# Star Wars: The Original Trilogy is better???



## bobomb (Dec 16, 2009)

Alright you Star Wars fans. Currently I'm playing through The Force Unleashed on my X-Box 360, and I couldn't help but wonder something. Do most Star Wars fans think that the prequels were sh*t? I've always liked them, but there are a few Star Wars geeks out there who thought they were terrible... So what better way to find out than with a poll?

*I believe there are upsides and downsides to each*. For instance, the fact that ewoks WTFPWNS scout troopers in Return of the Jedi was a bit stupid. 

I like the fact the prequels got to showoff Yoda do some lightsaber battles, and hands down, *the lightsaber battles in the prequels were better than in the original trilogy*.

However,* I do like the original trilogy's storyline better*. So it should get props for that.


----------



## RAGING BONER (Dec 16, 2009)

uhhh were you born in the late 90's or some shit?

anyone with hair on their sack knows original trilogy wtfstomps while roflcoptering


----------



## Fraust (Dec 16, 2009)

The only good one of the new three is Episode III and even that gets shit on by all the originals.


----------



## bobomb (Dec 16, 2009)

RAGING BONER said:


> uhhh were you born in the late 90's or some shit?
> 
> anyone with hair on their sack knows original trilogy wtfstomps while roflcoptering



Hi Raging Boner!  Nice name.

To each their own. Without the prequels we wouldn't have seen the likes of many new storylines.


----------



## KazeYama (Dec 16, 2009)

These poll options are not very good. Overall the prequels were probably not as good but they are not nearly as bad as people say. I actually really liked Episode II, and Episode III is possibly my favorite movie out of the entire series. They weren't as good but for me they definitely were not disappointing and they were about as good as the original trilogy. 

Episode I is clearly the weakest out of all of them simply because it served as a framework for the rest of the series and it seems to have too much political framework and not enough action or humor elements to balance it out. Plus Jar Jar which everyone knows was a bad idea.


----------



## bobomb (Dec 16, 2009)

KazeYama said:


> These poll options are not very good. Overall the prequels were probably not as good but they are not nearly as bad as people say. I actually really liked Episode II, and Episode III is possibly my favorite movie out of the entire series. They weren't as good but for me they definitely were not disappointing and *they were about as good as the original trilogy*.
> 
> Episode I is clearly the weakest out of all of them simply because it served as a framework for the rest of the series and it seems to have too much political framework and not enough action or humor elements to balance it out. Plus Jar Jar which everyone knows was a bad idea.



Probably a clear case for this vote then: "The prequels were about as good as the original trilogy."


----------



## RAGING BONER (Dec 16, 2009)

bobomb said:


> Hi Raging Boner!  Nice name.
> 
> To each their own. Without the prequels we wouldn't have seen the likes of many new storylines.



I'd like to add that KotOR *also* utterly destroys prequel trilogy and its not even a movie, but goddamn it it could have been a fine one.


----------



## Emasculation Storm (Dec 16, 2009)

Originals are clearly superior, but I enjoy the combat and competent troopers in the prequels.

I agree with Boner that KOTOR could have been a high tier Star Wars movie.


----------



## bobomb (Dec 16, 2009)

RAGING BONER said:


> I'd like to add that KotOR *also* utterly destroys prequel trilogy and its not even a movie, but goddamn it it could have been a fine one.



Oh my goodness. Knights of the Old Republic? I will agree that KOTOR could definitely be made into a movie (series) - and a good one at that. However, I don't know if I'd go as far to say that it's better. 

It would depend. *I would prefer that Darth Revan be female *(even though the male is canon), because the Star Wars universe doesn't have enough hot female Jedi. The ending would also be a huge factor. I think it would be something else to *have the "dark side" ending *as opposed to the ultimate good ending (to turn Darth Malak to the light side). For me if they had those two things, I might like it better than the prequels. 

I haven't had the chance to play through KOTR II yet, so I can't say much about the sequel.


----------



## saint_Reginold (Dec 16, 2009)

Episode  1 and 3 were decent. If you take Jar Jar out of 1 it would be really good I mean the action parts were great. The pod racing and the lightsaber duels were just incredible. Also there wasn't nearly as much bad writing and acting as there was in the other two movies. 

But honestly they really don't compare to the original trilogy at all. It's not even close. The best part about the originals was the fact that Lucas didn't have all this technology to work with. And with the prequels it seemed like he got a little too carried away with cg stuff. He even almost ruined the first ones by going back and adding all this stuff he didn't need to.


----------



## Dream Brother (Dec 16, 2009)

KOTOR was definitely superior to a lot of the prequel crap...probably all of it, actually. I must admit that I loved Qui Gon and the beautiful duel at the end of TPM, though. Ray Park as Maul really brought style to that one.


----------



## RAGING BONER (Dec 16, 2009)

bobomb said:


> Oh my goodness. Knights of the Old Republic? I will agree that KOTOR could definitely be made into a movie (series) - and a good one at that. However, I don't know if I'd go as far to say that it's better.
> 
> I guess that would depend. *I would prefer that Darth Revan be female *(even though the male is canon), because the Star Wars universe doesn't have enough hot female Jedi. The ending would also be a huge factor. I think it would be something else to *have the "dark side" ending *as opposed to the ultimate good ending (to turn Dark Malek to the light side). For me if they had those two things, I might like it better than the prequels.



your thinking too small with the Kotor series, you gotta step back from simply the first game and use the entire era for the trilogy.

for Kotor 1 the light side ending is the perfect hollywood feel good ticket seller; plus it makes the twist about Revan all the sweeter. 

