George Lucas turned 80. Let's debate: Star Wars prequel trilogy vs. sequel trilogy - General Discussion Discussion

[–] M1sterDoct0r (3981) 14 days ago

The sequel trilogy sucked but that doesn't automatically make the prequels any better like a lot of fans would have you believe.

Oh the original director at least directed the prequels & it was his vision? So what? Peter Jackson made the Hobbit trilogy. Still sucked ass.

Just because the original filmmaker returned to make the thing he made decades ago doesn't automatically make it good. Case in Point, Ridley Scott with the Alien Franchise.

The Prequel trilogy is flawed. The acting isn't great. The visuals are an eye sore. The dialogue & writing leave a lot to be desired. And boy did they go overboard with the CGI.

Revenge of the Sith is pretty good though.

Again, the sequels aren't that great & are honestly forgettable. The characters are bland & the world isn't that interesting.

So, I'll take Revenge of the Sith from the prequel era & Rogue One from the Disney era & I'll be on my way. Good day, Sir!

reply

[–] samoanjoes (52038) 14 days ago

I just don't understand Lucas' decision to use all that CGI. He did so well with the original trilogy with the budget and technology he had. I actually appreciate The Force Awakens going away with that decision (it still has it, but not nearly as much.)

I like Revenge of the Sith as well, but because of all the CGI, I still prefer the Force Awakens.

reply

[–] M1sterDoct0r (3981) 14 days ago

Lucas only had "yes people" around him making the prequel trilogy. That's why he went overboard in all departments.

The behind the scenes of the prequels is honestly a fascinating watch. More entertaining than the finished product.

The actors had absolutely no idea what they were reacting to or interacting with and it really affected their performances.

reply

[–] samoanjoes (52038) 14 days ago

The actors had absolutely no idea what they were reacting to

To be fair, I had no idea what I was reacting to either.

reply

[–] M1sterDoct0r (3981) 14 days ago

I think Attack of the Clones is the worst offender. It's honestly my least favorite Star Wars movie, so far.

It's like an attack on your senses. You know what I mean?

reply

[–] samoanjoes (52038) 13 days ago

No idea what you mean. This totally looks 100% real and necessary.
https://static1.moviewebimages.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/Attack-of-the-Clones-CGI.jpg

reply

[–] parkerbot (5898) 14 days ago

If nothing but the first two disappeared, I'd be bummed about Han Solo but the world would probably be better off.

reply

[–] samoanjoes (52038) 14 days ago

Original trilogy only. The rest could disappear and I wouldn't miss them even though I have nostalgia for a few.

reply

[–] Anotherday (7759) 9 days ago

This ^

reply

[–] BKB (6607) 14 days ago

If you put aside Jar Jar Binks, the Prequel Trilogy felt like STAR WARS, but it lacked the old cast which brings me to the sequel trilogy beginning with The FORCE AWAKENS.. I enjoyed The FORCE AWAKENS for the way it was layed out in the search for Luke Skywalker and of course the edition of Han Solo returning made it even better.. However, if I were making this, I would've reunited all the heroes in one scene before killing off Han Solo which was a ridiculous death.. Then came The LAST JEDI and I think the problem with that was my expectations of how I imagined Luke coming back after The FORCE AWAKENS instead of how he was portrayed in this movie which was like a total puss thanks to Disney.. Mark Hamill complained about this movie for a reason before the Mouse silenced him over it.. And finally, I never saw "Rise of Skywalker" after how bad The LAST JEDI was, so there's that..

reply

[–] samoanjoes (52038) 14 days ago

However, if I were making this, I would've reunited all the heroes in one scene before killing off Han Solo which was a ridiculous death.

About a month ago, I finished watching the trilogy again and was thinking the same thing. How can you have the original cast together for the first time in 30 years and not have one scene with them together? In "The Avengers" we get that one shot of all the heroes together and we were robbed of a similar thing here. We actually got a bigger reunion in the film with Han and the Millennium Falcon.

reply

[–] BlackChristmas (563) 14 days ago

https://youtu.be/B8K9jAJ3Ong?feature=shared&t=89

reply

[–] samoanjoes (52038) 14 days ago

Jar Jar looks better there than in the film.

reply

[–] BlackChristmas (563) 14 days ago

OT > PT > ST

reply

[–] JoWilli (15888) 10 days ago

PT > OT

ST = not a real star wars movie

reply

[–] Kowalski (61602) 14 days ago

I DON'T REALLY LIKE EITHER...BUT THE SEQUEL TRILOGY IS SLIGHTER MORE ENJOYABLE.

