Star Wars in unison is AMAZING
I tired watching all six movies back to back, I got to Empire Strikes Back and fell asleep. This is because I watched them at night and not during the day. That was my mistake. Though the first three movies in unison are EPIC. George Lucas clearly reviewed before he went on to his next project (next episode).
I'm a fan boy, and I love all the Star Wars movies.
I never really had a full grasp on how wonderful they were, until I tried watching them all in order. I was actually amazed by how much more depth and feeling they all have.
If you don't watch all 6 in order, at least give the prequels another chance.
I have so much more respect for the prequels, and a closer understanding to what they're all about. Every scene is totally necessary.
Watching in unison I got such a deeper and truer sense of the characters. I didn't even get pissy that the Anakin we know became Darth Vader. His transformation was so much more sincere and comprehensive ,when seeing it develop and pan out over a stream of "consciousness" (over three movies).
I am going to attempt this again. The characters were well written, everything makes sense. I never really knew how great the movies all were together. I had problems with Hayden Christen's performances and thought ROTS was poorly acted, but having witnessed his life and observing his character closely throughout his life and seeing the dark side in Palpatine, I truly understood every scene.
I'm a fan boy, and I love all the Star Wars movies.
I never really had a full grasp on how wonderful they were, until I tried watching them all in order. I was actually amazed by how much more depth and feeling they all have.
If you don't watch all 6 in order, at least give the prequels another chance.
I have so much more respect for the prequels, and a closer understanding to what they're all about. Every scene is totally necessary.
Watching in unison I got such a deeper and truer sense of the characters. I didn't even get pissy that the Anakin we know became Darth Vader. His transformation was so much more sincere and comprehensive ,when seeing it develop and pan out over a stream of "consciousness" (over three movies).
I am going to attempt this again. The characters were well written, everything makes sense. I never really knew how great the movies all were together. I had problems with Hayden Christen's performances and thought ROTS was poorly acted, but having witnessed his life and observing his character closely throughout his life and seeing the dark side in Palpatine, I truly understood every scene.
Sign in to comment in this discussion.
Comments
Star Wars I was epic, Star Wars II was great as well (curse you George Lucas for that cliffhanger), Star Wars III was only great in the beginning, later on the Ewoks ruined the film. Episode 1 was just dissapointing, episode 2 was a little bit better and episode 3 was kind of fun but it was doomed by that you already knew how things would end up, so dunno. Star Wars definately inspired many of us in their youth but later on things turned more into a meh direction as there do exist much better sf movies, not even to mention sf books or all the Star Wars monoculture drama.
I thought people were boycotting this thread, I wish you had replied to the other one. I note just one reason why the first three episodes are vital and justified for the saga.
You did it just to soil me!
I never got into Episodes 4-6 until I watched the prequels (until the clonewars after seeing that in the cinema I was totally hooked and Episode III was far away).
When Episode III was released I went to see it and got my cousin hooked on the prequels with the DVDs afterwards. So I was "forced" to see it again with him in the cinema.
tl;dr:
I really like every movie in the series, the prequels have a lot of unnecessary stuff in it but they got me hooked on the series and are great fun to watch.
The prequels themselves are completely unnecessary. The Phantom Menace is, of course, the worst offender. What is the plot? What are the motivations of the bad guys, this Trade Federation? What about Maul?
If you actually think about ANY one aspect or plot point of the entirety of Phantom Menace, it falls apart. If you try and connect it to the original trilogy, it is absolutely torn apart. The prequels, as films, do not have the depth, weight, continuity, or consistency to hold up against even the lightest of scrutiny. I can only assume that people who enjoy the prequels do not actually enjoy films, but instead love to peruse tech demos and shiny objects.
There is nothing redeemable or good about the prequels. Their very existence is disgusting, they are not Star Wars films, and to call them "films" is a stretch and a technicality so unabashedly abused that it makes a man sick just to think about it.
Sorry about being vague. Nothing specific was actually said in FAVOR of the artistic abortions.
Stop asking these questions or George Lucas will have to make 3 prprequels to answer them...
Then of course he actually did.
Since it's actually part of the name, it makes sense to use that numbering. However I agree that the best order to see them would be order of release. The prequel trilogy spoils a lot of the original trilogy if you watch it first, however if you watch it afterwards you can see it as a way to "tie loose ends" and stuff. I think if they had been done with the purpose of being watched first they would have been done much differently (especially the end of 3)
*) Strictly speaking, the first movie was called only "Star Wars" when it came out, I think they added the episode number and the "New Hope" title only when the movies were released on home video. To my knowledge, Empire and Return have always had "Episode V" and "Episode VI" as part of their titles though.