For the kotor 2 movie you do some heavy rewriting of the script (cuz the game was sadly incomplete) but you keep the canonical female lead character, the exile as well as the very intriguing Kreia who also happens to link back to Revan.

This is the "Empire strikes back" version and could be just as good as the first if tweaked properly.


now for the last movie you'd have the Exile and Revan both as the leads, with Revan, being the superior Jedi and the iconic figure, having the more important role.

this last movie, since it hasn't been made, can go all out and in any direction; skies the limit. More than likely it ends with Revan and the Exile sacrificing themselves to halt to invasion of the true Sith and give the republic a chance to prepare for them (since so far no one knows what ever happened to them)


----------



## Jυstin (Dec 16, 2009)

Episodes 1, 2, and 3 had more of an epic factor to them. They were filled with more action, more depth-defying feats, and instilled more feelings of angst, suspense, and a sense of urgency in me.

The first 3 episodes have a lot of Roman history and modern mythology to them, using Adam and Eve's deception in the Garden of Eden to Satan in the scenes where Palpatine reveals his Sith nature to Anakin, as well as Lucifer's fall from Heaven - personified by Anakin's fall, ending up on Mustifar, which was to represent Hell. Anakin's story is also like that of Achilles, who fought with anger, and became doomed by it.

The 6 movies together teach us an important lesson as well. It shows us how, like history has shown, a republic turns into a dictatorship, and what that republic must go through to regain its independence.

Sad part is watching all 6 together. The quality, technology, and stunts all depreciate from Episode III to Episode IV


----------



## Gabe (Dec 16, 2009)

the original ones where the best imo. i liked them more


----------



## Spy_Smasher (Dec 16, 2009)

The original trilogy were a seminal effort in filmic mythmaking. A once-in-history experience.

The prequel trilogy was an inept, pandering marketing device.

If you don't know this you are either twelve years old or a douchebag.


----------



## bobomb (Dec 17, 2009)

Spy_Smasher said:


> If you don't know this you are *either twelve years old or a douchebag.*



The funny thing about what you said is that George Lucas has said himself that Star Wars is for kids. I can't find the quote but it should be out there.

If you enjoyed the movies then more power to you, right?


----------



## Smoke (Dec 17, 2009)

I'm the only guy who prefers 1, 2 and 3, more so than 4, 5 and 6.


But that's because I'm a huge jedi fan. The saber fights alone, make it better for me.


----------



## Jυstin (Dec 17, 2009)

Smoke said:


> I'm the only guy who prefers 1, 2 and 3, more so than 4, 5 and 6.
> 
> 
> But that's because I'm a huge jedi fan. The saber fights alone, make it better for me.



That's actually exactly how I feel, and mostly for the same reasons. More lightsaber fights. More Jedi. More Sith. More badass acrobatics, choreography, and force displays. More like it would/should really be, if it were real.

And we got to see Yoda fight. THE motherfucking Yoda, the most badass of all the Jedi, the CGI Muppet whose sweet moves style up on everyone. The original trilogy can't top that


----------



## bobomb (Dec 17, 2009)

Jυstin said:


> Episodes 1, 2, and 3 had more of an epic factor to them. They were filled with more action, more depth-defying feats, and instilled more feelings of angst, suspense, and a sense of urgency in me.
> 
> The first 3 episodes have a lot of Roman history and modern mythology to them, using Adam and Eve's deception in the Garden of Eden to Satan in the scenes where Palpatine reveals his Sith nature to Anakin, as well as Lucifer's fall from Heaven - personified by Anakin's fall, ending up on Mustifar, which was to represent Hell. Anakin's story is also like that of Achilles, who fought with anger, and became doomed by it.
> 
> ...



You bring up a lot of valid points. If I wanted to show Star Wars to a friend who has _never_ seen it before, I feel more tempted than ever to show him/her the prequels. It's partially because I showed a lady friend Episode IV: A New Hope first, and the experiment failed miserably.

Even though Episode I: The Phantom Menace came out 10 years ago, the cinematography is still amazing. After 10 years??? That's unbelievable. 

And it's true, there is a lot more action in the prequels. They are undeniably better than the original trilogy.

However, I am still a fan of the originals. I don't think I'm ready to say which set of three is better yet.


----------



## Sedaiv (Dec 17, 2009)

NOTHING is as good as the originals, EVER. I blame it NAMELY on Jar Jar fucking Binks for destroying the first one for me, the second one did a good job repairing, but again too much God damn Jar Jar Binks. Plus it didn't live up to the hype most of us were expecting for a flow scale war. The third one didn't really have a lot of Jar Jar, but the end of the war and creation of the Empire was really anti-climatic.


----------



## Ashiya (Dec 17, 2009)

episode 1 was awesome because of this man


----------



## Bart (Dec 17, 2009)

Ashiya said:


> episode 1 was awesome because of this man



Exactly 

The OT is better still, and RotS was quite something.


----------



## Akuma (Dec 17, 2009)

I prefer the cartoons


----------



## g_core18 (Dec 17, 2009)

The originals are leaps and bounds ahead of the prequel shit. The prequels were aimed at adhd kids with all the bright lights and pretty colours.


