Film Score Monthly
FSM HOME MESSAGE BOARD FSM CDs FSM ONLINE RESOURCES FUN STUFF ABOUT US  SEARCH FSM   
Search Terms: 
Search Within:   search tips 
You must log in or register to post.
  Go to page:    
 Posted:   Oct 23, 2013 - 5:05 AM   
 By:   GOLDSMITHDAKING   (Member)

Good to see some true fans of SW sticking up for the prequels here.

Like some others have said, to critcise the film based on for example, the mention of taxes in the film.Really? just because trade taxes are mentioned? SW may be a fantasy universe but it still has to have its sense of rules and stucture just like Star trek does.The films plot is jumpstarted by the blockade of Naboo by the Trade Federation.What seems like an inconsequential issue is what eventually leads to all out war as the trilogy goes on.

Others criticise the prequels for not having a ' simplistic ' story like the original trilogy.What these people do not realise is that the prequels was always going to have to tell a more complicated story about the fall of a republic and Palpatines orchestration of this was done subtly .The Phantom Menace in fact has a lot more going on beneath the surface than any other ' kids ' movie.The film is light, childlike, and has an apparently happy ending, but in reality, the villains have won.Palpatine has become Chancellor and his plan to destroy the Jedi and plunge the galaxy into war is just getting started.

Even the ' victory ' music during the end celebration is The Emperors theme in disguise! a genius bit of storytelling from John Williams there through music.

 
 
 Posted:   Oct 23, 2013 - 6:53 AM   
 By:   jenkwombat   (Member)

Good to see some true fans of SW sticking up for the prequels here.

Like some others have said, to critcise the film based on for example, the mention of taxes in the film.Really? just because trade taxes are mentioned? SW may be a fantasy universe but it still has to have its sense of rules and stucture just like Star trek does.The films plot is jumpstarted by the blockade of Naboo by the Trade Federation.What seems like an inconsequential issue is what eventually leads to all out war as the trilogy goes on.


Yeah, I never understood that argument either. The backstory regarding taxes and trade routes takes up one line in the opening rollup, a few lines of dialogue on Naboo before the invasion and about half a short scene in the Senate on Coruscant. Although I've never used a stop-watch to time it, it probably takes up about two minutes of screen time, total. The rest of the movie is battles, etc. (You'd think the whole movie was people standing around at the IRS filing 401K forms.)

It's not complicated. At least no more complicated than the dialogue regarding the Senate (which we don't see) in the opening scenes of STAR WARS, or Tarkin's dialogue about the Emperor and the Senate....


 
 Posted:   Oct 23, 2013 - 6:56 AM   
 By:   solium   (Member)

Star Wars was a modern day serial like Flash Gordon or The Fighting Devil Dogs. (In fact that's where Lucas "stole" Darth Vader from.) Lucas's other pet series Indiana Jones retained that simplistic action adventure nature of it's subject.

The bogged down political and social elements in the prequels just don't work in context of it's origins. I would also argue there's hardly one interesting action sequence in the prequels. Just endless, unengaging computer game graphics. As the poster above noted the ramped up light saber fights were mind numbingly boring.

 
 
 Posted:   Oct 23, 2013 - 7:05 AM   
 By:   Ado   (Member)

Good to see some true fans of SW sticking up for the prequels here.

Like some others have said, to critcise the film based on for example, the mention of taxes in the film.Really? just because trade taxes are mentioned? SW may be a fantasy universe but it still has to have its sense of rules and stucture just like Star trek does.The films plot is jumpstarted by the blockade of Naboo by the Trade Federation.What seems like an inconsequential issue is what eventually leads to all out war as the trilogy goes on.

Others criticise the prequels for not having a ' simplistic ' story like the original trilogy.What these people do not realise is that the prequels was always going to have to tell a more complicated story about the fall of a republic and Palpatines orchestration of this was done subtly .The Phantom Menace in fact has a lot more going on beneath the surface than any other ' kids ' movie.The film is light, childlike, and has an apparently happy ending, but in reality, the villains have won.Palpatine has become Chancellor and his plan to destroy the Jedi and plunge the galaxy into war is just getting started.