Edit: They didn't use the episode numbers in your country? That explains the confusion. Best to stick to the English numbering convention in an English-language forum though
I admit my defeat, use whichever numbers you want
That's unfair for all those who don't understand German.
Of course ... wenn eck Platt schruiben dei, denn küönns diu dao äok nich onnik kleok von weierden.
Es sei denn, du kennst dich im Niederdeutschen aus.
Was it worth it? It was rather expected for me. Extremely opinionated, and cynical and then makes attacks to anyone who thinks differently.
You can like the prequels, I suppose, especially if you're a kid. Kids love teletubbies as well.
The acting is horrible, the dialogues are awful, the plot is non-existant... and worst of all: it breaks continuity with the original trilogy.
It's like George never even saw the originals.
I love Star Wars and I love Empire Strikes Back, I don't mind Return of the Jedi too much, but the others... yuck
I think you're wrong. I'm 22 years old and I like the prequels and I hated the teletubbies. I think you assume too much.
Ha, George Lucas has never been that amazing with dialog, the most famous lines are either well delivered or extremely simple and so remember able.
"No, I am your father."
'Leave that to me."
"The circle is now complete, when I left you I was but the learner and now I am the master."
"Stay on target"
"Gah...."
"Stand by...."
"WOOOHOOO"
"NERFERTER!"
"Use the force Luke"
"Do, or do not there is no try"
"Great shot kid, that was one in a million"
"You don't need to see our identification, these aren't the droids you're looking for, you can go about your business, move a long..."
I mean, that is just mind blowing Shakespearean work there...
They have plots lol, Half of the original trilogy focuses on the career of Harrison Ford and Leia and Han solo, spawning a whole expanded universe where they have a large family where their lives are furthered revealed in 1000s of novelizations...
Rescuing Leia, Oh rescuing Han, Oh Rescuing Han again, rescuing Leia again, you get the idea. You could easily attack the original three for sort of dancing around the whole Jedi/ Sith plot, which the new 3 most definitely don't skip around very much if at all.
You could argue that the original 3 are broken up and have un-necessary side quests...lots of filler in the original 3, lots. Even if it is justified I wouldn't say that the narrative of Star Wars has EVER been linear.
How does it break continuity? Should we have seen the early life of Han Solo?
Maybe you think we should have followed around Han Solo's parents instead of Anakin and Padame?
Yeah... Maybe they would have tried to write an actual story.
It's not even that the prequels' plot doesn't make sense, it mainly that it's, well... USELESS.
We already knew that darth vader had been a good guy who had fallen to the dark side and blabla... Did we need to know anymore of it ? "Sure", i yelled when i was 12 and the prequels were anounced, but having watched them now, i just think it ruined all the coolness of the character (and that's not even because the character of anakin was lame or anything, even if he was)
Oh and how could you beat him?! :O)
I wonder how many discussions there have been around if Natalie Portman beats Carrie Fisher.
You can't.
you can.
None. It is clear that Natalie is hotter. You cannot beat the hottest woman on this planet.
What do you have in the prequels? Trade disputes that no viewer is going to understand. There is a trade federation running a blockade of Naboo. Why. There's some disagreement over taxes and tariffs, says the crawl. Okay, cool, but what makes Naboo important? Why is there such a thing as a legal blockade? Why does Palpatine keep having his minions try desperately to essentially thwart him? A "legal invasion"(whatever the hell that menas) would have completely ruined Palpatine's machinations, and yet if it weren't for a couple Jedi whose completely nonsensical judgement is only matched by the stupidity of their opponents, the treaty would have been signed and Palaptine would be back on square 1.
Doodoo, continuity has nothing to do with following characters around from the original trilogy. In fact, that we see R2D2 and C-3PO at all is horribly straining. What is the liklihood that two random droids would so happen to stumble into both adventures? The thing is, they don't belong in the prequels, and that they're in the movies hurts the credibility of the story. In Episode VI, we're told that Yoda is the Jedi that trained Obi-Wan. We're told that Obi-Wan was as bothersome as Luke as a pupil. And yet, we get Qui-Gon anyway. We're told that Leia remembers her mother, and that she was very sad, and yet Padme died in childbirth. We get this idea that Obi-Wan and Anakin were good friends, and the whole Master/Apprentice relationship along with both of them constantly yelling at each other with only sidelong comments saying "Oh that adventure we had was pretty neat huh way over there off screen I HATE YOU!" to indicate that they might like each other at all.
