I dont understand the hate

Joined
Aug 18, 2006
Messages
5,690
Reaction score
146
there's nobody being bullied around here, nor a victim of "hate" crimes, because they like the PT. so there's really nothing to talk about, "on topic".
(if there's a message board on the internet where that happens, then maybe this question belongs on that site, not this one).
 
Joined
Aug 18, 2006
Messages
5,690
Reaction score
146
I think the scouring of the shire was necessary to show how the world changed after the war was over. even our world, was different after Hitler. the scouring of the shire shows that Our Hobbit Heroes are now equipped to deal with it. they've changed. it's the completion of their character arcs.
 
Joined
Jan 31, 2011
Messages
1,048
Reaction score
18
^^^ "Hate crime" towards those that like the Prequel LOL

I get Tolkien's analogy with the Scouring, but it diminished Saruman's character of one that was on the verge of setting to rule over their world to... enslaving a bunch of local Hobbits. The immortal words of Lucille Bluth, "I'd rather be dead in California than alive in Arizona" should perfectly apply to Saruman's character, I'd think.

I liked Peter's take on how much more mature the hobbits are in that short scene with them all having a pint at the same pub they had always partied at: Their expressions convey all the audience needs to know how much they've been through and how changed they are for it: They're composed, sombre and seemed distant from all the surrounding laughter and frivolity now. Compare that to their joyous, carefree, juvenile celebration in FOTR. And that's all the film needed to show.
 
Joined
Aug 29, 2012
Messages
881
Reaction score
87
But the strong, good and simply outright visually-stunning moments outweigh the awkward and weak ones.
I'm not sure I'd agree.

I especially despise the Legolas and Gimli competitions to see who can slaughter the most Orcs; I found it tiresome and plain stupid in Tolkien's words, and even more so translated onto film. I hate when war is made light of-- because there's nothing amusing or light about war.
I think Tolkien himself might be a better judge of that than you or I, having witnessed the hell of WWI trench-warfare at first hand, and seen virtually all of his dearest friends killed by it.

Let the old soldier have his moments of levity.

And on that note, I can pull out some terrible narratives and weak storytelling on Tolkien's part; with one particularly bothersome part: Boromir is just found dead. As melodramatic as it may be, that Peter/Philipa/Farn interpretation runs fiery-Denethor marathons all over Tolkien's words for Boromir's death (and film-Boromir is so much richer than his book-counterpart). And give me Oliphant-surfing Legolas any day over the chirpy, all-too-cheerful sprite that is Legolas-- and the elves, of Tolkien's LOTR. As a matter of fact, the lack of any action in Tolkien's writing would make an awfully bland film if adapted literally.
Okay, I'm sorry, but you've just completely destroyed any possibility of my taking you seriously now.

With LOTR, there might have been a few moments that weren't so great and maybe even one or two bad moments across the entire trilogy, but I'm having trouble really thinking of any truly cringeworthy moments. Maybe Peter Jackson's cameos. They probably should have kept Gandalf's confrontation against the Witch King in the theatrical version of ROTK, but at least they added it in on the Extended Edition.
Gandalf's confrontation with the Witch-King as filmed should not have happened in the first place. The level of violation against in-universe logic in that scene is on par with Jar-Jar Binks suddenly interrupting Luke's duel with Vader on the Death Star and causing the Emperor to fall into the power core by slipping on a dead fish.

Some people didn't like Denethor's death, but I have no problems with it. It was a cool looking, epic death scene that didn't feel at all out of place in the fantastic world of Middle Earth. However, when someone says that he ran a kilometer while on fire, I'd have to say that that's nonsense. He ran about 100 meters, MAYBE an argument could be made for 200 meters, but a full 1000 meters? That's an overexaggeration of what we saw in the movie. So, I dismiss that criticism.
I don't think it's exaggerated.



As you can see above, the length between the edge of Minas Tirith's top level and the buildings at the other end is already considerable, however, that's not the full extent of the distance that Denethor would have had to cover to pull his "burning man" jump, because the necropolis area where he was going to immolate himself and Faramir is, as revealed in the extended edition of RotK, even further back into the mountains:





Denethor would have to have flat-out sprinted for a kilometre at least, while wearing full-body maille (upwards of thirty kilograms and hanging from the waist rather than being fitted to his legs) and being covered in burning oil, for this ridiculous sequence to make sense.

Of course, that's far from the only bit of stupidity in Jackson's movies. Poor old Theoden tends to get hit with it particularly hard (having to mouth that abomination against grammar, "no parent should have to bury their child", for example), with the entire purpose of Helm's Deep turned on its head basically to diminish him as a leader to Aragorn's benefit (I could go on in detail about what's wrong with Jackson/Boyens/Walsh's portrayal of Aragorn, but that's perhaps best left for another post).

