STAR WARS
Added 2022-06-06 19:43:38 +0000 UTCI'm working on a review for the original Star Wars, as a fun summer movie review to break up all the serious stuff haha. But I've been revisiting some old nostalgia due to it.
What do you guys think is worse? The prequels...which is a giant Emperor has no clothes situation...where a creator gains too much power, and only has yes men around him. The result is one of the most baffling expensive movie messes of my lifetime. But at least...it's its own world, it attempted to be different, and it has its own aesthetic.
Or, are the dead-in-the-soul Disney bought Star Wars films worse?....a Frankenstein monster, too big for the original creator to have any control over it. It becomes a symbol for corporate commodity, woke-ified propaganda....and all to a far more pointed degree. It represents a world so afraid to be different, or to be interesting, or to challenge an original packaging....that it simply pumps out regurgitated versions of the original....but with added political flavor-of-the-month PSAs.
For me it's not really an easy answer when you consider the films themselves (Force Awakens was at least cohesive unlike Phantom Menace). But overall, for me it's definitely the prequels, that I prefer. Perhaps more from a moral standpoint.
Comments
Yeah, he tends to have long winded intros. You can probably skip the first hour of that video.
Hart
2022-06-08 13:59:43 +0000 UTCI have them all memorized practically
Deepfocuslens
2022-06-08 04:33:10 +0000 UTCWow, those videos are really long. But I watched the first 10 minutes of the Force Awakens critique and it seemed interesting. I’ll definitely check it out when I have the time. Thanks for the recommendation.
Bennett Oliver
2022-06-07 20:59:52 +0000 UTCIf you like the RLM stuff then you should check out Mauler's critiques of the sequels. The ones on TLJ are particularly good. He takes those movies apart like a surgeon.
Hart
2022-06-07 17:40:06 +0000 UTCHave you ever watched any of RedLetterMedia’s videos critiquing the prequel trilogy? I don’t really care enough to follow their regular reviews of films on a consistent basis, but those series of videos on the Star Wars prequels are some of the best criticism out there on them. They’re worth a watch, provided you have the time. They’re pretty long, but well put together.
Bennett Oliver
2022-06-07 05:26:08 +0000 UTCI usually take the side of the creator over the corporation, even when said creator has his head up his ass. I agree with you in that the prequels should be lauded for their ambition and their attempt to be different from the original trilogy. But yes, they were made by someone who, by that point, came to value CGI and spectacle over story and character. As much as an imaginative feat the original trilogy was, it didn’t really establish Lucas as a particularly talented, skillful screenwriter, which pretty much meant that he was doomed to fail, considering how the structure of the prequels was set up with the rise and fall of Anakin Skywalker. That story required a very sophisticated sense of character (possibly on par with Coppola and Michael Corleone) that Lucas, quite frankly, didn’t have. What we get instead is a very clunky, leaden epic full of empty visual pageantry, stiff performances, impenetrable plots, and dialogue that sounds like it was written by a computer. Oh, and worst of all, a villain for the ages, full of menace and gravitas, reduced to a whiny, petulant brat. As much as I hate the prequels though, I do disagree with you that they’re less cohesive than the new sequels. Say what you will about the prequels, but they’re all of one vision, albeit very poorly executed. The new sequels seem like they were made up as they went along, which I’m sure they were. A lot of that may have to do with the hiring of Rion Johnson for the second one. He threw out a lot of the work done by J.J. Abrams in the first one (the question of Rey’s parentage, etc.) in favor of presenting his own thematic messages and sensibility. The third one, by far the worst of the new trilogy, was meant to undo Johnson’s contribution, get back on track, and deal with the premature death of Carrie Fisher. Prominent characters get sidelined, villains are introduced out of nowhere, and setups are never paid off. It is a giant mess, one that the filmmakers sought not so much to finish as to get over and done with. They couldn’t find a way out of the quagmire that they put themselves in. It reveals the sequels as being not so much a new, continuing story as products on an assembly line. Despite all that, if I had to choose between the prequels or the sequels (my real choice would be to not watch any of them), I’d choose the sequels. They may be impersonal, corporatized imitation products of the original trilogy, but in their zippy, snappily paced way, they’re more fun to watch. J.J. Abrams is one of those filmmakers who wears his influences on his sleeve (Spielberg, Lucas) without ever really transcending them. With that, he’s a very smart choice for the corporate board to hire as director. He can deliver the Lucas touch (so to speak) without them having to put up with the strong authorial presence that someone like Lucas would insist upon. As a result, the sequels have an ersatz configuration of the spirit of the originals, which the prequels lack. I appreciate Lucas for what he tried to achieve with his second trilogy, but they go down like lead balloons. The new sequels are a little easier to experience.