----------



## Jυstin (Dec 17, 2009)

bobomb said:


> You bring up a lot of valid points. If I wanted to show Star Wars to a friend who has _never_ seen it before, I feel more tempted than ever to show him/her the prequels. It's partially because I showed a lady friend Episode IV: A New Hope first, and the experiment failed miserably.
> 
> Even though Episode I: The Phantom Menace came out 10 years ago, the cinematography is still amazing. After 10 years??? That's unbelievable.
> 
> ...



I kinda wish George Lucas would have done the first three first, instead of the last three, and I wish they would have started back in 2000, when Episode I was made. Could you imagine the quality of Episode IV, V, and VI now? If the recasting wouldn't ruin it for me, I'd support a remake. The little additions to the original trilogy, like adding in Naboo to the end celebration, adding the senate building and the Jedi Temple to the end celebration on Coruscant, and Episode III Anakin's ghost at the end helped give it a connection between the two trilogies.

I'm a fan of the entire series, so it's hard to choose myself. I like them both for different qualities. The first three were definitely more epic, but the original three have a sense of familiarity, since it was the first trilogy I saw.



Sedaiv said:


> but the end of the war and creation of the Empire was really anti-climatic.



This can't be blamed on the fact that it's a prequel or anything. According to the Star Wars plot line, this is how Episode III had to end, or else Episode IV wouldn't exist / the two trilogies would have no connection 

Plus, it's not much of a climax since the true end to Star Wars comes at Episode VI. It's hard to make Episode III climactic since it's setting up for the original trilogy to kick off. You have to remember that Episode III is far from the end. In fact, it's just the beginning.


----------



## Sedaiv (Dec 17, 2009)

Phantom Menace sucked becuase of this man


----------



## Jagon Fox (Dec 17, 2009)

The originals were the best IMPO. Yes I liked seeing Yoda kick ass but, the originals were better. The last prequel was awful awful awful! I thought it would be impossible to not love any Star Wars movie. That was obviously before I saw them, though the first prequel wasn't bad. I like the Clone Wars series though.


----------



## bobomb (Dec 17, 2009)

Jυstin said:


> I kinda wish George Lucas would have done the first three first, instead of the last three, and I wish they would have started back in 2000, when Episode I was made. Could you imagine the quality of Episode IV, V, and VI now? If the recasting wouldn't ruin it for me, I'd support a remake. The little additions to the original trilogy, like adding in Naboo to the end celebration, adding the senate building and the Jedi Temple to the end celebration on Coruscant, and Episode III Anakin's ghost at the end helped give it a connection between the two trilogies.



Ha. If all the movies were made recently the entire series would be epic. If the original trilogy had the special effects and action the prequels had, then Episodes IV-VI would be the best ones.

I can't imagine what the recasting would be like. Leonardo DiCaprio as Luke Skywalker. Johnny Depp as Han Salo. Charlize Theron as Princess Leia. Harrison Ford as Obi Wan Kenobi. Will Smith as Lando Calrissian. 

Hey, I actually like Leo.


----------



## Jυstin (Dec 17, 2009)

bobomb said:


> Ha. If all the movies were made recently the entire series would be epic. If the original trilogy had the special effects and action the prequels had, then Episodes IV-VI would be the best ones.
> 
> I can't imagine what the recasting would be like. Leonardo DiCaprio as Luke Skywalker. Johnny Depp as Han Salo. Charlize Theron as Princess Leia. Robert De Niro as Obi Wan Kenobi. Will Smith as Lando Calrissian.
> 
> Hey, I actually like Leo.



Yeah, and it's not just about the "cheap" effects. The effects make it better, but they're nothing without a good story, especially one that derives from history and mythology to make it more interesting. All the original 3 would need to be solidly better to me would be better quality to justify its epicness, like the first 3 episodes. Right now the newer 3 are my favorites by a small margin. Anakin's tragic irony leading up to his life as Darth Vader is the main captivating element of the prequels, especially Episode III, arguably the best Star Wars element in the saga.

Lol, Johnny Depp could probably cast any of the characters, with how good he is with makeup, even Princess Lea. Hell Harrison Ford even looks about the same as he did then, if he dyed his hair.

Like that casting though, especially Depp and Smith. If anyone could pull of the characters, they could  Leo isn't bad either. He's about the same age as Luke is too.


----------



## Agony (Dec 17, 2009)

THE original was the best.


----------



## Jagon Fox (Dec 17, 2009)

bobomb said:


> Ha. If all the movies were made recently the entire series would be epic. If the original trilogy had the special effects and action the prequels had, then Episodes IV-VI would be the best ones.
> 
> I can't imagine what the recasting would be like. Leonardo DiCaprio as Luke Skywalker. Johnny Depp as Han Salo. Charlize Theron as Princess Leia. Harrison Ford as Obi Wan Kenobi. Will Smith as Lando Calrissian.
> 
> Hey, I actually like Leo.



Thats blasphemous!


----------



## bobomb (Dec 17, 2009)

It's definitely hard to think of good Luke Skywalkers. Leo is probably as good as it gets. I like Theron because she looks kinda similar to Leo. I almost would like Keira Knightley because she looks so similar to Natalie Portman (and she was casted as Padme's decoy in Ep. I), but then she might be too young. Such a headache to create a dream team.


----------



## Narcissus (Dec 17, 2009)




----------



## RAGING BONER (Dec 17, 2009)

Leo as Luke and 2 other douchebags as Solo and Calrissian?


fucking kill me now please.


----------



## Renaissance (Dec 17, 2009)

Sedaiv said:


> Phantom Menace sucked becuase of this man



He was the shit, what the fuck your on?

