By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Movies & TV - What would you do if The Force Awakens is worse than the prequels?

 

What would you do if The Force Awakens is worse than the prequels?

Cry. 45 13.27%
 
Not care. 117 34.51%
 
Get Angry. 36 10.62%
 
Be Sad. 95 28.02%
 
See Results. 46 13.57%
 
Total:339
Soundwave on 07 September 2015
DivinePaladin said:
Toxy said:
The prequel trilogy was terrible due to all the plot holes and contradictions that were made.
In the original trilogy when Luke Skywalker is in a memorable conversation with Princess Leia, the exchange goes as follows:

Luke: Leia, do you remember your mother, your real mother?

Leia: Just a little bit. She died when I was very young.

Luke: What do you remember?

Leia: Just images really, feelings.

Luke: Tell me.

Leia: She was, very beautiful, kind, but sad. Why are you asking me this?

Yet in the prequel trilogy their mother dies giving birth to them. It would be impossible for either child to have any memories of her. This is not the only flaw that was created by the prequel trilogy, the list goes on and on.

If episode VII ignores the prequel trilogy and stays true to the original trilogy I will have no problems whatsoever. Even if it causes contradictions with the prequel trilogy, as long as it stays to the original it does not matter. The prequel trilogy should be buried.

I am glad that episode VII will have more practical effects. The prequel trilogy had too much forced CGI. Also the lack of space battles in the prequel trilogy really grinded my gears. Especially when Obi-Wan Kenobi tells Luke in the original trilogy that Luke's dad was the best pilot in the galaxy, yet the prequel trilogy barely elaborated on this. It was such a missed opportunity, especially seeing as the space battles would have been one of the few instances that would have warranted the use of CGI, however this was barely tapped into.

I am optimistic towards the new movie. J.J Abrams seems to know what he is doing.

Luke and Leia both have strong connections to the Force. With the Force always having been a plot convenience that can fill holes, since V, it's a safe assumption that anyone can make that Leia has false memories because of the Force being strong within her. Not to mention, you quoted a very vague statement not unlike something people experience in real life, be it an out of body experience or, y'know, just a damn dream.

 

Yes, there are flaws with the prequel trilogy, but the entire series has honestly never been good from any sort of literary perspective. Original Trilogy fanatics love to go and point out how bad the Prequels are using flimsy evidence, and then as soon as a problem is thrown into the OT, they go and quote the EU to justify it as if a prequel section of the EU doesn't exist and explain, say, Obi Wan's experiences with Anakin as a pilot during the twelve years or so we don't see in between I and II or the couple years between II and III. Not saying you personally, mind you, I'm just stating something about the fans in general. 

 

The Star Wars series, coming from somebody who loves it, is a bad series. There's a lot wrong with every single facet of every single episode. The only true difference between the original and prequel trilogies is that the Prequels are quite a bit angstier at times, but even then Luke has his moments. Also, Jar Jar. That was entirely unneeded, but at least Lucas lampshaded how bad he was by making him directly responsible for the Empire rising.

 

TL;DR Thirty years of idolizing one half of something only to get a second half that's not perfect is always going to lead to this sort of hatred we always see for the Prequels. It's no different than old timers saying "my music in my day was better than this wub wub shit!" 


The prequels have NO EMOTION. No urgency. No believable character relationships. Horrific dialogue. 

I'm sorry but there is a large difference between the OT and prequels. The prequels are sterile, stiff cartoons with zero charm. Is there even a single quotable line from the prequels?



Around the Network
Cobretti2 on 07 September 2015
KLAMarine said:
Cobretti2 said:
what was so bad about the prequels? i hear lots of people say it but never justify it lol.

Here's the first of a series of videos that explain why The Phantom Menace was bad: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FxKtZmQgxrI

I recommend you start there.


so he is whinging that he is an old dog that can't learn new tricks.

protagonist who is down on their luck, saves the girl all cliche of the 70s and 80s movies.

honestly the movies arn't as bad as people blow they out to be. all i gather is they different to the old star wars movies therefore they must be bad. 