Even the ' victory ' music during the end celebration is The Emperors theme in disguise! a genius bit of storytelling from John Williams there through music.


You make it sound like Lucas could not have told the story any other way that this exact screenplay. I do not buy that. I used the word simple, not simplistic and there is a difference. I think that you claim that it has a lot for going on that ANY OTHER KIDS movie is really reaching for it. There are a lot of kids movies that are pretty deep, Finding Nemo, Incredibles, Wizard of Oz, The Never Ending Story, Peter Pan, well we can go on. There are a lot of cases where kids movies are better written and more interesting that 'adult' pictures'.

Some of TPM comes off as the same kind of cloying that Lucas did with ROTJ with the teddy bear Ewok. The kid that they cast in the primary roll in TMP was really not a very good actor.

 
 Posted:   Oct 23, 2013 - 7:16 AM   
 By:   mastadge   (Member)

STAR WARS didn't change; the fans did. I know it sounds silly, but when I talk to those who didn't like the prequels, it does almost seem like they went in looking for something to hate.

Star Wars changed and the fans changed. Or at least some of us did! I was a huge Star Wars fan; until a decade ago I'd seen the movies countless times (haven't watched any of them since Revenge of the Sith came out, though, so I'm gearing up to revisit all of them and reassess), and until a few years ago I'd read almost every single one of the hundreds of novels and comics in that universe, played all the games for the story even though I'm not much of a gamer -- I lapped it up. And yes, I have changed. My tastes have changed. I get little pleasure out of most of the novels anymore, though I do try the new ones that aren't part of bigger series every so often. So there, I've established my fanboy bonafides. And I'm in the minority among those who dislike the prequels in that I liked each one less than the one before it. Phantom Menace had some boring stretches, was maybe a little too shiny, it had the midichlorian nonsense, but I liked it just the same. Attack of the Clones was a disappointment, but I watched it a couple times on video; Revenge of the Sith was so awful I could hardly sit through it the first time. I wasn't looking for anything to hate -- I always go to any movie hoping to enjoy it -- but things to hate were there and, for me, increasingly outweighed the things to love. And to claim that Star Wars didn't change is laughable. This "Dear J.J. Abrams" bit is neither perfect nor comprehensive but it does point out some of the changes:



I have no problem with expanding the universe and doing new things, if they're going to do them well, but to claim that the Prequels aren't a pretty big change from the originals is just plain wrong.

Good to see some true fans of SW sticking up for the prequels here.

Oh, good, this again. "True fans" have to stand by anything Lucas extrudes, regardless, or else they're somehow "untrue". Sorry, but in my mind a true fan will speak up when things go wrong and try to set them right again rather than just accepting them. Which is not to say that what I or other fans consider wrong must be universally considered wrong: if others enjoy them, that's fine. But it doesn't make me any less of a fan to be annoyed when a once-beloved property is bungled.

 
 Posted:   Oct 23, 2013 - 7:24 AM   
 By:   Jim Phelps   (Member)

Since we're discussing the quality of the prequel films, I can say that for me personally the absence of a Han Solo-type element to those films kept me from being interested, among many other things, but the lack of a delicious scoundrel like Han was sorely missed. I never cared much for Luke, Yoda, the Jedi Knights, and all that mysticism (and subsequent Midi-Chlorians).

In fact, when my friends and I played with our Kenner Star Wars action figures, we created our own characters which were made "cool" by establishing their "space cred" as being friends of Solo's. lol Only one of my childhood pals favored Luke and all that overly-serious stuff.

 
 
 Posted:   Oct 23, 2013 - 7:43 AM   
 By:   jenkwombat   (Member)

Oh, good, this again. "True fans" have to stand by anything Lucas extrudes, regardless, or else they're somehow "untrue".

Well.... no.

I don't blindly love anything with Lucas's name attached to it. I was bored by "Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade" and "...Crystal Skull". The less said about "More American Graffiti", "Howard the Duck" and "Radioland Murders" the better. (I haven't seen "Redtails" yet, so I can't comment.)