reply

[–] samoanjoes (52038) 14 days ago

They're just better made in general. To me, both trilogies have one good movie.

reply

[–] Kowalski (61602) 14 days ago

YEAH...THAT'S FAIR.

reply

[–] JoWilli (15888) 14 days ago

but muh star wars must have stop motion animation...

reply

[–] samoanjoes (52038) 14 days ago

No, I just don't want excessive CGI.

reply

[–] M1sterDoct0r (3981) 14 days ago

Miniatures + good set design > Excessive CGI.

reply

[–] Mrmojo4700 (20642) 14 days ago

I was watching the Medusa sequence from Clash of the Titans the other day and its stop motion effects were fantastic.

reply

[–] samoanjoes (52038) 13 days ago

I'll even take bad miniatures over bad CGI.

reply

[–] Stratego (29383) 13 days ago

The practical effects are what gave the Star Wars universe its charm and specific look and feel. You can not simply recreate that with CGI. It just makes it look like any modern action movie.

reply

[–] JoWilli (15888) 10 days ago

what if the Phantom Menace, AOTC and ROTS had been made first. thus making them the Original Trilogy. would you prefer them over ANH, ESB and ROTJ?

reply

[–] Stratego (29383) 10 days ago

Not trying to be mean, but that's kind of a non-sensical question. Both trilogies are clear products of their time. If Phantom Menace, etc. had been made back in the 70s/80s, they would've been totally different movies. I just can't judge them like that.

The new trilogy certainly ruined a lot of the original mythology, but I also think they aren't very good movies that have too much melodrama and ugly CGI.

reply

[–] JoWilli (15888) 9 days ago

no offense taken. I have been asking that question for about 10 years now as a litmus test for how people see star wars.

I meant just judging the movie with practical effects vs CGI. yeah they would have been different slightly. but what if they used the same actors? JarJar prob would have been a puppet and Carrie would be Padme, Mark would have been Kenobi. etc...

of course disney ruined the original mythology and star wars in general. the CGI in the new movies doesnt really bother, I think its well done. its just the story and acting sucks.

reply

[–] Stratego (29383) 9 days ago

I just don't think the stories would've been the same. It's obvious the new trilogy was derived from something else.

JarJar might very well have been an annoying puppet like the Ewoks.

I'm really not a fan of the CGI. It looks too generic and more like something from a computer game. I also think the advantage of practical effects is that they have limitations, so you tend to not go too far with them. The original trilogy has its own distinct look that really represents that whole universe for me.

reply

[–] JoWilli (15888) 9 days ago

"The original trilogy has its own distinct look that really represents that whole universe for me."

thats because it was made first and you were prob a kid when you watched it. which is another point of my star wars litmus test. people love it because it takes them back to a time when watching movies was new and exciting. people also love the OT because of nostalgia. if you had watched the phantom menace in 1977 then that movie would have been your favorite.

reply

[–] Stratego (29383) 9 days ago

Okay, I'm not THAT old. I'd already seen plenty of movies with CGI before I saw the complete trilogy somewhere in the latter half of the 90s.

".if you had watched the phantom menace in 1977 then that movie would have been your favorite."

Absolutely not. I actually watched it in theater back then when I was a teen. I would've been the right age to prefer the modern effects and cinematography over the "hokey" ones of the OT. I simply did not. Like I said, it looked generic and missed the distinct charm. And that's just one aspect I didn't like.

Come on, be an adult and don't tell others why they do or don't like something.

reply

[–] JoWilli (15888) 9 days ago

"Come on, be an adult and don't tell others why they do or don't like something."

I am not trying to do that. I am merely pointing out the psychological effect of why you like the OT. I have been asking these questions for 10 years and I always get the same response. which is really peculiar.

may I ask when you first watched the entire OT? year would be fine.

so if the phantom menace was part of the OT, are you saying wouldnt like it?

reply

[–] Stratego (29383) 9 days ago

"I am merely pointing out the psychological effect of why you like the OT."

Yeah, so you actually ARE trying to tell people why they do or don't like something. All because you believe yourself to be some kind of psychoanalyst. I can assure you that I myself know far better why I do not like the movie.

"may I ask when you first watched the entire OT? year would be fine."

I'm not going answer that, because I just know that whatever I say, you're going to come up with some excuse why I don't like it despite it being superior to the OT.

"so if the phantom menace was part of the OT, are you saying wouldnt like it?"

