Star Wars Prequels discussion/debates

I really don't mind the prequels to be honest. Phantom Menace gets way too much hate, Jar Jar was not that bad, and Darth Maul made up for every terror Jar Jar set forward.

Attack of the Clones was just boring, not bad, just cheesy and boring for the most part. However Count Dooku was awesome, and his appearance accompanied by the first Yoda lightsaber battle was amazing.

And Revenge of the Sith was phenomenal, a masterpiece. Better than ROTJ and A New Hope I have to say, and far superior to Force Awakens.

Isn't a cheesy boring movie a bad one though? Movies are supposed to entertain so to be boring is kind of counterproductive to being good

I had written this reply on the other topic about the 3 Minute Rogue One trailer, and will repost it here:

The Starwars Prequels....

Where to start ? I think one can describe them best as wasted potential. 

First of all, why was this made as a trilogy, and what kind of storylines are there to justify these movies.

Ultimately this prequel story has 2 major plotpoints to cover.

1. How does the old republic change into the galactic Empire

2. What causes Anakin Skywalker to fall from grace, and become this evil Sithlord.

To me it feels as if the entire trilogy focuses way to much on very trivial stuff, and not on the things truly important.

(Edit 13-07-2016: Take the Boba Fett storyline. Yes he is the guy who tracks down Han Solo and makes a deal with the empire to deliver him to Jabba the Hutt, but is he truly worth such a prominent role in Episode 2 ? Should everything be explained about him ? He is by no means a major character)

I can probably go on for hours about all kinds of details, but to me the prequels failed because the 2 arcs mentioned above were not dealt with in a satisfying way.

Both the downfall of the Republic and the Downfall of Anakin are handled as if they were instant events.
First things are white, then within the blink of an eye they turn black so to speak.

Yes Anakin is a whiny self assured brat in the movies, his arrogance and huge ego are absolutely off putting. Yet he is not an evil guy. He saves Obi Wan on multiple occasions and usually goes the extra mile to help others where he can.

Then comes this so called switch moment, where the "evil switch" is enabled, and Anakin changes completely and instantly.

This whiny brat suddenly changes from a moping headstrong guy into a prolific mass murderer and child killer. And because of what ?

Mommy issues ? Him not getting the title of Jedi Master ? A nightmare ?

It's just so sudden, and there is no real context to actually justify any of it.

Nah, the prequels were very bad. They are bloated movies which for 80 % are unnecessary plot points going nowhere, and the true beef of the story, never really gets the proper attention.

(By the way, why is master Sypho Dyas never properly explained within the movie context ?)

I don't know about 80% but there was a fair bit of meandering around the first two. The third then had so much heaped onto it's shoulders that some things seemed rushed. There are small mentions of it within the movies, but as I've said before, you have to really pay attention to every word and try to look at this from how Lucas is.

That's pretty much the requirement of the prequels for the most part. You have to interpret what was put on the screen even in meaningless, boring dialogue, to pretty much what Lucas was trying to say(or at least you think he was). The problem is it's really hard to pay attention to the dialogue because it's so slow and boring for the most part.

It takes multiple rewatches of all of them to pick up all the hints and subtle points that could mean more. If someone takes the movies as facevalue entertainment though. Attack of the Clones is borderline unwatchable. Phantom Menace seems to have no idea who its audience is, and Revenge of the Sith seems rushed. 

I've said before outside the dialogue hints there's about 15-25 minutes of progress and story in each of the first two movies that matter in the grand scheme of things. Meanwhile the third one is rushed and it's very obvious that the original script got slimmed down a lot to what we got on screen since apparently George Lucas wanted a Lord of the Rings length epics with just the original fight to rescue Palpatine to be like 90 minutes alone. 

After re-reading that last post I think I need to clarify, I agree to some extent with GorillaGodzilla about Revenge of the Sith at least.

While maybe not being a masterpiece I do agree it is comparable to the original trilogy and IMO better than Force Awakens. 

Phantom Menace-I don't hate it like I used to.  After rewatching it, I find it more enjoyable than I used to think.  Liam Neeson delivers as Qui-Gon Jinn the podrace scene and Darth Maul fight were cool.

5.5/10

Attack of the Clones-Just boring.  The only prequel I consider bad.  I consider it the worst because of Hayden Christensen's ****ty acting.

3.6/10

Revenge of the Sith-The best of the prequels, I felt it was good but not great.  It was dark, Hayden Christensen was okay, and it made up for every last bit of Attack of the Clones.

7.5/10

 Lord Tyrant

I can't help but notice your opinion towards the prequels seems to be improving as of late. If I recall correctly you used to view them all trash, now it seems your hate has shifted almost fully onto Attack of the Clones.