In the books, Theoden sends the civilian population of Edoras to take refuge in Dunharrow, while leading the garrison (roughly a thousand troops) to reinforce the Helm's Deep garrison against Saruman's army while Gandalf goes off to muster more soldiers. In the movies, Theoden takes the entire population of Edoras (with only a few dozen soldiers) to Helm's Deep to hide and then has to be bailed out by Aragorn and a bunch of elves from Lothlorien who show up out of nowhere after having travelled several hundred kilometres on foot in the same space of time that it takes Theoden's people to get from Edoras to Helm's Deep (which is practically next door) and have absolutely no business being in that part of the world when they've got a war going on back home on their own doorsteps.

Later, of course, Theoden has the brilliant idea to charge the giant elephants with dedicated, front-facing anti-cavalry countermeasures, head on, leaving Eomer to actually devise a practical means of dealing with the things, but not before Jackson gets the chance to film large numbers of Rohirrim getting squished shot or mowed down to no purpose whatsoever.

I had read the books in high school and again just before FOTR was released and I have to say that the movies told the story better than the books did. The books meander around in a lackadaisical and scatterbrained sort of way; but the movies told a much more concise and focused story.
They told a cartoon/clift notes version with all the subtlety and nuance excised.

Also the death of Gollum was terrible in the book. He loses his footing and falls into the lava with the Ring. That would have been a disappointingly anti-climactic onscreen death for a character that played such a central role in the trilogy.
That's pretty much how the movies played it.

In the books, Frodo waits a full 17 years to set off on his quest after learning of the nature of the One Ring. Kind of hard to build suspense with an audience when the characters in the story don't even take the threat seriously enough to get moving right away. Including the Tom Bombadil scene would have done more to further undermine the urgency of Frodo's quest. Also, the Scouring of the Shire was thankfully excluded from the films. Even in the book, that confrontation felt totally unnecessary and tacked on.
Not in the least.
 
Joined
Aug 15, 2009
Messages
10,978
Reaction score
133
Location
Hillsboro, IL, USA
I think Tolkien himself might be a better judge of that than you or I, having witnessed the hell of WWI trench-warfare at first hand, and seen virtually all of his dearest friends killed by it.

Let the old soldier have his moments of levity.
I agree with this. In fact, humor and levity are common defense mechanisms that keep soldiers from completely losing their minds during war.

Gandalf's confrontation with the Witch-King as filmed should not have happened in the first place. The level of violation against in-universe logic in that scene is on par with Jar-Jar Binks suddenly interrupting Luke's duel with Vader on the Death Star and causing the Emperor to fall into the power core by slipping on a dead fish.
Nah, that's an exaggeration. Comments like this one tempt me to simply dismiss your opinion as a LOTR novel-purist who is bitter over the success of the LOTR films, but I won't do that.

I don't think it's exaggerated.



As you can see above, the length between the edge of Minas Tirith's top level and the buildings at the other end is already considerable, however, that's not the full extent of the distance that Denethor would have had to cover to pull his "burning man" jump, because the necropolis area where he was going to immolate himself and Faramir is, as revealed in the extended edition of RotK, even further back into the mountains:





Denethor would have to have flat-out sprinted for a kilometre at least, while wearing full-body maille (upwards of thirty kilograms and hanging from the waist rather than being fitted to his legs) and being covered in burning oil, for this ridiculous sequence to make sense.
It was a stretch. Sure, I can see that. However, people have been known to accomplish superhuman feats under great stress, plus it looked awesome onscreen, so it still doesn't bother me in the slightest.

Of course, that's far from the only bit of stupidity in Jackson's movies. Poor old Theoden tends to get hit with it particularly hard (having to mouth that abomination against grammar, "no parent should have to bury their child", for example), with the entire purpose of Helm's Deep turned on its head basically to diminish him as a leader to Aragorn's benefit (I could go on in detail about what's wrong with Jackson/Boyens/Walsh's portrayal of Aragorn, but that's perhaps best left for another post).
Movies generally don't do so well with too many main characters and TTT was already pushing it by splitting screentime between Frodo/Sam, Merry/Pippin and Aragorn/Legolas/Gimli. I've read the novels and I honestly can't remember a single detail about Theoden as he appeared in the books. However, the movie version of Theoden is a much more memorable character and I can relate to a lot of his struggles in the film. To me, that makes the movie version of Theoden a much better character.