No. You can't. I didn't like Spaceballs except for Rick Moranis. At all.
I agree that the plot of the first film was very thin, and what was there was too complicated (trade agreements? WTF?), but the action was pretty good. At least as good, if not better than the original trilogy. Considering the only plot twists i can remember from those films are "Obi-wan dies", "i am your father" and "i am your brother", i don't think thats too bad. Episode II was better than Episode I in the plot respect (well, ignoring the necessary, but terrible romance scenes) but lacked in the action aspect.
EpIII struck the perfect balance, and, despite everyone knowing how the plot was going to end, threw in a twist (The chancellor guy was the sith lord?! I should have seen it before!), plus the action was amazing, and Ewan Mcgreggor's (Obi-wan kenobi) acting was amazing. Their were some powerful scenes in that film. Watched in unison, for me, the prequels are far greater than the originals. The third being the best (however, the order i like the others varies with my mood)
I guess it boils down to what you are looking for in the star wars films. Plot or action. Personally, i preffer the plot of "Knights of the old republic" to any of the films.
Plus the prequels served their purpose of getting a whole new generation interested in starwars. I hadn't even heard of it before phantom menace (and it took me a while to like the originals)
Also as to the fact they have no
The plot of the second movie is not good. People do things for absolutely no reason. Why are Anakin and padme on Naboo? Because we need romance scenes in Venice, yes, but other than that. Why is Anakin the one sent there, considering that Obi-Wan and tech eyepatch guy seem to know they're a couple horribly horny kids? Why are they avoiding assassins without any regard for security? Anakin is there for her protection, but if she's just fine without any security protocol then why is he even there?
Anakin is not a believable person, and we also don't really believe that anyone could love him, at least not someone as strong and intelligent as Padme is intended to be. He's an insane murderer already, he's an ego-maniacal whiner, and he supports fascism and dictatorships obscenely openly. These things are meant to make the transformation to Darth Vader make sense, "Oh, he already had these tendencies", but it works against the franchise's narrative as a whole in major ways. First of all, we never see the good man that Obi-Wan describes as his old friend from the galactic foxhole. We never see the great man that Anakin Skywalker was intended to be, because he never was that. He's just an outright insane horny teenager, and this makes his redemption in the final act fall flat. The second issue is that we don't see Anakin as a person, and we don't see him as something other than a clear and present danger. It should not take a wise Jedi to realize that Anakin is clearly dangerous and scary.
There are a million different things that make no sense. It would take all day to say every single thing wrong with the movie. What would be a lot harder is to point at ONE SINGLE THING in the ENTIRE RUNTIME OF THE PREQUEL FILMS and say "That thing is completely consistent, both with the previous trilogy and internally within itself". The movie is a practice in seeing how many times a movie series can contradict itself, even within the same film, before idiots can notice that there is not a single thing in the movies that holds up to any sort of critical scrutiny. The answer is apparently every single thing can be a contradiction and as long as it's shiny most people won't care because they are objectively stupid. You can like something that is dumb. What you can't do is say that any singular aspect of the entire prequel film run wasn't completely stupid. When I like stupid things, I don't pretend that they have any sort of quality to them. I don't go and say "Well, the structure of that fart joke was particularly sublime".
Anyone who did not know that the Chancellor was Palpatine was either in the 10 or younger set, or mentally handicapped to the point that they need to contact somebody to take care of their basic needs because they do not have the intelligence to do things like wipe their bums.
...Oh, good. Now I see that you're joking. The idea of powerful scenes in the prequel trilogy is far too ridiculous to be an actual claim by a human being. I don't feel bad about insulting the films now, because I see that you're being facetious.
Yes it does. If you find it difficult to breathe and think at the same time, perhaps you'll like the prequels! They're shiny and they don't even not require thought, but thought actually HURTS the experience of seeing shiny toy concepts created in a laboratory setting with absolutely no concern for artistic merit or consistency or any of the things that make a movie truly great.