Are they great? fuck no but they arn't eye bleeding bad that warrant such backlash lol.



 

 

Soundwave on 07 September 2015

The prequels are bad.

The Mummy released the same year as The Phantom Menace has more of what made the OT Star Wars and Indiana Jones movies great than the Phantom Menace does, and the Matrix (talking about the first one only) completely blows any of the prequels away from the same summer.

The prequels vs. OT is like having a friend who was full of life, made you laugh, taught you about the mysteries of life but in a light hearted fun way, but then finding that friend has had a lobomoty and no longer has any of the same personality. 

Name me one great scene from any of the three Star Wars prequels that doesn't involve a lightsaber battle or a special effects action sequence as a crutch. There's very, very few if any at all. That's a sign you have a sh*tty lifeless script. Sorry George. 

The OT has plenty of great moments them in every movie without relying solely on action/lightsabers. Even little touches like Princess Leia/Han Solo are alone on the ship and the little "my hands are dirty" exchange is brilliantly done compared to the garbage in the prequels ("I don't like sand" .... ugh ... SHUT UP Anakin). 



LipeJJ on 07 September 2015
Cobretti2 said:
what was so bad about the prequels? i hear lots of people say it but never justify it lol.


-Some bad actors interpretations

-Extensive use of CGI instead of using "real" places

-Jar Jar Binks

That's what I mostly read around the internet, but.. in my honest opinion, the prequels were just fine. In fact, I liked them a lot, specially Episode III.



Bet with Teeqoz for 2 weeks of avatar and sig control that Super Mario Odyssey would ship more than 7m on its first 2 months. The game shipped 9.07m, so I won

ironmanDX on 07 September 2015

It won't be.



Around the Network
DivinePaladin on 07 September 2015
Soundwave said:
DivinePaladin said:

Luke and Leia both have strong connections to the Force. With the Force always having been a plot convenience that can fill holes, since V, it's a safe assumption that anyone can make that Leia has false memories because of the Force being strong within her. Not to mention, you quoted a very vague statement not unlike something people experience in real life, be it an out of body experience or, y'know, just a damn dream.

 

Yes, there are flaws with the prequel trilogy, but the entire series has honestly never been good from any sort of literary perspective. Original Trilogy fanatics love to go and point out how bad the Prequels are using flimsy evidence, and then as soon as a problem is thrown into the OT, they go and quote the EU to justify it as if a prequel section of the EU doesn't exist and explain, say, Obi Wan's experiences with Anakin as a pilot during the twelve years or so we don't see in between I and II or the couple years between II and III. Not saying you personally, mind you, I'm just stating something about the fans in general. 

 

The Star Wars series, coming from somebody who loves it, is a bad series. There's a lot wrong with every single facet of every single episode. The only true difference between the original and prequel trilogies is that the Prequels are quite a bit angstier at times, but even then Luke has his moments. Also, Jar Jar. That was entirely unneeded, but at least Lucas lampshaded how bad he was by making him directly responsible for the Empire rising.

 

TL;DR Thirty years of idolizing one half of something only to get a second half that's not perfect is always going to lead to this sort of hatred we always see for the Prequels. It's no different than old timers saying "my music in my day was better than this wub wub shit!" 


The prequels have NO EMOTION. No urgency. No believable character relationships. Horrific dialogue. 

I'm sorry but there is a large difference between the OT and prequels. The prequels are sterile, stiff cartoons with zero charm. Is there even a single quotable line from the prequels?

You're not serious if you're trying to say that Ewan MacGregor's performances weren't solid at the very least. He was the perfect fit for Obi Wan, and IMO he brought out many of the scenes he was in. Christiansen did suck the life out of a lot of scenes but he did do the Sith transition pretty well. Well, when he was silent and angry. Anakin could've been cast better, nobody's gonna argue that, but the supporting cast as a whole was fairly solid, even if some episode villains were a bit underused/underrepresented. But then, we had little of the heroes in the OT, so that sort of thematically ties in, so I can accept that.