In the books, Theoden sends the civilian population of Edoras to take refuge in Dunharrow, while leading the garrison (roughly a thousand troops) to reinforce the Helm's Deep garrison against Saruman's army while Gandalf goes off to muster more soldiers. In the movies, Theoden takes the entire population of Edoras (with only a few dozen soldiers) to Helm's Deep to hide and then has to be bailed out by Aragorn and a bunch of elves from Lothlorien who show up out of nowhere after having travelled several hundred kilometres on foot in the same space of time that it takes Theoden's people to get from Edoras to Helm's Deep (which is practically next door) and have absolutely no business being in that part of the world when they've got a war going on back home on their own doorsteps.
The elves were added into the Helm's Deep battle to keep them from appearing like cowards. If all we ever saw of elves in the LOTR films was them bailing out and leaving all the heroes to fight Sauron with no assistance whatsoever, then the audience would have grown to hate the elves in the films as I grew to hate them in the novels. This is another instance where I think the movies did a better job or telling the story than the books.

Later, of course, Theoden has the brilliant idea to charge the giant elephants with dedicated, front-facing anti-cavalry countermeasures, head on, leaving Eomer to actually devise a practical means of dealing with the things, but not before Jackson gets the chance to film large numbers of Rohirrim getting squished shot or mowed down to no purpose whatsoever.
The problem being, if you show the heroes being too proficient at taking down the Mumakil, then you run the risk of the audience feeling sorry for the oliphants and beginning to sympathize with the enemy forces. By continually showing the Mumakil stepping on horses it keeps the audience loyal to the good guys in the battle. It might not have been the most realistic portrayal of the battle, but it was great visual storytelling. As the saying goes in filmmaking circles, "Reality is no excuse for bad storytelling."

They told a cartoon/clift notes version with all the subtlety and nuance excised.
That's what movies generally tend to do. This is why, if someone wants the full, in-depth story, then they should probably just read the books. LOTR was believed to be unfilmmable for decades. Considering all the false starts and failed attempts to adapt the story to films or television over the years, I think Jackson and team did an excellent job. If they had stayed more faithful to the books, then I don't think these films would have been nearly as successful.

That's pretty much how the movies played it.
Not really. Frodo attacks Gollum in an attempt to get the Ring back and their struggle is what takes them over the edge of the cliff. That's a very different story compared to Gollum dancing around for joy and tripping on a rock. With as much as we had seen the Ring overtaking Frodo up to that point, it wouldn't have made any sense for him to just give the Ring up to Gollum so easily. Considering how they were writing Frodo as a "drug addict" then his actions make much more sense in the movies than they would have if Jackson/Boyens/Walsh had stayed true to the book in that moment.

You seem to be under the impression that I'm not aware of what message Tolkein was trying to send with the Scouring of the Shire. I know exactly what he was trying to say and it's a good message. However, I simply felt that he wrote it in a heavy-handed, slightly contrived manner. That's the only reason it felt tacked on to me, because the sequence felt like Tolkein was suddenly writing about his own experiences rather than the adventures of Frodo, Sam, Merry and Pippin. Basically, the Scouring took me out of the book and I started looking for real world parallels rather than just being engrossed in the story. I don't think there is any way Jackson/Boyens/Walsh could have included the Scouring in ROTK without most of the audience just getting up and walking out before it was over. People were already exhausted from all the big battles, there's no way anyone would have had the energy left to sit through a fight that was really no more than a small skirmish. It's one of those things that barely worked in the book (but not really), but wouldn't work at all in a movie.

The way it played out in the movies was similar to how the ending of WW2 played out for American and Australian troops. They come home from this terrible, life-changing conflict to a homeland that was mostly untouched by the war and they start to realize that they are irrevocably changed by the experience and no one in their hometown can ever truly understand what they've been through. My grandfather was a WW2 vet, my dad a Vietnam vet, my brother served in Saudi Arabia (as well as Iraq and Afghanistan more recently), and I was deployed to Bosnia/Croatia in the mid-1990s. So I think the way they chose to end ROTK just felt more personal and poignant to me. If they had stuck with the story as written, then I believe that the entire trilogy would have felt like a giant waste of time.

I know it's ironic that I criticize Tolkein for getting too personal in that segment of the book, then I go and give a personal reason for enjoying the changes; but that's just the way it goes, I guess. It's probably because the LOTR trilogy means so much to me personally that I consider the films to be completely immune to criticism. It doesn't matter how many flaws someone points out or how much evidence they give to support their criticisms, it's like water off a duck's back to me. None of it is going to change my mind about these movies. Is that a double-standard? Of course it is. We all have them, but I have no problem with having double-standards when we're talking about something as subjective as enjoying a movie.
 
Joined
May 8, 2010
Messages
757
Reaction score
0
On the note of Theodon's supposed grammar breach: You realize that when he says 'parent', he is using it in a gender neutral way. To be completely accurate, he'd have to say "no parent should have to bury his or her child". Very awkward. It is common in practical English to use 'they' and 'their' as gender-neutral pronouns, not just for plural ones.
 