If children have no concern for anything that was made before they were born, then they don't deserve them. The idea that something that was made before REQUIRES a modern tie-in to make it relevant again is a horrible concept that, if taken to the extreme, would also simply have us re-making the entire film canon every 20 or so years. We don't need a new Citizen Kane every 20 years for it to matter. La Grande Illusion doesn't require constant reboots to make it powerful. Hitchcock's films don't require remakes to continue to be thought of as masterpieces. The relevancy of the original trilogy is by no means enhanced by the existence of this artistic abortion.
Well, I suppose that if you started with the prequel trilogy I don't really have much of a choice than to let you off with your near-heretical comments.
And then I remembered that you prefer the prequels to the originals and... I just can't let you away with that.
At least you've got it right, the 3rd prequel is the best of the 3, if only because it doesn't give itself too much time to open up plot holes and just throws in the action.
The problem isn't the films but with Lucas. He really, really doesn't know when to stop and when you look at the making of documentaries, when he talks, people looks scared and confused, like some inner conflict is telling them to pimp-slap Lucas down, but it's being pushed back by the fact that doing so would probably cost them their jobs.
If you want to see how far Lucas can go, you need only to view the Cantina at Mos Eisley, and the exchange between Han Solo and Greedo, the bounty Hunter who intended to turn him into Jabba the Hutt. In the original film, Solo distracts Greedo by talking to him, then shoots him under the table without batting an eye. This is meant to show the fact that Solo is a rogue who plays by his own rules, and that Luke and Obi-Wan could really be taking a risk by hiring a man who would sell them out if it would save him.
Lucas didn't want this, he wanted Solo to be a lovable rogue from the word go.
What this gets us is Greedo shooting first. Greedo, a presumably trained bounty hunter, sitting not 3 feet from Solo, with a blaster pointed right at him, AND MISSES.
Look, this is what we get: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0qUjsCODGnE&feature=related
It just looks sooo... stupid! Han's "dodge" is bearly nothing more than a nervous twitch, he doesn't hit Greedo, and yet Greedo somehow manages to shoot the wall next to him, despite having a nice large body target to hit. Not only that, Greedo is CLEARLY POINTING THE GUN AT HAN'S CHEST yet he hits the wall above his head. It's just... soo... ugh it makes me so angry!
As an Edit, I was thinking about picking apart your post, but then I realised that Rather Dashing would be around to do that, and lo and behold after I posted I was correct. I might not have been as... blunt as he was and certainly not as eloquent, but I can tell you now what he said is probably what I would have said.
As an aside, any semblence of powerful scenes in episode 3 are completely pushed to the side with Obi-Wan warbling "YOU KILLED YOUNGLINGS!".
Luke wasn't any better actually, "WAAAHHAAAAA, ish not possible yur mah fadur". But one thing is obvious that when Vader is a Sith Lord, he's completely badass.
But back on the prequels, they weren't bad; but it's obvious they could have been a lot better. The corny dialouge for one thing, did they have to be so dramatic when they were talking? They sounded really stupid and kind of redundant. Episode 2 was just bad because it kind of had no place to run, it needed a little something; like more fights in space, or less romance and more cutting off heads.
Episode 3 needed to have less darkness and less dramatic dialouge. Yoda for one thing, throughout Episode 1 and 2, he was so bad at pronouncing words and completing sentances. He needed to be more like he was in Episode 5, more guru and less "I'm trying to tell you not to go to the darkside, DON'T DO IT DUMMY!!".
That's just my opinion about the prequels. Did it make sense?
Anyway, i'll answer a couple of Rather Dashing's counter points.
Palpatine's plot twist:
Lets get this clear: It was blatantly obviouse throughout most of the third film, but i don't really see anything that would have led anyone to believe that was the case from the others. Sure, his power grows, but he seemed decent enough in the first two films. Bearing in mind i would have been 9 when ep1 came out, and maybe 12/13 when ep2 came out. Was the name said in the originals or something? I'm always forgetfull with names.
EP2's plot
I said it was better, not good. At least they tried to do something instead of " here's Darth vader jr."
Powerful scenes
Well, the battle between Obi-wan and Anakin was brilliant, i thought. The anguish, and torment they felt was complimented by the fiery setting, combined with the epic music. That scene just sticks in my mind, and was far better than any scene i can remember from the sequels.
Annakin is not believable
I honestly agree with you. Boy anakin should have been the kid from AI/6th sense. And adult annakin's acting was, well, not worthy of such a high budget film. Everything seemed forced with him, and, given he is the main character and the plot revolves around him, is the reason the films seem alot worse then they actually are.