Fuck those originals, with love.


----------



## bobomb (Dec 17, 2009)

RAGING BONER said:


> Leo as Luke and 2 other douchebags as Solo and Calrissian?
> 
> 
> fucking kill me now please.



Then you'll really ball with this. If you wanted a young cast...

Zac Efron!!! He could play Luke. I'm dead f****ng serious.



Kneightly as Leia, Bow Wow as Lando, Robert Pattinson as Solo.

Granted... The only talented one amongst these are Efron & Kneightly. lol. None of them have proven themselves. So who would you want?


----------



## kyochi (Dec 17, 2009)

The original movies kick the new ones' ass.


----------



## Bart (Dec 17, 2009)

bobomb said:


> Then you'll really ball with this. If you wanted a young cast... Zac Efron!!! He could play Luke. I'm dead f****ng serious.





Blake Bashoff from Lost would be the perfect choice.


----------



## bobomb (Dec 17, 2009)

If he can pull of these lines without making it too laughable, then sure! Why not?

"But I wanna go to the Tachi Station to pick up some power converters!" - Luke Skywalker

And


*Spoiler*: __ 



[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GwExDG7n7Zg[/YOUTUBE]


----------



## Sedaiv (Dec 17, 2009)

SlumberingAces said:


> He was the shit, what the fuck your on?
> 
> Fuck those originals, with love.



You do not know a good movie if it bit you on your ass. He ws a TERRIBLE Comedic Relief character.

I'll post the cast I would cast as the remake of 4/5/6. BTW Harrison Ford has gone on record saying he'll NEVER work with Lucas on Star Wars EVEr again. So don't count on him being on my remake list.


----------



## Vanity (Dec 17, 2009)

The originally trilogy was better.

The only thing the newer trilogy has going for it over the old one is the graphics.


----------



## excellence153 (Dec 17, 2009)

bobomb said:


> I like the fact the prequels got to showoff Yoda do some lightsaber battles, and hands down, *the lightsaber battles in the prequels were better than in the original trilogy*.



You're an idiot.  Someone needs to throw down the banhammer.

Okay, not really.

When it comes down to it, the prequel duels very fantasy-based.  Some of what they were doing was silly looking, but me saying that it wasn't practical sword-fighting would make me look like a real neckbeard.  But I prefer the original trilogy fights because they each had an emotion:

Vader vs. Obi-Wan - stoic
Luke vs. Vader Round 1 - I guess playful (because it kind of seemed like Vader was toying with Luke)
Luke vs. Vader Round 2 - anger (Luke went apeshit, and it was awesome)


----------



## excellence153 (Dec 17, 2009)

Sedaiv said:


> You do not know a good movie if it bit you on your ass. He was a TERRIBLE Comedic Relief character.
> 
> I'll post the cast I would cast as the remake of 4/5/6. BTW Harrison Ford has gone on record saying he'll NEVER work with Lucas on Star Wars EVEr again. So don't count on him being on my remake list.



The dude's trolling, duh.

And Star Wars isn't getting remade any time soon... not for the another few generations.  Lucas will be dead, and he has another twenty years ahead of him, at least.


----------



## Chee (Dec 17, 2009)

Original trilogy is so much better than the new trilogy.

I just like the fight scenes in the newer movies.


----------



## Whip Whirlwind (Dec 17, 2009)

I think the fight scenes were better technically, but like others have said they lacked the emotion.

But the prequels did give us Mace Windu, so thats a plus.

EDIT:
JAR JAR BINKS IS AN ABOMINATION JAR JAR BINKS IS AN ABOMINATION!!!!


----------



## Zack (Dec 17, 2009)

Guess its just magic of the movies when you're kid. I watched the original trilogy when was like 6-7 yo.  It seemed so omgwtf awesome. New movies didnt have such effect. Still like them as well though.


----------



## bobomb (Dec 17, 2009)

excellence153 said:


> Vader vs. Obi-Wan - stoic
> Luke vs. Vader Round 1 - I guess playful (because it kind of seemed like Vader was toying with Luke)
> Luke vs. Vader Round 2 - anger (Luke went apeshit, and it was awesome)



In order, you placed these lightsaber battles from worst to best.

Obi-Wan versus Vader was... how should I put it...  

And I'm glad the other movies didn't have further battles like that one. 



excellence153 said:


> Vader vs. Obi-Wan - *unmoving-literally;* I'm too old! I can barely move my lightsaber!!! *old man grunts*
> 
> Luke vs. Vader Round 1 - *stupidity, hard-headed;* I gotta save my friends even though master Yoda told me I'm not strong enough!!!
> 
> Luke vs. Vader Round 2 - *emo;* I will turn your sister to the dark side... "No!!!" *Cries* - Luke



Fixed it.


----------



## excellence153 (Dec 17, 2009)

bobomb said:


> Obi-Wan versus Vader was... how should I put it...



If anything, Obi-Wan was stalling for time.  That's why he was fighting like he was.

I would say it was because they were old men... but look at Yoda.


----------



## excellence153 (Dec 17, 2009)

[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FxKtZmQgxrI[/YOUTUBE]

Watch this... all seven parts... all of you.


----------



## ~Gesy~ (Dec 17, 2009)

what i always found so funny was how fast luke learned to be a jedi. it took him like what? a few hours?


hmm can't i say i like them both? the original is better but not by much.