Bennett Oliver
2022-06-07 05:19:01 +0000 UTCThe prequels gave us a bounty of amazing memes. I will always love them for that even if the movies themselves are subpar
Emerson B
2022-06-07 04:56:54 +0000 UTCThe ultimate key factor in liking or disliking a movie is the experience it provided to you. It's personal. When you go to the movies, you usually have an expectation of sorts. Even if you have no clue what movie you are watching, you will probably guess within five to ten minutes in what direction the movie is going (genre, mood, pace etc.) and you will settle for it. That's why genre movies are very popular because they are truly tested with audiences since the dawn of time - but then it becomes a problem when you have a sophisticated audience that knows the genre too well. You have to avoid the clichés, to avoid being boring because the audience is always a step ahead. But at the same time you can't completely ignore all the tropes of that one particular genre because the expectations of an audience is to have their cravings met. It's absolutely clear that a six-year-old who hasn't seen many films in his lifetime will like The Phantom Menace, it's a spectacle to him or her. Heck, I liked a lot of movies when I was younger, and looking back at some of them, revisiting, I am sometimes shocked at what atrocious filmmaking I had fun watching. Sometimes I deliberately don't revisit some childhood movies, just to preserve the fond memories, because deep inside I know that the adult me will find them stupid. Sometimes you do watch a decent or great movie as a kid and that's where I allow my nostalgia to add some more points to these movies. There's a point in all this, just keep reading. I liked Howard the Duck. I even have some nostalgic feelings for that movie. Nevertheless, I can't objectively say that this George Lucas-produced vehicle is any good. It didn't age well, it's outdated in many ways, cringe and was a huge flop. As for the Star Wars prequels - George Lucas tried to satisfy the fans expectations by concentrating on new breakthrough visual technologies that made the first trilogy a spectacle no one has ever seen. He was a few years too late. Steven Spielberg stole the show with Jurassic Park and showed the world what CG can do for movies. He can't deliver that unique thing anymore. Instead of going into production with a first draft script that no one dared to criticize and relying on computer graphics engineers to fix everything, George should've taken a step back and asked himself: Am I doing this for the right reasons? Am I doing this for the story or for the newly available technology that lets me do anything I want? Do I cater to what the fans want, demand, and cry for? Do I really know what they want? (Obviously he was insecure enough to put 3CPO and R2D2 into the movie so the audience can at least grab these familiar faces, even tho the most optimistic audience member would say that this is kinda improbable or too much of a coincidence or just plain obvious moves by Lucas to manipulate the audience into liking his boring trade federation plot. The special effects are there to distract you from the many plotholes of that trilogy. Instead of making tons of merchandise money with Jar Jar Binks, the world began to hate a fictional character as much as they could. The new trilogy by Disney is even worse. While George Lucas probably was trying to please fans and was insecure about how to meet the high expectations and ultimately failed because of that, Disney instead doesn't even care for anything, not even the characters. They are just there to make them more money. You see them disrespect Luke Skywalker's nature, killed of Han Solo in the most stupid way and have every sense of a cohesive Jedi world thrown out of the window. Could go on, but got tired.
Tom Rufer
2022-06-07 03:35:08 +0000 UTCI must confess I'm one of those weirdos that has for the most part enjoyed the prequels. I by no means think they are great movies or even close to the original trilogy in terms of quality, but I've never hated them like some of the die-hard fans do. Maybe its because I was 6,9, and 12 when I saw them so I was the target audience when they came out and can still appreciate them on that level. I've always enjoyed the world-building along with new characters like Qui-Gon, Mace Windu, and Darth Maul and seeing previously established characters grow like Obi Wan and Yoda. Additionally, I still enjoy a lot of the action sequences, including the lightsaber fights (Phantom Menace obviously being the best). With that said though, I do acknowledge some of the acting and dialogue are really bad especially in regards to Anakin and Padme. Their relationship is forced to put it lightly which is primarily why I have Attack of the Clones as the worst of three, with Phantom Menace second and Revenge of the Sith as the best. I may feel differently if I ever watch RedLetterMedia's videos critiquing them but for now I still enjoy them enough. As for the sequel series, I never understood why they didn't just have JJ Abrams do all three. He would've at least had a consistent vision of feeding into the nostalgia of the original trilogy but he supposedly initially insisted on only doing one. The Force Awakens is a fine remake of a New Hope. The Last Jedi by itself is fine as a more subversive take on the series but doesn't necessarily work as a sequel to the Force Awakens. And the Rise of Skywalker is Disney's big apology to fans who hated the Last Jedi with random "woke-ified propaganda" like the blink and you'll miss it lesbian kiss at the end. Easily the worst of the three and probably the worst Star Wars movie period.
