The “Star Wars” prequels were totally better than the original trilogy
The difference is that the original trilogy appealed directly to the simplistic moral perspective of an America above reproach and always on the side of right in global geopolitics, whereas the much more subversive prequel trilogy stands in defiant counterpoint to the much more dangerously simplistic moral absolutism of the Age of Bush.
The original trilogy holds a special place in the bosom of American moviegoers precisely because we view ourselves comfortably in place of the Rebels. Americans revel in their historical construct as rebellious underdogs constantly at war against an easily identified and unquestionably evil empire. Hence, the reason most Americans love the original trilogy has much to do with placement of ourselves in the role of the inheritors of the mantle of the Jedi.
The problem is that the post-9/11 world meant Americans also were forced to identify themselves with the Jedi in the prequel trilogy as well, and we don’t like the face we see in the mirror. Let’s face it, the Jedi don’t exactly come off too swell in the prequel. This time around they are the guys in charge, and it is painful to watch them screw it up, especially when the way they hand over the keys to the Empire is so eerily familiar to a historical era defined by words like “signing statements” and “Patriot Act.”
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2
Alec Guiness was good in IV
Harrison Ford was ok in IV and V, sucked in VI
Liam Neeson, Ray Park, Ewan Mcgregor, Palpatine, and Natalie Portman were all better,
Samuel Jackson, and Hayden Christiansen were good enough to be in the same league as the original stars…..
rightwingyahooo on February 12, 2012 at 8:59 PM
Ewan McGregor is great in some films, like Trainspotting, but holy god did he play that Star Wars character dull and boring. Whatever the — the name of it was. I should know, have seem them a few times, but it’s quite forgettable.
Random on February 12, 2012 at 9:00 PM
Hamill did an excellent job in the Wing Commander games that he starred in. Look, I’m not claiming the guy is Oscar-worthy, but I can honestly watch all six movies in a marathon(and I have, many times), and judge the overall quality of the originals as far superior to the ugly messes the prequels were, not only from the standpoint of acting, but of direction, writing, and special effects. You want a pizza roll?
MadisonConservative on February 12, 2012 at 9:02 PM
Oh and Christopher was also better than any of the original trilogy actors, with the possible exceptoin of Guiness….
Now, as for James Earl Jones, let’s say I don’t consider his talent was put to good use any of the films, new or old….
rightwingyahooo on February 12, 2012 at 9:02 PM
Uh…his name’s Obi-Wan Kenobi.
Good Solid B-Plus on February 12, 2012 at 9:03 PM
Got it. You have no idea how to judge acting talent. I can see you casting Tom Green and Carrot Top in Schindler’s List.
MadisonConservative on February 12, 2012 at 9:04 PM
I actually really like WC3, but it’s not a good sign when your best (non-VA) acting appears in the FMV sequences of a 3DO game.
Good Solid B-Plus on February 12, 2012 at 9:05 PM
George Lucas apparently was almost no help in getting the actors in the prequels to understand their characters; he seems to have just told them, “go here, do this, say that.” I thought that Samuel Jackson, Hayden Christiansen, Natalie Portman, and Ewan McGregor did poorly in the prequels but I’m inclined to blame Lucas for this, since they’ve all done better work in other films.
Aitch748 on February 12, 2012 at 9:06 PM
Ouch. I guess you’re a little touchy about Star Wars, either that, or youre Mark Hamill’s brother in law or something..,, heh…
rightwingyahooo on February 12, 2012 at 9:08 PM
Didn’t have to read one word to know it would be because of the implied Bush/post 9-11 bashing.
clearbluesky on February 12, 2012 at 9:30 PM
Isn’t Obama doing signing statements all of the time? I blame Bush.
theCork on February 12, 2012 at 9:33 PM
I’ll bet Sexton loved Indiana Jones and the Crystal Skull as well. Commies running around everywhere, trying to save those precious skulls from the capitalist pig-dogs who would’ve ground them up to make tacky QVC jewelry instead of spreading the wealth around. Plus, Uncle Sam inadvertently nukes Indy himself and the fridge he rode in on; great symbolism on how evil America is, or something.