Joined
Dec 3, 2004
Messages
4,893
Reaction score
2
im not really sure why this debate is going on. I know for me there are a few scenes that bug the hell out of my in the RINGS trilogy and they are all legolas but I still like the movies a lot. and there are scenes that probably bother me in the OT though its not in my head at the moment but I still like them. now to the PT films of the topic I can not recall one scene in them that I actually like and there aren't many films in all of time I can say that about. for me it doesn't so much bother me that people like the PT its the constant accusations that the people that don't like them are just hard headed old OT fans with some kind of biased nostalgia filled eyes. the original poster feels OT fans bully and hate on PT fans and I feel PT fans are the ones that start it up by telling us we are wrong and confused or something, and those people that tell us constantly how its all canon and how we have to just accept it and we HAVE to like it all.

The way it played out in the movies was similar to how the ending of WW2 played out for American and Australian troops. They come home from this terrible, life-changing conflict to a homeland that was mostly untouched by the war and they start to realize that they are irrevocably changed by the experience and no one in their hometown can ever truly understand what they've been through.
very well put.
 
Joined
Aug 15, 2009
Messages
10,978
Reaction score
133
Location
Hillsboro, IL, USA
its the constant accusations that the people that don't like them are just hard headed old OT fans with some kind of biased nostalgia filled eyes... I feel PT fans are the ones that start it up by telling us we are wrong and confused or something, and those people that tell us constantly how its all canon and how we have to just accept it and we HAVE to like it all.
Yes, I totally agree. If there is any "hate" aimed at Prequel fans, it's because many of them brought it upon themselves with their inability to accept any opinion that differs from theirs. They respond to the criticism, that the PT totally deserves, in a condescending way, marginalize other people's opinions and then try to play the victim when their actions tick people off. That's what stirs up the ire of those OT-purists who can't accept other people's opinions and it all just escalates into a flame war.

I'm not saying that all Prequel fans or OT-purists are unable to accept differing opinions, but there are enough of them out there to cause these discussions to always devolve into an "us vs. them" conflict.

I know what I like and what I don't like when it comes to movies and my reasons are 100% my own. I don't need some kid on the internet, who only knows me based on the limited information about myself that I choose to reveal online, to try to tell me why I like or don't like something.

Even worse, I don't want someone telling me what I MUST like just because George Lucas said so. Lucas' opinions about Star Wars don't really matter to me, mainly because I think he gets far too much credit for the greatness of ANH and ESB. Those two films were great in spite of George Lucas being involved, not because of him. By ROTJ he was able to seize more control of the production and it really shows in the lesser quality of that film.
 
Joined
Oct 27, 2009
Messages
8,402
Reaction score
0
Quick question, can anyone name or lists the ships/vehicles that have appeared in all 3 PT films? And can anyone list the ones that appeared in at least 2 of the PT films?


Thanks
 
Joined
Aug 26, 2014
Messages
1,193
Reaction score
0
Location
Chicago
The Lucrehulk Trade Federation ships appear in all three.

Though, not to get off topic, I honestly don't feel like the PT deserves as much of the hate that it gets and I feel like a lot of the hate is either from bandwagon haters of OT purists who would be unhappy with anything not OT anyway. I'm not exactly an OT purists myself. I do think that a lot of the edits done by Lucas haven't been beneficial (ie a lot of the Bluray) while other edits have been (fixing goofs or bad effects). But I also think the PT is pretty good. It's got its bad moments (Jar-Jar, too much unnecessary CGI, bad writing at points), but they're not bad movies. They're not on the level of the OT, but they're not bad either. The OT doesn't exactly have its shining moments either, and I think a lot of fans forget that.
 
Joined
Jul 3, 2000
Messages
2,204
Reaction score
1
Location
NH
Quick question, can anyone name or lists the ships/vehicles that have appeared in all 3 PT films? And can anyone list the ones that appeared in at least 2 of the PT films?


Thanks
Off the top of my head the Trade Federation Battleship, Neimoidian Shuttle, and Coruscant Air Taxi are in all three.

As for two: Naboo Starfighter, Gunship, AT-TE, Delta-7 Jedi Starfighter and if you count the large droids the Droid Starfighter and Hailfire Droid.

Plus I'm sure there are a ton of background ships on Coruscant or Tatooine that are in two or three of them too.
 
Joined
Aug 18, 2006
Messages
5,690
Reaction score
146
the PT's are like the temple of doom -- (they played an Indy marathon on TV this week -- and again, for the umpteenth time that I have tried, I could NOT sit through this movie -- I ended up flipping channels halfway through and watching re-runs of Pawn Stars instead). it's just plain bad. the slapstick silliness of the "Club Obi-wan" scene is echoed in the AOTC airspeeder scene. it's absolutely cringeworthy. compared to the original 'Raiders', temple of doom is like the lesser sequel to Conan the Barbarian: where the original movie was awesome; the sequel was a saturday morning cartoon. same with Robocop: the original was awesome; the sequel was ridiculous. (there is an entire thread of "movies that should not have had sequels", if you need more comparators --"Jaws" comes to mind). too often, Hollywood has a surprise hit, and the creators have NO IDEA what made it successful. and/or, in the case of Jaws, the creator sells the franchise to lesser film-makers, who invariably miss the mark, and create something stupid.