How could it even be part of the OT? As some kind of flashback story in the third movie? If so, then I most likely would not have liked it.

reply

[–] JoWilli (15888) 9 days ago

[–] JoWilli (15666) a day ago
what if the Phantom Menace, AOTC and ROTS had been made first. thus making them the Original Trilogy. would you prefer them over ANH, ESB and ROTJ?

I asked this yesterday. its a "what if" scenario. I just find it interesting why everyone prefers the OT to the Prequels.

everyone always answers the same way too, they say they would hate the Phantom Menace, even though it would be the OT. anyways. carry on. :)

reply

[–] Stratego (29383) 9 days ago

Probably because it's a crappy movie, but your question is still non-sensical since it's very hard to see how it could even be part of the OT.

reply

[–] JoWilli (15888) 9 days ago

again, its a theoretical question. may I suggest taking philosophy and/or psychology classes. anyways. carry on with your linear life. :)

reply

[–] Stratego (29383) 9 days ago

As explained, your question doesn't even work in theory. The prequel trilogy could not ever have existed in the 70s.

I had philosophy classes in school, none of them even mentioned your kind of nonsense.

"carry on with your linear life."

Gladly!🍆

Oh yeah, and The Phantom Menace is a TERRIBLE movie.

reply

[–] JoWilli (15888) 9 days ago

ok

reply

[–] JoWilli (15888) 10 days ago

there was excessive stop motion animation, miniatures and rotoscope in the first 3 movies. Lucas only had yes people around him in 1976. they told him that stop motion animation was the future and that it would be around for the next 50 years. thats why he went overboard in all 3.

reply

[–] samoanjoes (52038) 10 days ago

I'll take bad stop motion over bad CGI.

reply

[–] JoWilli (15888) 10 days ago

I prefer CGI versus hand puppets.

Lucas basically created perfection when he made this. you will never see this with stop motion or in a disney star wars.

https://youtu.be/L6UK_rI3_b4

People will never know how insane seeing this scene in cinema was for the first time.
I mean... We didn't even know it was possible to make this scene until we experienced it.
And the absolute genius of the opening scene of star wars presenting an actual full scale war taking place in the stars.
Nothing will ever capture the magic of this scene.
The drums, the choreography, the sound design of just everything, the polish on all the cgi, the camera direction, the long cuts because the director trusts the work of his animators, the scale of the conflict being believable, the damn kitchen sink being thrown in too.

And to think there's still a fantastic story being told aside from this scene, it's literally just the start of the movie and the popcorn and soda are already finished.

reply

[–] samoanjoes (52038) 10 days ago

The only Star Wars movie I saw in theatre was Episode I. I remember thinking the pod race race was pretty cool even though I knew that none of it was a structured set. I general I have always preferred practical effects because it least it looks present on screen. Movies have been CGI'ing (is that the proper term?) characters that would have worked well with makeup for a while. CGI is too "in-your-face".

reply

[–] JoWilli (15888) 9 days ago

if you prefer practical effects, then yeah you are not going to like modern movies with CGI. Lucas created new technology for the prequels and thought everyone would love it. but then everyone shit on him and wanted old school effects in "their" star wars. then he sold it. now we are stuck with a 1000 star wars disney shows and movies that make no sense.

reply

[–] samoanjoes (52038) 9 days ago

I use to like CGI when it was used 1. when needed and 2. in subtle ways. Jurassic Park used both practical and still looks good to this day.

reply

[–] JoWilli (15888) 9 days ago

it wasnt used much in JP because the movie was made in 1992/93. they really didnt have much choice. its more cost effective these days to use CGI.

1977 technology will never be able to create this.

https://youtu.be/L6UK_rI3_b4

reply

[–] samoanjoes (52038) 9 days ago

It's definitely more cost effective Eto use CGI and that's why they're doing it. It's probably quicker too when you have 100 animators working on it.

reply

[–] Stratego (29383) 13 days ago

It's simply called the Star Wars trilogy. There is nothing else.

reply

[–] samoanjoes (52038) 13 days ago

How do you differentiate between 4-6, 1-3, 7-9?

reply

[–] Stratego (29383) 13 days ago

What do those numbers even mean? Only 1-3 seems familiar to me.

reply

[–] samoanjoes (52038) 13 days ago

Just because you don't like them that doesn't mean they don't exist.

reply

[–] Stratego (29383) 13 days ago

You better be careful, buddy, I also have the power to make you not exist.🤨

reply