Cerebralbore101 said:
The prequel movies were made by the same person, but that doesn't stop them from being bad films that reframe the original trilogy in a bad light. I"m talking about things that the EU hints to, which is no longer canon, but was considered canon up until 1999. "Since you are judging the newer films by the measure of what was set up in the older films, you are dependent upon also judging the older films according to what was canon, which is what was set up in the prequel trilogy." No I'm not, because the prequel trilogy didn't come chronologically before the original trilogy. Those films were made over 20 years after the original trilogy films. There's an entire generation that saw the OG trilogy without needing to contextualize it within the prequel trilogy because the prequel trilogy didn't exist yet. This meme tries to point out the OG trilogy as having the same flaws as this new set of Star Wars films. But those flaws didn't exist in the OG trilogy at all, and were created by the prequel movies. According to your argument, we should also be harsh in our judgement of episode 5 and 6 since they were only planned AFTER it turned out Star Wars was succesful (the "a new hope" was added later and a trilogy wasn´t planned). Speculation is that Vader wasn´t supposed to be Lukes and Leias father and Luke wasn´t supposed to be related to Leia. Or is there some sort of magic time limit of when a sequel is regarded as canon to you? That's comparing apples and oranges. We have decades of EU material, and the films having set up what the Star Wars mythos, and the character of Luke was. Then all that is changed by a completely different writer who had nothing to do with Star Wars. Compare this with a three year wait for Empire Strikes Back, after the first Star Wars film. |
Wait, so the EU material should count but not the prequel movies made by the creator of Star Wars? You just seem to make up arbitrary arguments just to fit your narrative.