----------



## bobomb (Dec 17, 2009)




----------



## Shock Therapy (Dec 17, 2009)

~Gesy~ said:


> what i always found so funny was how fast luke learned to be a jedi. it took him like what? a few hours?
> 
> 
> hmm can't i say i like them both? the original is better but not by much.



it's Luke fucking Skywalker, what do you expect. He's defeated you before you think of battling with him.


----------



## excellence153 (Dec 17, 2009)

~Gesy~ said:


> what i always found so funny was how fast luke learned to be a jedi. it took him like what? a few hours?



My guess is he had some saber training on Hoth, and learned a majority of Force techniques with Yoda.

Then after Empire Strikes Back, he went crazy with his training, and that's why he's epic on Return of the Jedi.

Not my words, but a pretty good analysis of the saber duels.

I think it's fair that mystical future-seeing warriors with blades that weigh nothing are going to fight differently from traditional swordsmen. I think part of it is most likely psychological, too - the sort of over-the-top twirls and flourishes they do seem like an effective way of intimidating non-jedi. I mean, you don't even really need to slash with a lightsaber; the blade is incredibly hot and requires no force to exert since it's virtually weightless. It just needs to touch a spot on a person's body to kill them. If the jedi wanted to be efficient, they'd just keep the lightsaber in a stance that's easy to deflect shots with, and would use incredibly (and comically) minimalistic movements to kill their enemies. But they do the exact opposite - and I'm willing to accept that as an intentional method within the construct of the setting. Jedi were the unstoppable god-samurai of the galaxy; they probably indulged in maintaining that image.

The real problem with the fights isn't that they're these flashes shows of CGI and acrobatics, it's that they're meaningless interactions between the characters involved in them. In theory, the original trilogy wouldn't become horrible if they had somewhat updated fight scenes (not these hulking 10-minute duels like in RotS, granted) as long as they maintained their thematic value.

Basically, the lightsaber fights in Star Wars should be based around visually and viscerally conveying the underlying themes of the confrontation, and their flashiness should complement how those themes are conveyed.


----------



## bobomb (Dec 17, 2009)

excellence153 said:


> [YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FxKtZmQgxrI[/YOUTUBE]
> 
> Watch this... all seven parts... all of you.





Independent, Rebel, Leader, Maverick, Unorthodox, Wise, Experienced, Skilled

Who does this belong to?

A.) Obi-Wan Kenobi
B.) Qui-gon Jin
C.) Jar Jar Binks
D.) Darth Maul
E.) Padme


*Spoiler*: __ 



B.) Qui-Gon Jin, Easy right?




The main character is Anakin. Any movie poster will show it even if you didn't watch it.


----------



## SPN (Dec 17, 2009)

I like the orignial series way better but the new ones are so great for a laugh.


Vader: Nooooo!

Give that man a fucking Oscar.


----------



## excellence153 (Dec 17, 2009)

bobomb said:


> Independent, Rebel, Leader, Maverick, Unorthodox, Wise, Experienced, Skilled
> 
> Who does this belong to?
> 
> ...



Not all of his points are dynamite.  I liked Qui-Gon Jin.


----------



## Ennoea (Dec 17, 2009)

Who on earth thinks the new ones were better? THe plotting was awful, as was the dialogue, acting and overall script. The first 30 minutes of Empire Strikes back were better than all the prequels.


----------



## Corruption (Dec 17, 2009)

I like the original better, but I'm curious why do so many people think the prequels were so bad? They were quite enjoyable for me.


----------



## zoro_santoryu (Dec 17, 2009)

going with this   The prequels were disapointing. They didn't live up to the original trilogy.


----------



## Ennoea (Dec 17, 2009)

They're not films you can watch again. Never liked Phantom, but didn't mind Attack of the clones first time round, until I watched it again and all the problems were so apparent. Bad acting, bad plot and just far too long and badly directed. Revenge of the Sith was better, but all the films lack the intensity and bulid up that made the originals so great. And Anakin Skywalker was a twerp as was his shitty love story.


----------



## masamune1 (Dec 17, 2009)

I actually think the 3rd one was the worst (or at least it was the one that dissapointed me most). 

All three relied on CGI too much, but the 3rd was drownig in it. When you have an entire film set in computer generated landscape- just because you can- something is lost. Plus it felt like in many scenes we are dropped into the middle or end of a conversation, at least in the first third. It was only the final third that really took off.

I did'nt mind the first two prequels all that much- I thought they were alright. Still, the prequels are weaker than the originals.


----------



## Ennoea (Dec 17, 2009)

> All three relied on CGI too much, but the 3rd was drownig in it. When you have an entire film set in computer generated landscape- just because you can- something is lost.



Same reason why I disliked the New Indiana Jones movie, the film looked like a sound stage. To me its lazy film making.


----------



## masamune1 (Dec 17, 2009)

Ennoea said:


> Same reason why I disliked the New Indiana Jones movie, the film looked like a sound stage. To me its lazy film making.



Exactly. Makes you wonder what Lucas and Spielberg are thinking.

*EDIT-* Where did that thumb come from?


----------



## bobomb (Dec 17, 2009)

masamune1 said:


> All three relied on CGI too much, but the 3rd was drownig in it. When you have an entire film set in computer generated landscape- just because you can- something is lost.



So if the original trilogy had the same CG effects as the prequels, it would make them worse?


----------



## Koi (Dec 17, 2009)

^Yus.  The special effects/CGI in the prequels were _more_ than overkill.