I just happened to like the six "Star Wars" films.

 
 
 Posted:   Oct 23, 2013 - 8:17 AM   
 By:   Ado   (Member)

I have never liked that whole
"If you love Star Wars you have to love the prequels" - package deal thing.

or the other version

"If you do not like the prequels then you just do not understand anymore, you are too cynical"
You can like Star Wars and say some of it is crap.

This same kind of thing goes on with Trek, if you love Trek you love all Trek.
I love Trek and I admit that about 30% of it is crap.




 
 Posted:   Oct 23, 2013 - 8:34 AM   
 By:   LeHah   (Member)

This "Dear J.J. Abrams" bit is neither perfect nor comprehensive but it does point out some of the changes

Unfortunately, that video is a perfect example of whats wrong with Star Wars fandom. They hold the concept hostage ("THIS IS WHAT IT IS AND DON'T YOU DARE CHANGE IT") and then demand that their points are agreed to ("STAR WARS IS A WESTERN" when, if you actually have any concept of creative thought, know that its a very small portion of what creative well Lucas was taking water from) or its automatically wrong.

This is more or less the vapid, inconsolable stupidity that fueled the RedLetterMedia guy: "I am right about this and if you disagree, you're not only wrong, you're Hitler." Of course, he was quick to roll over and play dead and cry for fear of being sued when Lucasfilm started pulling his stuff down from YouTube. ("Fair Use" law allows him to create original audio commentary for the films but they don't allow him to distribute someone else's video property, so he's lucky he didn't get "blasted into oblivion" by a room of lawyers.). But these are the self-identified fans we're attempting to cater to. Great.

Using my incredible science-brain and my own experiences, I will tell you exactly what the next trilogy will be: It will be so much like the original trilogy in so many ways, copying that style and sense and feel, that it will be boring. Yes, fans will get what they want and it will make a shit-ton of money - but it will be drained of anything spontaneous or even attempt anything original after the (right or wrong) backlash from the Prequel films. Abrams is many things but he is no creative innovator; he can't even frame a two person discussion properly, for pity's sake. But people will get exactly what they want and it will be celebrated as being something "George Lucas didn't ruin!" or whatever.

To quote the closing dialogue of a favorite TV episode of mine: "With that in mind, I humbly add my own prophecy of what the dawn of the new millennium shall bring forth: one thousand more years of the same... old... crap."

 
 Posted:   Oct 23, 2013 - 8:38 AM   
 By:   Francis   (Member)

Taxes? If that was the only bad thing about the movie, I'd have enjoyed it; terrible acting, terrible dialogue, too much unsignificant special effects crammed in every scene (much like the special edition rape of the original trilogy), too many uninteresting characters, annoying annakin, jar jar, boring story, battles don't have sense of danger to them... If I'm not a true SW fan for not liking the prequels, so be it. But critique, I must. Crap, they are. It's my opinion, seeing them again wont change it believe me; tried, I did!

There is a reason why with the original trilogy audience grew and more people went to see it; with the prequels, each time a new one was released, the line got shorter; when I went to see Phantom Menace, it was sold out and you'd have to wait for the next show; By the time I went to see Revenge of the Sith, there was a small crowd on opening night (!) and most people weren't there to see Star Wars. Can you imagine that?

P.S. It was the same deal with the Matrix movies, first movie huge crowds, by the time the third movie was out people over here didn't even bother anymore.

 
 
 Posted:   Oct 23, 2013 - 9:00 AM   
 By:   Ado   (Member)

Well stated Francis

 
 Posted:   Oct 23, 2013 - 9:26 AM   
 By:   solium   (Member)

@ mastadge- Brilliant video! Of course it doesn't mean one can't expand on an existing concept or idea, but as the video noted there should be concrete set of rules that specifically make the Star Wars universe, Star Wars.

 
 Posted:   Oct 23, 2013 - 9:41 AM   
 By:   nuts_score   (Member)

One of the most tepid conversations to ever grace this board.