Stephen
2022-06-07 01:24:36 +0000 UTCThe only prequel I've seen is Revenge of the Sith but it was way back when it was first shown on movie channels like HBO and Starz. By memory, despite it's many issues, I didn't feel like I missed anything by starting with it so I never bothered with Phantom Menace or Attack of the Clones. As for the sequels, never bothered to see them. However, I will say that after rewatching A New Hope a few years back, the writing and acting is really dated. It's one of those cases where future action and science fiction works have added a lot to the same story and character types (Final Fantasy being my go to example), that the original comes off as shallow and cliche. I never was that big into the franchise anyway because they're better at special effects than story and character. The only one I might want to see again is Empire Strikes Back and it would most likely be a one time thing given my current mindset. George Lucas has only made one fantastic movie to me and that's American Graffiti.
Wolfman Brandon
2022-06-07 00:05:30 +0000 UTCTotally agree! I must have listened to that soundtrack a thousand times. Anakin's Theme is just beautiful.
Atticus Xey
2022-06-06 23:06:23 +0000 UTCWant to get people worked up? Talk Star Wars. I remember that Roger Ebert gave "The Phantom Menace" a very high rating, as it was a groundbreaking marvel. Lucas got to test the first Sony digital film camera in one of the scenes (its the scene where Qui Gon talks with Anakin's mom at night), and in "Episode II", he would film the entire picture using digital cameras. I have more affection for the prequels and disdain for the sequels. As with anything J.J. Abrams seems to touch, it loses its flair after about ten minutes. Ep. VII is overbloated to the point of absurdity and Ep. VIII is just boring and so departed from "Star Wars" that it doesn't even feel like "Star Wars". Ep. IX, although a dizzying attempt to "fix" what happened before just leaves us feeling empty. Disney has tried to take the IP and make it their own, but only managed to make it stale and lacking depth. Check out the "Obi-Wan Kenobi" series, and you'll be shaking your head.... "Here we go again".
Atticus Xey
2022-06-06 23:04:37 +0000 UTCgood point. And yes...Phantom is the best soundtrack easily of those.
Deepfocuslens
2022-06-06 22:08:35 +0000 UTCI agree with a lot of what you say here. I roll my eyes also...when people glorify the prequels in comparison to the new. But it is natural.
Deepfocuslens
2022-06-06 22:07:34 +0000 UTCI think the sequels from the 2010's are technically better, and the low points are nowhere near as bad as that of the prequels. You can at least sit through them and acknowledge that they're passable from an outsider view. That said, I do like how the prequels are trying to be something, or really ANYTHING. They at least come from a place of artistic expression. The sequels on the other hand are barely movies if you ask me. Even if they're way more watchable, what are they as cinema? Now I think the MCU is far worse in this regard, but it's nonetheless still the same transparent result of Disney releasing soulless garbage to profit as a corporation. It's a direct result of Disney almost single-handedly ruining theater experiences and the potential success of smaller movies this last decade. This sentiment is so obvious when you step back and just ask yourself "what happens plotwise in the sequels?" The real motivation was clearly $$$, and it worked! But it's almost just as embarrassing bc it's SO CLEAR that they weren't trying to make any cohesive films, let alone a cohesive trilogy. Now we, shouldn’t act like the prequels aren't a result of corporate greed either. One man having that much power is always a problem. I even think that if you took away the "star wars" labels from the prequels, they may not have ever been green lit. Anyone reading the scripts to those as movies on their own merits would realize just how bad they are and would possibly never defend them. Part of the reason why the sequels have gained a following since IS ALSO BECAUSE they're under "Star Wars." Even if it is a genuine story, it's still really bad and embarrassing, and is a display of how disasters can be green lit if it has enough money behind it. Look, I hate the prequels. Any time I see people passionately defending them as misunderstood masterpieces, I roll my eyes. I've even seen people defend the romantic scene where they talk about sand. Seriously? We should never lose sight of the fact that they absolutely suck. Like, A LOT. And even if the sequels are easier to sit through, I'd be less willing to return to them. I can at least appreciate the prequels for TRYING AND TAKING RISKS. I can't do that with the sequels, bc that was never an option they considered in the first place. I hate the trend the sequels are a part of MORE than the trend the prequels are a part of. It seems like most people in this community share the same feelings. And while I truly believe the prequels are worse movies, I would still return to them far sooner than I would the sequels.
