwriting dept. in the OT with Kasden, and also had Kirschner and Kurtz to help flesh out his story and question him. In the PT, Lucas had none of that, he was on his own. It's also true that many of the things we criticize the PT about, are also found in the OT. Simply put, the OT was better executed - namely ANH and TESB. When Lucas has back against the wall and his career potentially on the line, like it was with every film of his up through Raiders, that's when we got the best from him. Sadly, the Lucas we all grew to love and admire, died sometime between Raiders and Jedi. That's when Lucas turned from filmmaker to businessman. Looking back at where he was in his life back then, I can kinda see why, but after all of these years, he forgot how to execute his ideas. I don't know....maybe with these personal films Lucas is now gonna tackle, presumably, we might get a glimpse of the old George, if they even see the light of day.

[ZoetMB]

Originally Posted by EddieLarkin

My biggest beef is the characterisation of Anakin. In the OT Obi-Wan remembers him as a "good friend" yet in the PT he is nothing but a petulant little *******, that Obi-wan is constantly frustrated with.

While I realize that Lucas didn't plan it this way because Anakin was not originally going to be Vader, here's the rationale: In the OT, Obi-Wan is constantly lying to Luke. This is just one more lie. How can he gain Luke's support if he tells him that his father was actually a murderous traitor and that he was responsible for turning his father into a machine. So he lies to him and says he was a good friend. And for a time, he actually was a good friend. But in retrospect, when you look at Guinness' performance, he does look like he's lying. He doesn't say that line with very much conviction. That's obviously a coincidence, but it works.

As for Anakin, people always complain about the characterization, but it's a petulant little bastard who would grow up to be a fascist paranoid killer, although the Vader in the OT actually seems psychologically healthier than Anakin does in Episodes II and III. What the film leaves out is how Anakin changed from the cute kid to the paranoid egotist. Of course, everyone becomes unrecognizable when they go through puberty, but Lucas doesn't let us see that because he has to spend ten minutes on a stupid race.

Originally Posted by EddieLarkin

Yet in the PT, he's just a complete bastard who murders children in anger. He was built for the dark side, and it's shocking none of the other Jedi saw it coming (even though they were prophesying about the danger of Anakin right from the beginning).

Think about it: The Jedi didn't see anything coming. The Jedi were a complete failure. The fact that they were a failure actually makes the films more interesting. Because you can begin to ask the question as to whether the beliefs of the Jedi contributed to their failures. At the end of Episode VI, balance is supposedly brought to the force. But (unless there are some secret Jedi who we don't know about), there are only two Jedi left: Luke and Leia. So can The Force really be balanced when there are only two Jedi left? (Extended universe doesn't count).

Originally Posted by EddieLarkin

So sure, the later two films have a lot to do with a central character from the OT, but writing that character in a way that doesn't match up to his characterisation in the OT is, in my opinion, diabolically bad.

The writing was diabolically bad and there were lots of unnecessary inconsistencies between the PT and the OT, but not necessarily the ones you point out. Obviously, the whole love story between Anakin and Leia was really badly written. Most of the politics and the trade guild machinations in the PT comes across as gibberish. Palpatine is a psychotic, but he is successful for decades. Can you name me any other psychotics in history who were successful for decades? They usually burn out pretty quickly.

One that has always bothered me is Leia claiming she remembers her mother at the end of Episode VI. Lucas could have written around this....he could have had Padame secretly live, but still separate and hide the children.

Another is that since Anakin's whole psychological trip was about losing those he loves, once Padme is dead, he has no reason to support Palpatine, but he does anyway. There should have been something to explain that...maybe he feels he's got nowhere else to go or maybe only Palpatine can deliver to him whatever is keeping him alive.

Why is Yoda so much physically younger in the PT? He's supposed to be several hundred years old and 20 years makes such a difference?

If Chewbacca fought with the Jedi against the Empire, how come he never told Han?

Another is that in Episode IV, Vader simply says to Obi-Wan, "you shouldn't have come". Not, "hey, you bastard, you turned me into a machine...I'm going to freaking kill you." So if Lucas really did his job well, he would have found a way to write around that line when he wrote the PT. In fact, the entire story would have worked better if Vader had lost all memory of Anakin.

And the other big one, although not a discrepancy between the OT and PT is that in the OT, why does the Empire give a damn about the rebels anyway? They're very small and completely inconsequential.

Furthermore, it was very hard to believe that the Humpty Dumpty revealed at the end of Episode VI could ever have been Darth Vader.

Etc. But all this stuff has been hashed to death thousands of times.

[octagon]

Originally Posted by ZoetMB

So can The Force really be balanced when there are only two Jedi left? (Extended universe doesn't count).

My issue with that was more can The Force really be balanced when there are no Sith left?

I always thought the Jedi had a pretty self-serving idea of what constituted balance.