 

Charm doesn't make up for movies being bad, for the record. The OT was badly written and saved only by better casting and a simpler era. Let's remember that most of the quotable lines from the OT came from an actor known for going off-script. Need I go into the whole surprise second death star cop-out, or the "oh, we killed the Emperor and won one battle, we beat the Empire!" crap that's currently canon because the EU was removed, or the Ewoks (in some peoples' eyes - I personally defend the Ewoks), or the hilarious Bespin table scene, or Vader's last minute change of heart after about two decades of being evil because plot, et alia? Feel free to defend them, but that doesn't make them good plot points. 

 

I will admit I stretched a tad when I said "the ONLY difference," because that's a bit too generalized. But both trilogies are pretty damn bad and I love them both for that. If your rose-glasses make you disagree, join the club. 

 

Edit: But it could be worse. The Empire could've split in half after VI and the emperor's clone runs one half and then random Sith betrayals and Luke goes Sith for like a month trying to save somebody from having gone Sith...I could go on but that's just a TOTAL mess. 



You should check out my YouTube channel, The Golden Bolt!  I review all types of video games, both classic and modern, and I also give short flyover reviews of the free games each month on PlayStation Plus to tell you if they're worth downloading.  After all, the games may be free, but your time is valuable!

bowserthedog on 07 September 2015

If that ends up being true I'll try and open a business selling ice to an eskimo!



https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC0JquK6FGR6O-0O-6L-VAuw

Toxy on 07 September 2015
DivinePaladin said:
Toxy said:
The prequel trilogy was terrible due to all the plot holes and contradictions that were made.
In the original trilogy when Luke Skywalker is in a memorable conversation with Princess Leia, the exchange goes as follows:

Luke: Leia, do you remember your mother, your real mother?

Leia: Just a little bit. She died when I was very young.

Luke: What do you remember?

Leia: Just images really, feelings.

Luke: Tell me.

Leia: She was, very beautiful, kind, but sad. Why are you asking me this?

Yet in the prequel trilogy their mother dies giving birth to them. It would be impossible for either child to have any memories of her. This is not the only flaw that was created by the prequel trilogy, the list goes on and on.

If episode VII ignores the prequel trilogy and stays true to the original trilogy I will have no problems whatsoever. Even if it causes contradictions with the prequel trilogy, as long as it stays to the original it does not matter. The prequel trilogy should be buried.

I am glad that episode VII will have more practical effects. The prequel trilogy had too much forced CGI. Also the lack of space battles in the prequel trilogy really grinded my gears. Especially when Obi-Wan Kenobi tells Luke in the original trilogy that Luke's dad was the best pilot in the galaxy, yet the prequel trilogy barely elaborated on this. It was such a missed opportunity, especially seeing as the space battles would have been one of the few instances that would have warranted the use of CGI, however this was barely tapped into.

I am optimistic towards the new movie. J.J Abrams seems to know what he is doing.

Luke and Leia both have strong connections to the Force. With the Force always having been a plot convenience that can fill holes, since V, it's a safe assumption that anyone can make that Leia has false memories because of the Force being strong within her. Not to mention, you quoted a very vague statement not unlike something people experience in real life, be it an out of body experience or, y'know, just a damn dream.

 

Yes, there are flaws with the prequel trilogy, but the entire series has honestly never been good from any sort of literary perspective. Original Trilogy fanatics love to go and point out how bad the Prequels are using flimsy evidence, and then as soon as a problem is thrown into the OT, they go and quote the EU to justify it as if a prequel section of the EU doesn't exist and explain, say, Obi Wan's experiences with Anakin as a pilot during the twelve years or so we don't see in between I and II or the couple years between II and III. Not saying you personally, mind you, I'm just stating something about the fans in general. 

