re: Are the Star Wars prequels actually good?

quote:

---

Being the least shitty of the 3 doesn't make it "very good"

---

Odd...because that's exactly what's going on with this latest episode.

quote:

---

Why? we ALL know his story, from beginning to end.

---

No you don't, unless you read about it. (Which, is why I said his adventures from Episode 3-4 are worth the tale.)

There is a WIDE gap between the birth of Vader (Revenge of the Sith) to when he is introduced in a New Hope.

If you actually have a life outside of Star Wars, they are very enjoyable movies.

My point of view as a rabid SW fan who saw the originals in the theater:

Ep 1 had moments, but swerved into the ditch with Jar Jar and the various accents (bad fake Mr Moto Chinese for the Trade Federation, the droid army being complete idiots who weren't intimidating, all the Gungan meesa, yousa shite).
Little Annie was too cutesy too.
And the Gungan battle scene seemed pathetically small for resisting a world invasion.
Darth Maul stuff helped fix that, as did the other battle scenes (in space minus the Annie stuff).
Someone once told me they saw an edited down version removing Jar Jar and Annie, and it was good.

Ep 2, had decent moments. We got looks at Coruscant, which I enjoyed. We looked at Kamino, which I enjoyed for the most part. The Jedi battle on Geonosis was bad, but the Clone Army attack was great IMO.
Padme and Anakin... was ruined by bad acting, and by the concept that a hottie like Padme wouldn't already have someone her age.
I enjoyed the Senate crap moreso this time around, as Palpatine worked the system to gain more power.
No need for Boba.

Ep 3 was overall fine, but like others say it didn't transition Anakin to Darth well at all. That, and Padme just dying randomly at the end.

Biggest issue with the prequels is that they mistimed things.
The first movie should have combined ep 1 and 2; the second movie should have been Geonosis through just before Order 66 (the bulk of the Clone Wars); the 3rd movie should have been the fall of Anakin, with him increasingly turning against the Council, and fatally wounding Padme before his fight with Obi-wan.

I couldn’t get past Jar Jar Binks or the midichlorian baloney so I didn’t watch 2 and 3, and haven’t watched any of the other new ones, also. Why would I trust anyone who thought those two things were good in a movie to get it right after that?

I don’t want my childhood movie greats ruined by these new films.

And get off my lawn.

The prequels as flawed as they were with the execution and nuts and bolts, had a game plan as to how the empire and Darth Vader came to be starting with the first movie and that is something George Lucas stuck with and that is why the prequels are better than the sequels.

The problem with the sequel trilogy was that they did not have a plan mapped out for all three movies or at least that is what appearances are because the Last Jedi was so terrible it may have upended any plan they had after the force awakens.

quote:

---

any plan they had after the force awakens

---

It's pretty clear after seeing what Abrams did with 2/3 of the trilogy that the only plan was to remake the OT.

Attack of the Clones is quite possibly the most inept big-budget movie I have ever seen

I think people didn't like them at the time because of the bad dialogue (and bad acting) combined with them having a completely different feel than the OT.

These days, you can also criticize the CGI which unfortunately hasn't aged all that well.

All that said, I've always enjoyed the prequels. It helps to have been 9 when Episode I was released in theaters, but they do hold a lot of nostalgia to me. I feel like all the expanded universe content as well as the movies themselves did a great deal to expand the Star Wars mythos. My only complaint these days is how bad the writing is.

First 2 are barely passable