SW and ESB were created by a team of brilliant minds, many of which, were nowhere to be found on the set of ROTJ --> ROTJ is that lesser sequel: it's Conan the Destroyer. it's robocop2. and the PTs..? they are Red Sonja; they are robocop3; they are Jaws 3D; kingdom of the crystal skull;etc, etc; (the list goes on).


Hollywood has a LONG HISTORY of lackluster sequels that "jump the shark" of their original franchise-starter. the PT's are really no different. in every aspect, save one: most people actually managed to watch them. ((I STILL can't sit through temple of doom. I tried. I've never actually seen the entire thing. (Pawn Stars FTW)). :rolleyes:

--> if someone were to come on these boards and declare that "temple of doom" is better than "Raiders", they would be ridiculed, and accused of Trolling. :rolleyes: this is only natural. (perhaps this is the "hate" that Borderlands is talking about, in his first post?)
 
Last edited:
Joined
Aug 15, 2009
Messages
10,978
Reaction score
133
Location
Hillsboro, IL, USA
I feel like a lot of the hate is either from bandwagon haters of OT purists who would be unhappy with anything not OT anyway.
or….? You didn't really finish your thought here.

Anyways, this nonsense of "OT purists who would be unhappy with anything not OT" is bogus. It's a strawman argument describing a group of people that doesn't really exist. At least, they don't exist in any numbers large enough to be relevant.

The OT doesn't exactly have its shining moments either, and I think a lot of fans forget that.
If you would take the time to actually read what people have been saying in this thread, then you would know that this observation is totally unnecessary. We all know that the OT isn't perfect and some of us have said that very thing several times already. So, it's not an issue.
 
Joined
Aug 26, 2014
Messages
1,193
Reaction score
0
Location
Chicago
It was a typo and I didn't feel like making a double post to point out that I made a typo. I also didn't feel like reading all 13 pages, so go ***** out somebody else.
 
Joined
Oct 27, 2009
Messages
8,402
Reaction score
0
It was a typo and I didn't feel like making a double post to point out that I made a typo. I also didn't feel like reading all 13 pages, so go ***** out somebody else.
I swear I swear ...I KNEW he would have a response like this. Not understanding the arguments that are critical of the PT is SO in keeping with this kind response. I have my own theory on why certain people dislike the PT and why others seem to be unaware of what's wrong with the PT or not particularly bothered by what's wrong with it, but I won't post it here, as not to offend. The above post says enough about it.
 
Last edited:
Joined
May 8, 2010
Messages
757
Reaction score
0
I like the PT, AOTC and ROTS in particular, and I'd like to think I'm also a decent person, capable of intelligent discussion :p
 
Joined
Aug 26, 2014
Messages
1,193
Reaction score
0
Location
Chicago
Granted I could have handled the above situation better, but I was in a foul mood because my football team just lost and I hate when people are grammar Nazis. I made a typo, get over it. I also don't like to be told that my opinion is moot just because it's already been established somewhere within the last 13 pages. It's my opinion, I'll say it if I want to. Finally, I have met plenty of what I refer to "OT purists" who don't like most SW material for the exact reason as I stated, so I do know that the mentality exists. Demographics and regards to its relevancy was never my point nor an implied point of the post in subject. I merely pointed out that the mentality exists. I DO happen to understand the criticisms of the PT, and I do happen to agree with many of them. However, I also think that a lot of Star Wars fans simply need to get over it.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Aug 26, 2014
Messages
1,193
Reaction score
0
Location
Chicago
What point are you trying to make? Because, to be frank, right now you're coming off as a troll.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Dec 3, 2004
Messages
4,893
Reaction score
2
the PT's are like the temple of doom -- (they played an Indy marathon on TV this week -- and again, for the umpteenth time that I have tried, I could NOT sit through this movie -- I ended up flipping channels halfway through and watching re-runs of Pawn Stars instead). it's just plain bad. the slapstick silliness of the "Club Obi-wan" scene is echoed in the AOTC airspeeder scene. it's absolutely cringeworthy. compared to the original 'Raiders', temple of doom is like the lesser sequel to Conan the Barbarian: where the original movie was awesome; the sequel was a saturday morning cartoon. same with Robocop: the original was awesome; the sequel was ridiculous. (there is an entire thread of "movies that should not have had sequels", if you need more comparators --"Jaws" comes to mind). too often, Hollywood has a surprise hit, and the creators have NO IDEA what made it successful. and/or, in the case of Jaws, the creator sells the franchise to lesser film-makers, who invariably miss the mark, and create something stupid.
I never watch temple of doom, it really is missing something. I almost would even say I like the new one more than temple, at least up to the part where they actually get to the jungle. I was mad when the toy line messed itself up but they still managed to put out a temple and and then cancelled the raiders wave that everyone wanted. last crusade isn't as good as raiders either but I don't mind it. but in the end I can still watch temple of doom, and I cant even watch the PT.
im not saying the Robocop sequel was good by any means but my favorite scene is in that movie not the oroginal.