 

The Star Wars series, coming from somebody who loves it, is a bad series. There's a lot wrong with every single facet of every single episode. The only true difference between the original and prequel trilogies is that the Prequels are quite a bit angstier at times, but even then Luke has his moments. Also, Jar Jar. That was entirely unneeded, but at least Lucas lampshaded how bad he was by making him directly responsible for the Empire rising.

 

TL;DR Thirty years of idolizing one half of something only to get a second half that's not perfect is always going to lead to this sort of hatred we always see for the Prequels. It's no different than old timers saying "my music in my day was better than this wub wub shit!" 

I would like to clarify that I am not even 30 years old yet, let alone 25. I grew up with the prequel trilogy yet I can see its flaws without nostalgia googles.

I understand where you are coming from when you state that Leia could have seen Padme due to the force in the family allowing some sort of out of body experience, however, how come Luke has no memory when the force is just as strong with him (if not stronger)?
It just comes across as an apologetic explanation created by fans to legitimise the prequel trilogy. I can uderstand why people would defend it if it was something they enjoyed, but stating Leia has memories due to an out of body experience is not canon. That is just a fan theory at best. There is nothing within any of the film canon that confirms this.

I enjoyed the fact that we got to see different locales within the prequel trilogy don't get me wrong, I just believe that these locales should have implemented more practical effects. It certainly would have aged better.


Another note to add to my dislike of the prequel trilogy was the terrible plot handling of Anakin's turn to the darkside. This could have been handled so much better. Say what you want about Attack of the Clones, at least Anakin slaughtering the Tusken Raiders due to his mother's death had some sort of insight into his turn into the darkside. The Revenge of the Sith on the other hand... oh was it bad. The action sequences were excellent. Anakin's turn was terrible.
He just became so incredibly gullible. The sith deceived Anakin to betray the order, which made a little bit of sense due to Anakin being upset and being misled into believing that they conspires against the sith which at the time was Anakin's trusted friend. 
However, how the sith convinced him to kill a bunch of children to gain power to prevent death (resurrection is even implied) is beyond me.

Anakin follows his orders because he is worried that Padme is going to die. Padme confronts him and than he thinks she is conspiring against him with Obi-Wan. So he chokes her and attempts to kill Obi-Wan. WHAT. 
The whole point of him doing these deeds was so he would protect Padme, yet he just chokes her anyway due to an arbritary climax. It was completely out of character and was only implemented because clearly George Lucas could not think of any thing better.

If Obi-Wan had of hid Padme from Anakin (due to seeing the recordings of Anaking killing children), this could have been used to much better effect. The sith could have convinced Anakin that the Jedi have kidnapped his wife, and emphasise on the Jedi's conspiring against him. This would lead Anakin to hunt down the remainding Jedi, engage in battle with Obi-Wan etc.
Padme would still be alive, so Leia could have actually seen her. And Obi-Wan could have seperated Luke and Leia at birth as he does in the film (explaining why Luke has no memory of Padme). 

...and yes I agree with you. Jar Jar Binks was completely unnecessary. I hope we see his corpse in the next film as his fate has never been revealed.

Oh and they should never have explained the Force as being Mediclorians. Not only was it a silly explanation, it was unnecessary. They should have left the Force as a mystery. Not everything needs to be explained. When you are dealing with magic or spiritual power, it is best left as a mystery in my opinion. It makes it more interesting.



DivinePaladin on 07 September 2015
Toxy said:

I would like to clarify that I am not even 30 years old yet, let alone 25. I grew up with the prequel trilogy yet I can see its flaws without nostalgia googles.

I understand where you are coming from when you state that Leia could have seen Padme due to the force in the family allowing some sort of out of body experience, however, how come Luke has no memory when the force is just as strong with him (if not stronger)?
It just comes across as an apologetic explanation created by fans to legitimise the prequel trilogy. I can uderstand why people would defend it if it was something they enjoyed, but stating Leia has memories due to an out of body experience is not canon. That is just a fan theory at best. There is nothing within any of the film canon that confirms this.