I serious, so many of you are stuck in an adolescent rut. Let's talk about the things that matter but rarely get mention in Star Wars: Lucas' younger personality shining through those 3 early films of his, the sound design, the photography, Irvin Kershner's directorial work in Empire, those moments when the actors put their all into the fantasy roles, and on and on. Enough talk about how much ass the sequels suck (we've exhausted this fact-based discussion), how you only like Han Solo, how the EU changed your life, how you are the best SW fan, blah blah blah. Let's make a new, constructive thread about WHY these films matter, and how they inspired you to follow your passions, or inspired you to live that extra day, etc.

 
 
 Posted:   Oct 23, 2013 - 9:50 AM   
 By:   Ado   (Member)

One of the most tepid conversations to ever grace this board.

I serious, so many of you are stuck in an adolescent rut. Let's talk about the things that matter but rarely get mention in Star Wars: Lucas' younger personality shining through those 3 early films of his, the sound design, the photography, Irvin Kershner's directorial work in Empire, those moments when the actors put their all into the fantasy roles, and on and on. Enough talk about how much ass the sequels suck (we've exhausted this fact-based discussion), how you only like Han Solo, how the EU changed your life, how you are the best SW fan, blah blah blah. Let's make a new, constructive thread about WHY these films matter, and how they inspired you to follow your passions, or inspired you to live that extra day, etc.


The only thing about that is, well this thread is about the prequels, not the originals.
I think tepid is the wrong word too. And some of this you reference I never saw anyone say here.

Empire is the best film of all of them, agreed.

 
 Posted:   Oct 23, 2013 - 12:48 PM   
 By:   LeHah   (Member)

One of the most tepid conversations to ever grace this board.

Surely, an observation so mighty in its logic that it had to be confirmed by such an astounding statement of dullness.

 
 Posted:   Oct 23, 2013 - 1:26 PM   
 By:   Mike_J   (Member)

[The kid that they cast in the primary roll in TMP was really not a very good actor.

Yes, this! Jake Lloyd was a terrible actor. Why on Earth Lucas cast him in the first place is beyond me. Lloyd's performance in Jingle All the Way should have told him everything he needed to know about Lloyd's lack of acting skill (frankly the moose in Jingle All the Way would have made a better young Skywalker).

But you have to give Lucas his command of continuity. Having cast a dreadful actor in the role of young Anakin Skywalker, he then casts that talentless plank Hayden Christensen as the adult incarnation. I could just about accept the brat's lack of talent but the portrayal of Skywalker in Episodes II and III was just excruciating.

There is no better example of Christensen's total lack of talent than the scenes in Episode II on Naboo where he tries to seduce Padme. Seriously, Haystack Christensen's performance here makes Richard Kiel's acting in The Humanoid look like Laurence Olivier. Obviously Lucas' script doesn't help but frankly even if Woody Allen, Neil Simon or David Mammet had written the words the delivery would have still been dire in the extreme.

It's obviously quite telling that Christensen (aka "Woody The Actor") has not exactly had a steller career since he phoned in his performance as Mannequin Skywalker.



 
 Posted:   Oct 23, 2013 - 1:52 PM   
 By:   Tom Servo   (Member)

[The kid that they cast in the primary roll in TMP was really not a very good actor.

Yes, this! Jake Lloyd was a terrible actor. Why on Earth Lucas cast him in the first place is beyond me. Lloyd's performance in Jingle All the Way should have told him everything he needed to know about Lloyd's lack of acting skill (frankly the moose in Jingle All the Way would have made a better young Skywalker).

But you have to give Lucas his command of continuity. Having cast a dreadful actor in the role of young Anakin Skywalker, he then casts that talentless plank Hayden Christensen as the adult incarnation. I could just about accept the brat's lack of talent but the portrayal of Skywalker in Episodes II and III was just excruciating.