Not that I blame you, that is the worst one, puzzling how Phantom Menace gets so much hate with such a clearly inferior product that came out right next to it.

Charza;

To answer your first plotpoint it was simple for the old republic to turn to the empire. Clones had inhibitor chip (Explained in Star wars clone wars season 6 episodes 1&2) so the mass of the army was simple to transfer generals like gov. Tarkin who was trained loyal to the chancellor. However a small amount of clones removed their chips as seen in Star wars rebels.

Concerning your second point. The reason Anakin fell from grace was is that he was having dreams of padmee's death like he did of his mother, (which is skimmed over in the film's). So he becomes desperate to prevent that so he becomes willing to do anything to save her and Palpatine exploits that and gets in his head and eventually Anakin unmeaningfully kills her and out of his own anger and sadness he becomes a sith lord.

Durp ROTS doesn't deserve to be used in the same sentence as "A New Hope," "The Empire Strikes Back," "Return of the Jedi," or "The Force Awakens."  Unless, of course, you're saying that any of those four is better than ROTS

also, are you going to do this discussion for the OT?

I wasn't planning on doing it for the OT as I figured the OT would just be an echochamber of "they're great!" for the most part. I felt there was more to dive into discussion wise in terms of the prequels and their pros and cons. 

As for Revenge of the Sith, I would say it's easily on par with some of the OT. I also get more enjoyment out of it than The Force Awakens

^Well yes, I love the OT, they're all masterpieces.

While I no longer hate ROTS, I still think that it's overrated, and, in my opinion, falls short to the OT (especially Empire), and also TFA.

Also, Return of the Jedi and The Phantom Menace are underrated.  Yes, The Force Awakens got some hate, but, like you said, depending on your POV, being like A New Hope could either follow the Star Wars tradition or make it a bad film.

I don't think RotS is better than TFA, because of the things it takes from New Hope(mostly). I think RotS is the exact opposite almost of TFA. TFA has great characters and crappy worldbuilding. RotS has great world building, and crappy characters. I put RofS higher because it had Obi Wan and Palpatine, which redeemed the characters for it more than the small pieces of worldbuilding TFA has.

I don't think it's much better, but I would still put it above. The last third of RofS I was basically on the edge of my seat. The most exciting parts of TFA was the beginning and seeing where it was going with the great characters.

^I do like Sidious and Obi-Wan more than Rey and Kylo, but I think TFA is superior due to better acting and storyline

^Nah nah nah nah nah. TFA is worthless.

I disagree storywise it was better. As my other thread said about the politics. What is going on outside of these characters in TFA RotS had so much in it creating a world. TFA created an adventure. If you wanted a small trip TFA could be better, but if you're like me and the world of Star Wars interests you, RotS is better. You see the fall of the Republic, of the Jedi, of good and what leads all the OT characters to where they are and their own mentality. 

^Exactly how I used to feel about the prequels

The way they set up the OT in ROTS was decent, not amazing, but decent.  Check here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ND8PP2nfGOg

This setup is much better than the one we actually got, not perfect, but pretty good

I can't stand the plot hole riddled movie, it is just a nightmare. Where did the little orange Yoda wannabe find Luke's lightsaber? How did that lightsaber make its way into space? Didn't he lose it on Bespin?

Why the hell didn't the force ghost of Anakin and Obi Wan try and console whiny Ben? WHY?! There are so many plot holes, I listed a minute amount.

^Anakin was whiny, if anything

well Durp, how does TFA compare to the other 2 lesser prequels?

I like Vader's setup, what led him to the darkside, the corruption and pull it has once you give into it. The tragedy that is Vader.

I never said the prequel trilogy was better than TFA, it's clearly better than the other 2, but I would put RotS in front of it.

Anakin was never a yelling emo, he was one of those Icrievritime types. Kylo Ren was just, oh my God.

^Anakin was a yelling emo, just watch his *****ing in AOTC.  Kylo Ren is far more interesting than Anakin.  He's emotionally conflicted (just like me).  Anakin was just a dull, worse version of Luke.  He was a *****!

This thread seems to have gone from a prequels discussion to a Force Awakens argument

KYLO REN, INTERESTING?!/! Lol, if anything, he was a worthless rip off of Anakin xD.

How is kylo more interesting or complex than Anakin?

He chooses to be bad just because. Anakin had waaaaaayyyyyyy more conflicts than Kylo at least legit ones.

^I'll give you one thing, Kylo Ren is no Darth Vader.

Darth Vader>>>Kylo Ren>>>>>>>>>>Anakin Skywalker

Kylo may be better than Anakin in terms of acting and directing, but not really in terms of character. I'd say they're about the same.