I think the worst sequels to ever happen may be highlanders. but then again I would sit through those before the PT.
 
Joined
Aug 15, 2009
Messages
10,978
Reaction score
133
Location
Hillsboro, IL, USA
Granted I could have handled the above situation better, but I was in a foul mood because my football team just lost and I hate when people are grammar Nazis. I made a typo, get over it. I also don't like to be told that my opinion is moot just because it's already been established somewhere within the last 13 pages. It's my opinion, I'll say it if I want to.
Nobody said you can't state your opinion. However, if you just skip over 13 pages of conversation and post an opinion that's already been stated mutiple times, then why should we be required to respect your opinion? You basically just burst into someone else's conversation with an attitude of, "I haven't been listening to anything you've said and I really don't care, but here's what I think…" You can't really expect anyone to take your opinion seriously after that.

Finally, I have met plenty of what I refer to "OT purists" who don't like most SW material for the exact reason as I stated, so I do know that the mentality exists. Demographics and regards to its relevancy was never my point nor an implied point of the post in subject. I merely pointed out that the mentality exists.
No, but what you did imply was that anyone who didn't like the PT was nothing more than an OT-purist who was going to hate anything that wasn't the OT anyway. If that's not what you meant to say, then maybe you should have taken the extra time to proofread your post and check your grammar.

Also, you stated that you have met "plenty" of what you refer to as "OT purists". That's a pretty vague statement that really could mean anything, because you haven't defined any of your terms. And how can you possibly KNOW that this mentality exists? Do you have psychic powers and can read their minds? Because that's the only way you could possible "know" what is going on in someone else's mind. Otherwise you can only infer that opinion of other people based on what you personally define as an "OT purist". So, how do YOU personally define the term "OT purist"? And while we're at it, how do you define "plenty"? Are we talking about a number that is more than 2? More than 100? More than 10,000? Exactly what number range does "plenty" cover for you?

I DO happen to understand the criticisms of the PT, and I do happen to agree with many of them. However, I also think that a lot of Star Wars fans simply need to get over it.
Yeah, the Prequels were bad movies, but why do we need to get over it exactly? Just because you said so? Wouldn't it be easier for you to just avoid threads where this conversation is taking place? You're so intent on being allowed to state your opinion, so maybe you should allow others to have that same privilege.
 
Joined
Feb 12, 2012
Messages
912
Reaction score
0
Location
Boston
I know most people say The Phantom Menace is the worst of the Prequels but I feel that Attack of the Clones is by far a worse movie. I find AOTC completely unwatchable.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Jan 31, 2011
Messages
1,048
Reaction score
18
To all those that think those of us having a discussion/ criticizing the Prequel should "get over it": I think this is a good time to talk more so about the Prequel than ever before with the new Sequel and spinoffs coming soon. It becomes a discussion of what was, what is and what's to come with the new films. It's an interesting time in StarWarsland.

I think Tolkien himself might be a better judge of that than you or I, having witnessed the hell of WWI trench-warfare at first hand, and seen virtually all of his dearest friends killed by it.

Let the old soldier have his moments of levity.
Fair enough. Sure LOTR had elements of Tolkien's life experiences, but it's not his autobiography, so when he projects onto fictional characters a sense of lighthearted competition between two good friends on how many enemies they can kill, I'm not a fan of such an attitude. And it translated even worse on film for me, with Legolas happily counting aloud the number of enemies he's killing. No big deal; some enjoyed it and thought it was great, I hated it and thought it mindlessly juvenile.

I hope some are not taking any criticism of George, the Prequel, and Tolkien personally. I'm not bashing them senselessly, I'm criticizing their work that they've presented to an audience. And most of all, I'm not bashing those that adore these films, books, and individuals. We're all adults on a forum discussing fairy tales... I definitely hope no one is taking me too seriously LOL

Or personally.

I think Tolkien was a visionary, and his master of the English language combined with his imagination is supreme, I'm not taking that away from him when I criticize some aspects of his work. But his LOTR is not perfect to me. And I also get that some feel that Tolkien's words is the definitive one and can't be improved upon on (wasn't he always revising his stories...?)-- much the same way that some SW fans feel that anything George does, no matter how nonsensical, illogical or lazy, is acceptable, because SW is his story to tell (and mess up).