There is no better example of Christensen's total lack of talent than the scenes in Episode II on Naboo where he tries to seduce Padme. Seriously, Haystack Christensen's performance here makes Richard Kiel's acting in The Humanoid look like Laurence Olivier. Obviously Lucas' script doesn't help but frankly even if Woody Allen, Neil Simon or David Mammet had written the words the delivery would have still been dire in the extreme.

It's obviously quite telling that Christensen (aka "Woody The Actor") has not exactly had a steller career since he phoned in his performance as Mannequin Skywalker.


Anakin is supposed to be awkward when trying to seduce Padme, he's never done it before and pretty much all of us guys at the age of 19 or 20 were awkward in doing the same. I think Hayden did a nice job in bringing this across, with a puffed up sense of confidence that all guys at that age imagine will impress the girl. And we all tripped over ourselves in the manner. But hey, maybe every other guy on this board was some Lothario with the ladies at 19 years old, which is why Hayden's portrayal didn't connect with you.

 
 Posted:   Oct 23, 2013 - 1:58 PM   
 By:   Sigerson Holmes   (Member)

Yes, this! Jake Lloyd was a terrible actor. Why on Earth Lucas cast him in the first place is beyond me. . . . But you have to give Lucas his command of continuity. Having cast a dreadful actor in the role of young Anakin Skywalker, he then casts that talentless plank Hayden Christensen as the adult incarnation. I could just about accept the brat's lack of talent but the portrayal of Skywalker in Episodes II and III was just excruciating.


Yes! This!

You answered your own question.

He needed someone who could make the line, "YIPEEE!!!" believable (after killing thousands in an exploding space vessel), and who could then believably grow up into the kind of thespian who can handle lines like "I'd be much too frightened to tease a senator" or "You are SO . . . beautiful."

How could he go wrong casting someone of such natural eloquence?

 
 Posted:   Oct 24, 2013 - 3:30 AM   
 By:   GOLDSMITHDAKING   (Member)

Since we're discussing the quality of the prequel films, I can say that for me personally the absence of a Han Solo-type element to those films kept me from being interested, among many other things, but the lack of a delicious scoundrel like Han was sorely missed. I never cared much for Luke, Yoda, the Jedi Knights, and all that mysticism (and subsequent Midi-Chlorians).

In fact, when my friends and I played with our Kenner Star Wars action figures, we created our own characters which were made "cool" by establishing their "space cred" as being friends of Solo's. lol Only one of my childhood pals favored Luke and all that overly-serious stuff.


I guarandamntee you that if Lucas had put a Han Solo type character in the prequels, there would have been a ton of criticism along the lines of ' Lucas is so unoriginal, he puts a Han Solo rip off character in the prequels '.

No offence intended, but this is more ' The prequels did not look and sound like the movies i grew up watching as a kid therefore it sucks ' mentality.

 
 Posted:   Oct 24, 2013 - 3:36 AM   
 By:   GOLDSMITHDAKING   (Member)

Star Wars was a modern day serial like Flash Gordon or The Fighting Devil Dogs. (In fact that's where Lucas "stole" Darth Vader from.) Lucas's other pet series Indiana Jones retained that simplistic action adventure nature of it's subject.

The bogged down political and social elements in the prequels just don't work in context of it's origins. I would also argue there's hardly one interesting action sequence in the prequels. Just endless, unengaging computer game graphics. As the poster above noted the ramped up light saber fights were mind numbingly boring.


The lightsaber battles were AMAZING in the prequels.Finally we got to see what Jedi ( and Sith ) in their prime could do in a fight.Come on admit it, the ' fight ' between Vader and Kenobi in A New Hope just looks like two old guys banging sticks together.

The fights in the prequels were brilliantly choreographed and spectacular to watch.I never tire of watching them over and over again.

And there are TONS of terrific other action scenes in the prequels.The opening speeder chase on Croruscant in AOTC for example, is the best chase scene of the whole series in my opinion.Also, the opening shot of ROTS is just SPECTACULAR.Its my favourite special fx shot of all six films.

 
You must log in or register to post.
  Go to page:    
© 2014 Film Score Monthly. All Rights Reserved.