I'm somehow prejudiced because they're old films
That's ridiculous. I've seen most of the original Star trek episodes (1963 i think?), and quite a few of the old Doctor who episodes (1963 onwards). I'm more than happy to watch old films, but i can't really help it if i haven't heard of them! I only heard of doctor who the morning the revamp aired (2005), and i absolutely adore that programme! I have yet to see citizen kane (not out of choice, i haven't seen it instore or on TV). Star trek i didn't start watching until the new film came out. It's release triggered all the old episodes to be aired again on TV, along with the films. As it happens, Star trek XI was the last of the films i ended up watching. I watched it after watching close to 100 of the old episodes, plus the films. New releases trigger people to start talking about the films again, and trigger the older ones to be re-released in some form, to make it easier for younger people to watch. I have no doubt that i would have watched starwars eventually, but the prequels introduced them to me in my childhood, allowing me to do things i wouldn't have done otherwise (Light saber duels with wooden stilts in the school playground for example)
I enjoy an extensive plot as much as the next guy (butterfly effect being one of my favourite films), but given starwars doesn't have an extensively interesting plotline (given that itg has entered popular culture, and even those who haven't seen the film know what happens, so no surprise twists), i don't watch the films for the plot.
I'm not saying the sequels are abd, i'm just saying Ipreffer the prequels.
Anyway, i'm gonna call it quits for the whole starwars arguing. I'm not seeking to change peoples opinions, i'm just saying how i see things. Also, i liked JarJar:o
@tamuel: I like wesley crusher! (currently watching TNG). He can get annoying sometimes, but is alright most of the time.
Well, i don't think the name was mentionned in the old movies, but yeah, even before episode I was released, it was obvious to old fansthat he was gonna be the bad guy
NO.
no.
NO!
no no no.
NO!
Just..no!
NO!
NOOOO!
[shakes finger]
Noooo.
It was a fantastic scene though.
But no.
NO!
no.
(Oh, and it was obvious to me about Palpatine because he looks exactly like the Emperor. Exactly like him.)
But no.
no.
No.
NO!
NO.
no.
NOOOOO!
NO.
no.
No no NO.
NO no no NO no.
NO!
no.
I don't see how they went for anything other than "here's Darth Vader the hormonal murderous teenager." I guess it's deeper because it uses more words.
First, we don't believe they are friends because they're constantly antagonistic toward each other and complain about each other behind the other's back. The scene is too long, to the point that the fancy jumps and twirling of lightsabers is little more than a spectacle. It gets boring if you want any sort of involvement with the sequence of images being played on the screen. In the end, the duel between the same two characters 20 years later is a lot more impactful than the big 15-minute tech demo because there was some sort of link to everything that was happening. You sort of got to know Ben, you knew Vader was ruthless, you see him strike down his old master and good friend Obi-Wan. You see how far he's turned. You don't need somersaults in the pits of Hell to convey these things, you need the film around the scene to actually compliment what the hell is going on.
How can a film be "better" than it seems despite its central focus being horrible? How can the central focus being executed in the worst possible way not somehow make the films detrimentally wounded beyond at the very least being better than movies that DON'T have this fault?
You weren't reading. You said that they needed to introduce the saga to children. I say the only reason you'd need new movies to do this would be to sell more toys. If George wanted an ad, he succeeded and should be commended. If he wanted to make a good film, he should be put in a corner and have his crayons taken away until he can learn to follow the rules.
And THAT'S where I have to stop you. Are you really trying to convince a STAR WARS FAN that new movies are good because it leads to RE-RELEASES? Because if so, you might need to reconsider your audience for a moment, and consider what re-releases mean for people who don't think that the original trilogy are the most boring because they lack laboratory shine.
Letting you whack other kids with a stick as a kid is not reason enough to butcher a classic purely for hedonistic profit.
What do you watch them for, then? To see shiny things zip by? Because Lucas definitely made sure that he could stuff each shot to the brim with shiny things that he could turn into toys or concepts for video games.
I'm not saying stepping in cow manure is bad, I'm just saying I Ipreffer stepping in dog crap. That's cool that you like racist caricatures. "Meesa yours humble servant, massa!" Though it makes sense that someone who enjoys the prequels would like racist caricatures, because the prequel films definitely meets their quota of them.
Aren't the no's kinda... Pushing it?