As for prequels vs OT, AP has already linked to this dude many times, whom does about as perfect a job as one could possibly do to demonstrate why the prequels fail simply as cinema, let alone Star Wars films.
smiley on February 12, 2012 at 9:46 PM
The original three were good because the characters seemed real and you connected with them. Even though the acting was not perfect. The prequels seemed plastic and the characters were like robots. not even the special effects could make them likeable.
Kinda like Sarah Palin compared to Mitt Romney.
Corsair on February 12, 2012 at 9:47 PM
Shocker! A liberal writer who thinks that the key factor for determining the quality of a movie is its political message.
Knott Buyinit on February 12, 2012 at 9:54 PM
Face it, folks. The only reason this is rearing its ugly head at this particular time is that George Lucas is extremely upset that Red Tails blows chunks and because Red Letter Media tore it and him (again) apart with style and aplomb.
Racists.
Christien on February 12, 2012 at 9:54 PM
MadisonConservative on February 12, 2012 at 9:04 PM
Hey, now!
Carrot Top was excellent in the Brando roll in the remake of On The Waterfront.
RedCrow on February 12, 2012 at 9:54 PM
Judging the 2nd trilogy to be better than the 1st because ‘the acting is better’ is like saying Kelly Clarkson is a better musical artist than Bob Dylan because she can carry a tune better i.e. you’re missing the main point of the 1st series (which is entertainment) by a laughably wide margin. Did you also find “Dances with Wolves” to be a better movie than “Goodfellas” by any chance, like many now-regretful Academy Award voters did?
George Lucas’ decision to replace a planet of Wookies with a planet of Ewoks in the 3rd movie because he didn’t want to scare the kids brought the series past a point of no return, as the 2nd trilogy yuckily proved.
Bizarro No. 1 on February 12, 2012 at 10:13 PM
Timothy Sexton obviously cannot reason his political opinions very well.
Oh, and Yoda was obviously not as tough as we were all lead to believe.
KMC1 on February 12, 2012 at 10:14 PM
Oh good.
Now Lucas will have someone other than his millions and his bought and paid for yes men to cuddle up with in his bunker.
Good for him.
tlclark on February 12, 2012 at 10:19 PM
Neeson was ok in TPM, but he clearly looked like he was bored and not down at all with the greenscreen and CGI overload he had to deal with. Ray Park? Dude just twirled around a double-sided lightsaber. He didn’t even voice his own lines. Portman was dreadful in the prequels. During the same period she was making those movies, she also did Garden State and Closer(for which she received an Oscar nod). So she obviously wasn’t lacking talent. Sam Jackson flat out sucked. Especially in ROTS. I’ve never seen him so lifeless. And don’t get me started on Hayden. It’s not his fault. Like Portman, he showed during that period in Life as a House and Shattered Glass that he can act. Really well in fact. But Lucas gave him nothing to work with, which didn’t help matters considering the entire saga centers around his character. He also wasted talented actors in other roles like Terence Stamp and Ralph Brown.
The only ones to make it through the prequels without embarassing themselves were Ewan McGregor who was terrific as Obi-Wan despite Lucas’ best efforts to waste him on meaningless subplots like investigating the identity of the Jedi Archive hacker(which Lucas BTW never even bothered to resolve in ROTS) or chasing after the superfluous and frankly pathetic General Grevious(and don’t tell me he was cool in the cartoons cuz he sucked in the movie!). Christopher Lee gave his usual solid performance as Dooku. Temeura Morrison was decent as Jango Fett. And Ian McDiarmid was great as Palpatine up until his face melted at which point he started hamming it up way too much(at Lucas’ insistance I’m certain).