Ah damn, I clicked the wrong poll option.   I think the prequels were.. _alright_, sure, but they just don't hold up to the originals.

[YOUTUBE]LDCjIjsZp_Y[/YOUTUBE]


----------



## excellence153 (Dec 18, 2009)

Shooting the last two Star Wars movies put a bad taste in Ewan McGregor's mouth.  He felt so out of place in the middle of a blue screen stage.  Poor guy.


----------



## Commander Shepard (Dec 18, 2009)

As far as quality of characters and story go, the original trilogy is far superior.  I mean, just think about what Star Wars is known for.  Darth Vader.  Han Solo.  Blowing up the first Death Star.  The "No Luke, I am your father" moment.  Where are their counterparts in the prequel trilogy?  Sure, the prequels have Yoda and the droids.  But the parts they play are only a shadow of whimisicality and originality they had in the original trilogy.  What originality do the prequels have to their name?  Jar Jar Binks- no comment necessary for that.

Now, of course the prequels have better special effects and choreography than the originals.  The technology for doing such things has advanced by miles in the decades between the two trilogies.  For the pure spectacle, I'd watch the lightsaber battles in episodes I and III (not II, though) over the battles in V, VI, and definitely IV any day.  

However, there is something about the direction of the battles in the original trilogy that is superior to the prequels.  Take, for example, the battle over Coruscant in III and the battle over Endor in VI.  In III, it's flashy, with lots of nice explosions- but that's all there is to it.  There is no conception of which side has the advantage, how the battle and tactics are being managed.  It's focused on Anakin and Obi-Wan's flight to Grievous' flagship, which is so detached from the main battle that at one moment the two take a break from piloting to advise R2 on taking out a hitchhiking buzz droid.  In VI, though, you know what's going on.  The Rebels are attacking the Death Star, and have to face the Imperial Fleet.  You know the Rebels are outnumbered, and there's the threat of the Death Star blowing up ships.  There are moments in the battle- the Death Star coming online, the Super Star Destroyer crashing into the Death Star- that makes it feel like an actual linear battle is going on, rather than just being a background.

So, yes, the prequels have the advantage in effects and choreography, but it's a superficial superiority.  As movies on whole, the original trilogy is superior.

Also- I must echo the sentiment that KotOR has a better storyline than the prequels and could have made a kickass movie.  However, the storyline would have had to be significantly modified and shortened to fit the silver screen- either that, or the game would have been several movies.


----------



## masamune1 (Dec 18, 2009)

bobomb said:


> So if the original trilogy had the same CG effects as the prequels, it would make them worse?



Let's put it this way- the fact that Lucas did'nt get the chance to do that, is one reason I believe there is indeed a God.


----------



## Commander Shepard (Dec 18, 2009)

The original trilogy _has_ received a special-effects makeover.  It's called the Original Trilogy: Special Edition.

No matter what Lucas does, though, he wouldn't be able to turn the Original Trilogy as a whole into the artificial world of episodes II and III.  The footage is already there, he can only add cosmetic effects to it.


----------



## masamune1 (Dec 18, 2009)

Commander Shepard said:


> The original trilogy _has_ received a special-effects makeover.  It's called the Original Trilogy: Special Edition.
> 
> No matter what Lucas did, though, he wouldn't be able to turn the Original Trilogy as a whole into the artificial world of episodes II and III.  The footage is already there, he can only add cosmetic effects to it.



Like I said- there is a God.

Actually, I do think the Special Edition is pretty good. But thats precisely because, back then, Lucas seemed to have limits on what he could and could not do.


----------



## MartialHorror (Dec 18, 2009)

Even though the original trilogy is better, I don't think that the prequels were that much worse.

I personally think the backlash against the prequels and "Indiana Jones 4" are due to nostalgia(a tired argument, I know). Example, New Hope has some awful dialogue and weak acting. So did episode 2.

My main problem with the prequels is just what they wanted to focus on. When I think of Star Wars, I dont think of racing or love stories. 

I think that they mostly are used to the problems of the old films because we grew up with them, and said problems feel more fresh with the sequels/prequels that are new. 

I mean, I'd seriously have to question the tastes of anyone who thinks "Temple of Doom" is better than "Crystal Skull".


----------



## masamune1 (Dec 18, 2009)

MartialHorror said:


> Even though the original trilogy is better, I don't think that the prequels were that much worse.
> 
> I personally think the backlash against the prequels and "Indiana Jones 4" are due to nostalgia(a tired argument, I know). Example, New Hope has some awful dialogue and weak acting. So did episode 2.
> 
> ...



Well, it would'nt be our first disagreement.....


----------



## Ennoea (Dec 18, 2009)

Nostalgia isn't the case here, the originals are far superior than the latest Star Wars. I can say this because I watched the originals after I'd already watched Phantom Menace.



> I mean, I'd seriously have to question the tastes of anyone who thinks "Temple of Doom" is better than "Crystal Skull".



Crystal Skull had just too much CGi for me too enjoy it, and you could tell the whole film was a set. Its insulting, theres no sense of adventure in that movie at all, and for that reason alone I'd rate Temple higher.


----------



## bobomb (Dec 18, 2009)

I'm not going to make the case that CG or having too much of it is a bad thing. I think in movies like Star Wars Ep. III and 300, they used it quite effectively and most of all, technology is what help made the originals.

Nostalgia should get factored in somewhat. There has got to be some prequel(s) that are better than one or some of the originals. I'll take Ep. III over Ep. VI as far as storyline is concerned. I won't say it just to say it, here is why.