Anyway, the whole of ROTJ really resembles three different movies cut-and-pasted together (still better than the Prequel!): The opening Jabba sequence looks and feels altogether like a different... minor episode that fits more at home as an EU-type adventure then actually part of the larger story. It's fun, and some of the designs are great, but it's so irrelevant to the main story of the Rebels vs the Empire. I get that Han had to be rescued... maybe it's just that the the endor adventure was so bland... so cheap-looking.... And Endor starts out fine enough until the ewoks show up-- than it really does resemble a very cheap and sloppy made-for-tv film that's set in someone's backyard. The saving graces are the Final Duel and the all-too-brief space battle.

I think if there's one thing that George got right with his tinkering of the OT is the insertion of a wider, more universal celebration at the end. I don't remember the original, other than it just showed the one ewok village celebrating (with that horrible song that sounded like humans singing in "ewok"... so creepy) -- although, if the Sequel rumors are to be believed, than the original ending makes more sense while the SE-version doesn't. Time for another SE!
 
Last edited:
Joined
Aug 26, 2014
Messages
1,193
Reaction score
0
Location
Chicago
Nobody said you can't state your opinion. However, if you just skip over 13 pages of conversation and post an opinion that's already been stated mutiple times, then why should we be required to respect your opinion? You basically just burst into someone else's conversation with an attitude of, "I haven't been listening to anything you've said and I really don't care, but here's what I think…" You can't really expect anyone to take your opinion seriously after that.
It's a forum, dude, not a chatroom. It's not at all like I simply burst into your conversation. I just stated my opinion on a message board. It's an opinion over the internet, don't need to get upset about it.


Also, you stated that you have met "plenty" of what you refer to as "OT purists". That's a pretty vague statement that really could mean anything, because you haven't defined any of your terms. And how can you possibly KNOW that this mentality exists? Do you have psychic powers and can read their minds? Because that's the only way you could possible "know" what is going on in someone else's mind. Otherwise you can only infer that opinion of other people based on what you personally define as an "OT purist". So, how do YOU personally define the term "OT purist"? And while we're at it, how do you define "plenty"? Are we talking about a number that is more than 2? More than 100? More than 10,000? Exactly what number range does "plenty" cover for you?
I "know" it exists because I have made an observation of it. I've observed people who will praise the OT like it's the holy grail, and look at most other SW media like they're a blemish (most being that some do hold exceptions for certain comics). I would define a person who I would refer to as an OT purist based on said observation: OT Purist = "A fan of Star Wars that views the Saga through a lens, unwilling of liking or accepting Star Wars media outside of the Original Trilogy". Repeated observation solidifies or modifies my definition. As for sample population, I have encountered at the least, 50 fans who have fit my definition, however the existence of the film The People VS George Lucas implies that the OT Purism mentality is larger than my sample population. Despite this, my original comment made no mention of demographics in the first place, I was merely pointing out a generalized observation.

Yeah, the Prequels were bad movies, but why do we need to get over it exactly? Just because you said so? Wouldn't it be easier for you to just avoid threads where this conversation is taking place? You're so intent on being allowed to state your opinion, so maybe you should allow others to have that same privilege.
Because it's been 10 freakin years. I don't know anybody who could hold a loathing for a series of movies for that long without merely becoming apathetic towards them. No, Star Wars fans have been holding a vehement hatred of these films for nearly a decade. I just find it a little ridiculous. I can understand the dislike, I can understand the wanting to rant about said dislike. I've done it plenty of times myself. But the entrenched hatred for these films, it's like they just came out last year.
 
Joined
Aug 18, 2006
Messages
5,690
Reaction score
146
it's not like Barada is walking around in the General Population, ranting over star wars films. :rolleyes: this is a star wars message board.

I can't stand Shumaker Batman. that was 20 "freakin" years ago. --> if I were on a Batman message board, discussing Batman movies, in a Batman forum, with other Batman fans, where the topic is always Batman... then the lackluster quality of Shumaker's films would be pertinent to every discussion on the board. regardless of how many years have passed.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Feb 12, 2012
Messages
912
Reaction score
0
Location
Boston
I proudly proclaim to be an OT purist snob. I do not like the EU and the Prequels but most of my Star Wars hatred is directed at the Special Editions of the OT. The disappointment of the PT does not affect my everyday life but it doesn't matter if it's been 5 years, 10 years, or 50 years, if someone asks me if I enjoyed AOTC the answer will always be no. I will not pretend to like something or lower my standards just because something is "Star Wars."

The PT are some of the goofiest movies I've ever seen and have no redeeming qualities that I can think of. I thought about listing reasons why i hate them but we have already spent 13 pages of this thread and countless other threads explaining why they fail as good movies.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Aug 18, 2006
Messages
5,690
Reaction score
146
^^ I'm such an "OT Purist" that I won't even acknowledge ROTJ as part of the OT. :whistling:
it's part of the PT, as far as I'm concerned, (with the distinction based on GL's level of creative control -- NOT based on which "boxed set" it happens to come from).