Doughboy on February 12, 2012 at 10:32 PM
I could eat.
hawkdriver on February 12, 2012 at 10:46 PM
Doughboy on February 12, 2012 at 10:32 PM
I think a major problem with the prequels (and completely off the topic of the author’s idiocy) was that they used blue screens constantly.
If the acting sucked in the prequels (and I think it did) it might be because Lucas took all of the humanity out of the movie.
RedCrow on February 12, 2012 at 10:47 PM
LOTRs had a ton of blue screen acting though also.
hawkdriver on February 12, 2012 at 10:49 PM
Wow, talk about liberals with no taste.
The prequals were just plain awful! The first and second ones especially so. The awful Dues Ex Machina in the first along with the terrible cheapening of the entire series with Jar Jar. Not to mention midoclorians (or whatever they were) making Jedi some sort of genetic trait (destroying much of what used to be cannon). If that wasn’t enough, awful acting and pitiful love scenes in the second, and the ruining of Yoda.
No, the original (original cut) will always be the best.
Pattosensei on February 12, 2012 at 10:51 PM
Do clones have their own souls or just a fragment of the lost original?
Lucas never answered this.
Or why Jar-Jar Binks was a Rastafarian.
Why not a stoner Deadhead?
Just as moronic a meme.
And “Greedo” as a character’s name?
What planet is George from, Stupidooine?
profitsbeard on February 12, 2012 at 11:01 PM
LOL.
The Force isn’t only Not With You……You live in a completely different neighborhood.
Tim_CA on February 12, 2012 at 11:08 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7zWNJHS9PBE
Stu Gotts on February 12, 2012 at 11:27 PM
Incidentally, if you haven’t watched *all* the Red Letter Media reviews, Part 3 of the 3rd review (about 12 minutes in) does an extended analysis on the cinematography aspects of the prequels that nearly match the academic content of a postgrad-level course I took on the subject.
It’s highly educational as well as hilarious. The short version: the prequels are divided between “CGI scenes” and “other scenes Lucas wanted to get over with,” and the actors in the latter are laid out strictly for economy, like he was working on a project with 1% of his actual budget.
HitNRun on February 12, 2012 at 11:27 PM
I find the first three to be trite now; loved them (other than the Ewoks) back then, and watched them many times since..
However the later ‘prequels’ were so painful to watch that I couldn’t bring myself to even watch the third one when it came to TV,
The acting was horrible… the only ones that didn’t seem like robots were C3PO and R2D2. The dialogue silly, although the story line was interesting.
Anyone that thinks that the last batch is good, much less better than the originals is obviously insane.
LegendHasIt on February 12, 2012 at 11:38 PM
Watch Plinket’s review of EI and EII over at http://www.redlettermedia.com They’re both a little over an hour long. He goes in to great intellectual detail as to why the prequels are absolutely terrible movies. His arguments are well thought out, insightful, and intelligent, with some entertainment thrown in to keep it from getting dry. I always had some issues with the prequels, but I couldn’t quite formalize the arguments. Plinket was able to verbalize and articulate my concerns and critiques.
I highly recommend you give him a try, but wait until you have about an hour to watch through his reviews. They are each a little over an hour long, but highly worth your time.
Weebork on February 13, 2012 at 12:06 AM
Wow. Bush derangement syndrome on full display when it leads someone to claim the prequels were better than the original trilogy.
Daemonocracy on February 13, 2012 at 12:07 AM
Han Shot First.
That is all.
Yakko77 on February 13, 2012 at 12:11 AM
The real problem with the second trilogy is while the first was triumphant, the second was foreboding. Jar-Jar Binks and midoclorians didn’t help and maybe Lucas forgot haw to direct.
Slowburn on February 13, 2012 at 12:13 AM
My ranking of quality:
4
5
6
1
2
3
George Lucas forgot the acting bit, and the theme bit and the plot bit in order to get his special effects bit in. And the re-releases (which are remakes) of the original 3 are what happens when you make a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy… Bruce Willis stars in a movie discussing this sort of thing.