1.) Han Solo isn't Han Solo. His wise-cracking is absent as well as his personality in this film. He's no longer suave! In fact, he gets jealous of Luke.
2.) The return of the Death Star is a rehashing of Ep IV's plot. If one of the prequels tried to do this, defenders of the prequels wouldn't hear the end of it.
3.) Teddy Bears (ewoks) showed the Empire who was stronger, and that they never should have put the field generator on Endor. If the Death Star was so vulnerable they should have put most of the Galactic Fleet on Endor. Not only that... but TEDDY BEARS! They beat Scout Troopers.
4.) The death of Boba Fett. We all know it. When he died we had to ask ourselves... did he really die? I don't believe it!

... The stupid thing is that defenders on either side are quite able to bash each other's movies. Ah well.


----------



## Commander Shepard (Dec 18, 2009)

VI is the weakest of the originals, while III is the best of the prequels.  Fair enough.  However, I maintain that the space battle in VI is superior to III in terms of direction and pacing.

The prequel trilogy isn't *bad*, per se.  It just doesn't have the timeless appeal of great movies, like the original trilogy does.

BTW, Boba Fett didn't die, according to the EU.  He escaped the Sarlacc.


----------



## bobomb (Dec 18, 2009)

I'm actually surprised no one has said anything bad about Hayden Christensen yet (will come in the next post)

For me, the best of the prequels goes like this:

1.) Episode III
2.) Episode I
3.) Episode II

The originals?

1.) Episode V (believe it or not)
2.) Episode IV
3.) Episode VI

Now at what point do we start saying that some of the prequels are better than the originals? If I was a child and I really loved Episode I, maybe I would like it better than the dark Episode V. *I think despite each of the movie's flaws, we learn to forgive it. Mostly because we like the concept, or that it's Star Wars.*

As far as what the movie shows, Boba Fett did die. I know there are storylines out there in which Boba Fett trains Jaina Solo and so on, but it's not movie canon. 

Before George Lucas dies I really hope he would do the sequels to the originals... Seeing Jaina would be awesome. Come on! I'm not done with Star Wars just yet. The Clone Wars shouldn't count.


----------



## MartialHorror (Dec 18, 2009)

Ennoea said:


> Nostalgia isn't the case here, the originals are far superior than the latest Star Wars. I can say this because I watched the originals after I'd already watched Phantom Menace.
> 
> 
> 
> Crystal Skull had just too much CGi for me too enjoy it, and you could tell the whole film was a set. Its insulting, theres no sense of adventure in that movie at all, and for that reason alone I'd rate Temple higher.



You mean you never watched the original trilogy until AFTER phantom menace?

How old are you? I just have trouble believing that.

You can say Crystal Skull had less adventure, but it also had less annoying love interests and Asian kids who are supposed to be funny but just make ears bleed.


----------



## bobomb (Dec 18, 2009)

MartialHorror said:


> You mean you never watched the original trilogy until AFTER phantom menace?
> 
> How old are you? I just have trouble believing that.
> 
> You can say Crystal Skull had less adventure, but it also had less annoying love interests and Asian kids who are supposed to be funny but just make ears bleed.



I know a lot of people who haven't seen the original Star Wars trilogy. I'm in my mid 20s and Return of the Jedi came out before I was even born. We are about to enter the 2010s so it shouldn't be so surprising.


----------



## MartialHorror (Dec 18, 2009)

Heh, I always thought it was the parents issue.

With that said, my argument still stands(one detractor aint enough to crush it, lol). 

The new SW films suffer most of the problems of the old..........With that said, I like-love the old ones, while I'm mostly indifferent to the new ones.


----------



## Whip Whirlwind (Dec 18, 2009)

Just came by to say that I saw the Original, then the prequels as they came out, and watched the originals probably 2 or 3 times since then.

IMO the Originals are better. The fights in the prequels are probably better,and  some of the characters (Jedi Liam Neeson, Jedi SMJ, Jango Fett) in the prequels were pretty cool

But they just aren't as good story or character wise.


----------



## Commander Shepard (Dec 18, 2009)

bobomb said:


> I'm actually surprised no one has said anything bad about Hayden Christensen yet (will come in the next post)



Meh, he couldn't act crap.  Neither could Mark Hamill, so it's an even situation there, really.


----------



## Ennoea (Dec 18, 2009)

> You mean you never watched the original trilogy until AFTER phantom menace?
> 
> How old are you? I just have trouble believing that.



I watched Phantom Menace around 2000, watched the trilogy around 2002. Lets just say as a child I was more of an Arnold fan and didn't find Sci-fi interesting. 2001 was the worst film I'd seen as a child, I only appreciated it later.


> I'm actually surprised no one has said anything bad about Hayden Christensen yet



When we mention bad acting, we mean Hayden.


----------



## Taleran (Dec 18, 2009)

I don't compare them, trying to make anything in the wake of Star Wars was doomed to do not as well as Star Wars (and don't even get me started on your EU bullshit)

I like both sets of Films, but I see IV, V, and VI all can be watched separate, but I, and II are just laying the foundations so the events in III can take place

Palpatine steals the show in all 3 prequel films and he makes them worth watching, also I appreciate the sense of scale and scope, I'd prefer a film try too hard and fail then just fit in

oh and a little tidbit

this song


----------



## narutorulez (Dec 19, 2009)

Spy_Smasher said:


> The original trilogy were a seminal effort in filmic mythmaking. A once-in-history experience.
> 
> The prequel trilogy was an inept, pandering marketing device.
> 
> If you don't know this you are either twelve years old or a douchebag.