Christopher Cassara
2022-06-06 20:50:14 +0000 UTCI’ll relay what I’ve heard: Prequels are bad movies but decent Star Wars lore. Sequels are bad movies and bad lore. Someone should write a white paper about how since Disney purchased the property for $3 billion they’ve sheppared it from blockbuster event to small screen throwaway Disney plus filler. Even after episodes 1 and 2 people were willing to believe 3 would be good. After episode 9, I think everyone is incredibly skeptical that franchise has any value.
Arthur Augustyn
2022-06-06 20:17:00 +0000 UTCI just can’t believe how Disney fumbled a true once-in-lifetime chance to bring back the original beloved characters from the most popular movie epic of all time and fumbled the ball so badly. I’d love to see if anything was different in a world in which Carrie Fisher didn’t die. Her death certainly affected what could be done in Rise of Skywalker. But what I just can’t believe is that they didn’t have a plan. The Last Jedi had some issues, but I thought the Rey-Kylo stuff was the best part of the sequel trilogy and killing off Snoke was truly surprising and exciting. Then … “Somehow Palpatine returned.” I hope Oscar Isaac just busted out laughing after every take. No setup whatsoever for his return from the first two movies, also retroactively lessening the impact of Vader’s sacrifice at the end of Return of the Jedi. Completely baffling. If they actually told Rian Johnson “do whatever you want,” that’s executive incompetence, especially if you’re going to change direction that sharply based on how the wind blows. I could go on about this forever. The bottom line is the sequel trilogy might be better movies than the prequels individually, but the prequels at least have one creator’s vision with coherence and conviction. And it helps when the best movie of the prequels is the last one, while the worst one of the sequels is the last one.
Jim Barnes
2022-06-06 20:15:36 +0000 UTCFor me, I try to disregard ALL the background stuff because Star Wars has been about the toy sales and greed for years before Disney touched it. If George Lucas actually cared about the story, he would’ve cut the Ewok screen time in half in Ep. 6. Even the more beloved titles (prequels included) are toy commercials. I just like to sit back and relax with the movies that I have fun with. Ep. 1, 2 and 9 are boring hard-passes for me, but Ep. 3, 7 and even 8 are fun adventures that are visually and sonically impressive, so I don’t mind their flaws as much.
Jared Angcanan
2022-06-06 20:13:50 +0000 UTCThe prequels, at least they get better over the course of the 3 films rather than getting worse as the sequels do. Also for all of it's flaws The Phantom Menace does (arguably) have the best soundtrack of all the films.
Ross Skilton
2022-06-06 20:13:03 +0000 UTCIt’s a really difficult question for me. I think the prequels are absolutely terrible and outside of the memes, I really don’t understand the nostalgia people have for them. But yes, like you say, it’s difficult to definitively say the sequels are better since they ultimately are a giant corporate product. Yes, Force Awakens was fine. It was a clean story but ultimately it just felt like a rehash of the original, far superior, film. And the Rise of Skywalker is such a depressing mess. I thought it was far worse than the prequels and I just hated how it submitted to the will of the fans who didn’t like that The Last Jedi did something different. That said, I think that the Last Jedi is a really good film. Maybe the 3rd best Star Wars film behind the original two. It’s not perfect. The casino planet thing is dumb and there are certain plot points that don’t make sense and arcs that aren’t fully realized. But ultimately it feels like a love letter to cinema, and specifically George Lucas’s influences (Kurosawa, Lean, etc.) rather than worshiping the original trilogy. I love how it subverts the narrative and basically proposes burning Star Wars to the ground. A refreshing case of a popular movie criticizing our obsession with nostalgia, and of course, fans hated it so much that Disney bent to their will with the last movie. So overall it’s a mixed bag but I think I slightly prefer the sequels because of The Last Jedi.
Jackson Littlewood
2022-06-06 19:54:02 +0000 UTCI agree. The Disney movies feel so soulless and like films by committee. Sure, they're more competently made but to me that doesn't make up for the fact that they feel utterly devoid of any charm or purpose other than selling toys and the next hot entry in the franchise. The prequels despite their warts do feel like George's vision. Sure, it's the vision of a madman that doesn't know how to tell a coherent story and can't direct actors for shit but the vision feels relatively singular and like the product of a human which is probably why the prequels flaws are much more evident. I think it's the same reason you prefer the Lynch Dune to the Denis Dune. Sometimes the flaws and quirks are what really draw you in as an audience member rather than technical profiency.
Tyler Shobe
2022-06-06 19:51:13 +0000 UTC