But to be absolutely clear (and I’m lovin’ that word “absolute” because a froot loop I have to deal with on a regular basis absolutely hates absolutely all absolutes, and absolutely all “absolutists”), I very much hope George Lucas creates his final trilogy of trilogies. And I would pay to watch them.
John Hitchcock on February 13, 2012 at 12:18 AM
Ok, now I want to see a Plinkett vs. Sexton debate on the topic.
Uhmm…no. The prequels were boring, even the fight scenes. Everything felt “forced” (pun intended). The characters made stupid decisions just to get to the next CGI action sequence. Also, there was no connection with any of the characters, so I didn’t really care what happened to any of them. Growing up with the original trilogy, I wanted to be Luke Skywalker and my brother wanted to be Han Solo. If I were a kid when the prequels came out, I can’t think of a single character that I’d want to be while “playing Star Wars”.
Were the originals perfect? Nope. But they were endearing. The audience got to see Luke Skywalker grow from a whiny kid to a powerful force for good despite all the suffering (physical and emotional) and temptation he was put through. And we got to see Han Solo transform from selfish to selfless. On the flip side, we got to watch Darth Vader change from a murderous servant of evil into a murderous protective father. These are examples of things that people can identify with; the human condition, as it were. What growth did we see from any of the prequel characters? Did Jar Jar become anything besides a clumsy idiot? Did Amidala evolve into someone other than a figure of monotone, emotionless sex appeal? The only two characters that were really changed through the story were Anakin…but he doesn’t really count because that was the whole point of the prequel trilogy in the first place…and Obi Wan Kenobi, and that’s only because he was given a battlefield promotion after Qui-Gon was killed.
But the most egregious sin that the prequel trilogy commits is that it completely destroys everything from the originals concerning the mythos of Jedi/Sith and the Force. Midichlorians anyone? What Yoda taught Luke in the swamps of Dagohbah in Empire about patience, control over one’s feelings, faith, etc. was shattered since all you needed in order to be a Jedi in the prequels was a stoic expression on your face and a lightsaber.
There is good reason why Lucas started the Star Wars franchise with Episode IV. Had he started with Episode I, there wouldn’t have been an Episode II and he wouldn’t be a billionaire right now.
Left Coast Right Mind on February 13, 2012 at 12:28 AM
‘Star Bores’? Never heard of it.
BHO Jonestown on February 13, 2012 at 1:06 AM
hawkdriver on February 12, 2012 at 10:49 PM
Yeah, that’s true, though not to the extent that the prequels did.
I don’t know–maybe Lucas is just a jerk.
(Sorry I didn’t respond earlier, but I got caught up in the QOTD thread. My head would be throbbing at this point if I hadn’t had several drinks in the last hour to “take the edge off”.)
RedCrow on February 13, 2012 at 1:36 AM
Weebork on February 13, 2012 at 12:06 AM
Yeah. They’re really good.
I kinda think he took the “extra entertainment” a little too far at times. (It didn’t bother me, but I could see a woman thinking it was creepy. Also, only a few parts were mildly amusing, IMO.)
RedCrow on February 13, 2012 at 1:40 AM
Honestly, I suspect that if the prequels were done back then they would be the ones everyone loved. If he had started with them he would not have had the CGI crutch he leaned on this go around. He would have been forced to put together a tighter, more story oriented movie. That was what made the first 3 work really well. I think that is why he keeps re-cutting the originals, because if he had made them today they’d be the same way (a bunch of CGI scenes punctuated with a little acting).
Dawnsblood on February 13, 2012 at 3:25 AM
The original Star Wars wasn’t called “Episode IV” or “A New Hope” that was added later when it was clear Lucas had a cash cow to milk for dear life.
Here is the opening crawl from 2006!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QoMQKumx7Zo
gdonovan on February 13, 2012 at 6:15 AM
“The “Star Wars” prequels were totally better than the original trilogy”
(barf)
My contribution to the subject.
Dr. Mercury on February 13, 2012 at 6:20 AM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2