What this guy said!

the prequels where just embarrasing.


----------



## Kuromaku (Dec 19, 2009)

In all honesty, I prefer the OT, with ESB being my favorite.  However, I do have a soft spot for ROTS, like Empire, the bad guys win, although there is obviously a sign of hope at the end.

while uneven, I am of the opinion that aside from the first half, which is more prequelish, the second half of ROTS (after Grievous dies) is where things become better and more like the original trilogy in terms of quality (for the most part anyway).


----------



## The Boss (Dec 19, 2009)

I wasn't a Star Wars fan growing up.. but since I saw the newer 3... I shat bricks and wonder why I never got into Star Wars sooner.. so I watch the older 3 soon after. I like them all.. and I did't feel one was better then the other. They were both equally good IMO.


----------



## ctizz36 (Dec 19, 2009)

The only good one was the third one was the only good one the other prequels aren't as good


----------



## Mαri (Dec 20, 2009)

Since I am still a Star Wars noob, I tend to lean towards the newer versions of Star Wars than the old, because of the better special effects. But props to the original ones for better acting on their part.


----------



## Satori katsu (Dec 23, 2009)

No way the newer ones could match up to the original I don't care how new to Star Wars you are. But I like all of them they all tell the story. Speaking of episodes I, II, III are on today on Spike if you live in the US. And episodes IV, V, and VI are on tomorrow. Awesome considering they're in HD and I don't own them.


----------



## Shark Skin (Dec 23, 2009)

I'd pick the originals because the acting and storyline was executed better than the prequals. I can watch the OT 100 times, but the prequals just put me off.


----------



## Dionysus (Dec 23, 2009)

Meeesah angry wit da swuuuuuuuuuupit decisions made in deesah prequels.


----------



## excellence153 (Dec 23, 2009)

Herr Drosselmeyer said:


> The original trilogy were a seminal effort in filmic mythmaking. A once-in-history experience.
> 
> The prequel trilogy was an inept, pandering marketing device.
> 
> If you don't know this you are either twelve years old or a douchebag.



They weren't more of a marketing device than any other prequel or sequel made these days.

So, I guess I'm a douchebag.


----------



## Commander Shepard (Dec 23, 2009)

The Lord of the Rings trilogy begs to differ.


----------



## Shoddragon (Dec 23, 2009)

KOTOR would be hardpressed to be made into a movie. the story is absolutely HUGE. most people still haven't done everything possible in the game yet.


----------



## Nightfall (Dec 23, 2009)

Shoddragon said:


> KOTOR would be hardpressed to be made into a movie. the story is absolutely HUGE. most people still haven't done everything possible in the game yet.



The old republic era is so much more tempting in general imo...


----------



## Zaelapolopollo (Dec 30, 2009)

KOTOR is a simple rehash of a plot that's been done to death.
Sith try to conquer Galaxy.
Stop them.
OOOOOOOH REAL ORIGINAL!

Doesn't help the Jawless Wonder wasn't much of an intimidating antagonist.

This is why the hate for KOTOR II annoys me... The plot is so much better in that game it's hard to put into words.

Anyway, back to the movies.

I don't compare them. For one thing, I think a lot of the SW hype is ridiculous. The OT is an unoriginal mess filled with cliches. But that's not a bad thing as the OT's popularity has proven.

I think what I'll try to do here is illustrate what I like about the PT.

1. The music. John Williams = God.


----------



## Time Expired (Dec 31, 2009)

They all sucked because Lucas should have stuck to special effects and allowed someone else direct the damn series.    

Pathetic.


----------



## Sen (Dec 31, 2009)

Well, my favorite movie of all of them is the 3rd since I love Anakin's backstory and the entire plot, plus the effects of that one.  However, I don't really like Episode 1 and 2 after I rewatched them lol.  I'd say the prequels since my favorite movie is there, but I probably liked Episodes 4-6 better than 1 and 2 excluding special effects.


----------



## DisgustingIdiot (Dec 31, 2009)

I'm sorry what prequels? I was under the impression that George Lucas had been shot tragically before he had a chance to start work on them.

I can dream.


----------



## Horrid Crow (Dec 31, 2009)

Original trilogy was waaaaay better... although Episode 3 was awesome as well imo. Empire Strikes Back is still one of my favorite films all time. Never forget what an impact it made on me when I watched it as a 7 year old.


----------



## Graham Aker (Dec 31, 2009)

Original > Prequel shit.

Though Yoda vs. Sidious was ace.


----------



## Gooba (Dec 31, 2009)

How the hell is this poll not 0, 0, infinity?


*Spoiler*: __ 



[YOUTUBE]FxKtZmQgxrI[/YOUTUBE]
[YOUTUBE]ZG1AWVLnl48[/YOUTUBE]
[YOUTUBE]IdQwKPVGQsY[/YOUTUBE]
[YOUTUBE]SOlG4T1S2lU[/YOUTUBE]
[YOUTUBE]TBvp1r2UpiQ[/YOUTUBE]
[YOUTUBE]ORWPCCzSgu0[/YOUTUBE]
[YOUTUBE]fIWKMgJs_Gs[/YOUTUBE]


----------



## Chee (Dec 31, 2009)

Haha, after watching that review I have to say that the new trilogy has nothing on the original. 

That, and I really want pizza rolls.


----------