I enjoyed the fact that we got to see different locales within the prequel trilogy don't get me wrong, I just believe that these locales should have implemented more practical effects. It certainly would have aged better.


Another note to add to my dislike of the prequel trilogy was the terrible plot handling of Anakin's turn to the darkside. This could have been handled so much better. Say what you want about Attack of the Clones, at least Anakin slaughtering the Tusken Raiders due to his mother's death had some sort of insight into his turn into the darkside. The Revenge of the Sith on the other hand... oh was it bad. The action sequences were excellent. Anakin's turn was terrible.
He just became so incredibly gullible. The sith deceived Anakin to betray the order, which made a little bit of sense due to Anakin being upset and being misled into believing that they conspires against the sith which at the time was Anakin's trusted friend. 
However, how the sith convinced him to kill a bunch of children to gain power to prevent death (resurrection is even implied) is beyond me.

Anakin follows his orders because he is worried that Padme is going to die. Padme confronts him and than he thinks she is conspiring against him with Obi-Wan. So he chokes her and attempts to kill Obi-Wan. WHAT. 
The whole point of him doing these deeds was so he would protect Padme, yet he just chokes her anyway due to an arbritary climax. It was completely out of character and was only implemented because clearly George Lucas could not think of any thing better.

If Obi-Wan had of hid Padme from Anakin (due to seeing the recordings of Anaking killing children), this could have been used to much better effect. The sith could have convinced Anakin that the Jedi have kidnapped his wife, and emphasise on the Jedi's conspiring against him. This would lead Anakin to hunt down the remainding Jedi, engage in battle with Obi-Wan etc.
Padme would still be alive, so Leia could have actually seen her. And Obi-Wan could have seperated Luke and Leia at birth as he does in the film (explaining why Luke has no memory of Padme). 

...and yes I agree with you. Jar Jar Binks was completely unnecessary. I hope we see his corpse in the next film as his fate has never been revealed.

Oh and they should never have explained the Force as being Mediclorians. Not only was it a silly explanation, it was unnecessary. They should have left the Force as a mystery. Not everything needs to be explained. When you are dealing with magic or spiritual power, it is best left as a mystery in my opinion. It makes it more interesting.

General psychology. Women are considered more in tune spiritually when we talk about most cultures, simple as that. It's a very basic explanation. If looked at in the scope of the OT, I'd argue it's even placed specifically to help put Luke's Dagobah hallucinations into perspective, but that's me reading too much into things as a writer. Either way, the explanation's legitimacy in canon is irrelevant because the hole's legitimacy in canon is irrelevant too. It's an anthill compared to other examples you could make if you really wanna get into plot holes. But if I could figure something like that out when I was like ten, safe bet is it's not too big an issue. I mean, shit, it's not like the plot was ever designed to work cohesively from movie to movie anyway, they were just made to sell and be enjoyed in the moment. Hence magical face turn for Vader in VI's final second despite any logical solution to the plot ending in some way that doesn't involve making your chosen hero look pathetic. 

 

Mind you, again, I'm being extra harsh on the OT right now to make a point. I see them just as highly as I do the PT. I think the garbage I point out in the OT now is better than most of Anakin's shit in Ep III's second half, but only slightly (and mostly because they're isolated issues as opposed to a whole character). It's in the same way that I hate most games in the Sonic franchise because they're god awful but for some reason I keep playing them hoping the next is decent, except I actually enjoy Star Wars lol. 

 

Lastly, Medichlorians was fine for me even if it's unnecessary. It feels cheap since it's never really used in any significant way, but the scientist in me likes some attempt at justifying it rather than leaving it a complete mystery. It could've been much worse; honestly I think Lucas created the Medichlorians to sell some sort of Magic 8 ball that would tell kids how much Force they had lol



You should check out my YouTube channel, The Golden Bolt!  I review all types of video games, both classic and modern, and I also give short flyover reviews of the free games each month on PlayStation Plus to tell you if they're worth downloading.  After all, the games may be free, but your time is valuable!

Soundwave on 07 September 2015
DivinePaladin said:
Soundwave said:


The prequels have NO EMOTION. No urgency. No believable character relationships. Horrific dialogue. 

I'm sorry but there is a large difference between the OT and prequels. The prequels are sterile, stiff cartoons with zero charm. Is there even a single quotable line from the prequels?

You're not serious if you're trying to say that Ewan MacGregor's performances weren't solid at the very least. He was the perfect fit for Obi Wan, and IMO he brought out many of the scenes he was in. Christiansen did suck the life out of a lot of scenes but he did do the Sith transition pretty well. Well, when he was silent and angry. Anakin could've been cast better, nobody's gonna argue that, but the supporting cast as a whole was fairly solid, even if some episode villains were a bit underused/underrepresented. But then, we had little of the heroes in the OT, so that sort of thematically ties in, so I can accept that.

 

Charm doesn't make up for movies being bad, for the record. The OT was badly written and saved only by better casting and a simpler era. Let's remember that most of the quotable lines from the OT came from an actor known for going off-script. Need I go into the whole surprise second death star cop-out, or the "oh, we killed the Emperor and won one battle, we beat the Empire!" crap that's currently canon because the EU was removed, or the Ewoks (in some peoples' eyes - I personally defend the Ewoks), or the hilarious Bespin table scene, or Vader's last minute change of heart after about two decades of being evil because plot, et alia? Feel free to defend them, but that doesn't make them good plot points. 

 

I will admit I stretched a tad when I said "the ONLY difference," because that's a bit too generalized. But both trilogies are pretty damn bad and I love them both for that. If your rose-glasses make you disagree, join the club. 

 

Edit: But it could be worse. The Empire could've split in half after VI and the emperor's clone runs one half and then random Sith betrayals and Luke goes Sith for like a month trying to save somebody from having gone Sith...I could go on but that's just a TOTAL mess. 

Vader turning to back to the good side rather than murder his own son is not a weak plot point. It's called DRA-MA, that old little thing that's been a staple of good storytelling from the beginning to stage and then to screen. Something Episode I and II severely lack in and Episode III only gets a chance to ramp up for the final 30-40 minutes. 

Ewan McGregor is a good actor. So is Natalie Portman. So is Sam Jackson. The problem isn't the actors (poor Jake Lloyd and Ahmed Best still get crapped on). They have *nothing* to work with in any of three scripts. McGregor gets a lot chance to at least break an acting sweat towards the end of Episode III, but Portman ... that "Anakin you're breaking my heart" had me laughing out loud in the theater. 

The prequels chief sin is that they lose many of the elements that made the OT great. The CHARACTERS, those characters could carry scenes without needing the crutch of a lightsaber fight to make anything memorable. The OT had terrific lessons and zen-like wisdom in a pop-wrapping, but that made them resonate -- "size matters not, judge me by my size do you?". "Feel don't think". What do the prequels have? Jar-Jar in bantha poo-doo? Only a Sith deals in absolutes?

These are relatable to the average movie goer, not just sci-fi nerds who are interested in the universe. They are human lessons. That's gone in the prequels. The fun banter between the characters? Pretty much gone from the prequels. The romance? OH GAWD. If I have to listen to Anakin and Padme talk for another 30 seconds, I would've strangled someone. "I love you. I know". Sorely missing from the prequels. 

The prequels are great ... if the only thing about Star Wars that you like are lightsaber battles. Even the villians. Count Dooku? Boooooooring. Jango Fett? Cheesy and how is he supposed to realistically fight a Jedi anyway? General Greivious? A cartoon character. Darth Maul? Had potential, unfortunately George felt that Jar-Jar should have 10x more screen time and then killed Darth Maul off for no great reason.