I'm (also) one of the biggest defenders of the PT, that this board has ever seen:
I've provided numerous essays/doctrines on the PT's inherent potential (explaining jar jar's dramatic purpose, beyond the mistaken notion of "comic relief" or "appeal to children"; explaining the 3-movie arc of the overlying trilogy: part 1 introduces 2 noble concepts - padme's Militarization + qui-gon's Defiance, part 2 applies the Slippery Slope - resulting in the creation of both Empire and Separatist movement, part 3 anakin must choose - he chooses "padme's militarization" AND loses her BECAUSE of the slippery slope; explaining the downfall of the Jedi Order in terms of "separation of church and state" - the jedi were ignoring the "will" of their god and allowing politicians to dictate "right and wrong", their god spawned a Chosen One to wipe them out of existence; etc).




in the end, I've stood on BOTH sides of the fence, and I'm here to tell you:
there is no such thing as OT vs PT -- there is only "good movies" vs "bad ones" -- anyone who clings to the tired old argument of "OT vs PT" is missing the point, entirely.
despite their untapped potential, there is NO escaping the fact that the PT are horrible efforts, by a glorified film student. they are really really bad.
they are some of the worst movies I've ever seen.. and.. I've seen attack of the killer tomatoes. (just saying). :p
 
Last edited:
Joined
Jan 31, 2011
Messages
1,048
Reaction score
18
Sam, I'm sure the OOT will be release soon enough by Disney to appease/ profit from yourself, and all those that want it-- unless George somehow made it a part of the multi-billion deal that the OOT will never be released. It's possible with him...

The OT-- even in some of its SE-incarnations (mainly the enriching of some environments, and that new age track added to the ending of ROTJ SE may be a tad Yanni-esque, but it was a huge improvement over the original ewok-choral track)-- is by far what defines "Star Wars" for me. But, I love the look of TPM, and its story is the only one of the Prequels' that works for me. Some of The Clone Wars episodes are really good, but most aren't: I really liked the one with Ahsoka and Chewbacca as game for a gang of the Bossk-aliens (can't recall what they're called). If an OT-character like Chewbacca had to be introduced into the Prequel, this is how to do it with finesse-- not the manner in which Chewbacca was shoehorned into it the way he was in ROTS. And I really liked some parts of The Clone Wars movie; mainly the assault on the temple and the Obi-Wan vs Ventress duel, which, I thought, outperformed any of the ones in the Prequels.

My Star Wars is inclusive of anything I think is good-- I don't care what George makes "official". So the ending of TPM with l'il Ani as a part of the Jedi Order is how the Prequel ends for me; Jabba's baby doesn't exist; Maul and Boba remain dead; and AOTC and ROTS are not part of SW.
 
Joined
Aug 15, 2009
Messages
10,978
Reaction score
133
Location
Hillsboro, IL, USA
it's not like Barada is walking around in the General Population, ranting over star wars films. :rolleyes: this is a star wars message board.
Plus, I've already stated that there is still plenty that I like about the Prequels, just not the overall story as it appears in the films themselves. In fact, some of the PT vehicle and character designs are superior to anything we saw in the OT. I think I've said that before too. Unfortunately their potential in the films was totally wasted and they just ended up being set dressing. Which is a criticism that could be leveled at most of the awesome alien designs from Jabba's Palace in ROTJ.

But I guess those are some of the little tidbits of information that guys like CT1138 miss when they skip over 13 pages of conversation and start posting blind and uninformed generalizations about other people. :rolleyes:
 
Joined
Aug 26, 2014
Messages
1,193
Reaction score
0
Location
Chicago
You act like I accused you of something. I don't recall accusing anybody here of anything.
 
Joined
Aug 18, 2006
Messages
5,690
Reaction score
146
since we're searching for redeeming qualities now, I'd have to say, the best part of the PT is the costumes. hats off to Trisha Biggar, she did a great job.
 
Joined
May 8, 2010
Messages
757
Reaction score
0
My favorite thing with the PT was alien design. Completely outshone the OT, in my opinion, when it came to that.
 
Joined
Aug 26, 2014
Messages
1,193
Reaction score
0
Location
Chicago
Redeeming qualities for me:

-John Williams' compositions
-Costuming
-character design
-ship design
-Phase II Clone Trooper armor
-the basic premise behind it
-prop design
-Mace Windu
-A lot of quotable dialogue
-the political side of things was interesting
 
Joined
May 8, 2010
Messages
757
Reaction score
0
Can't believe that didn't even occur to me ^ John Williams, undeniably, was top notch through the entirety of the movies.
 
Joined
Jun 19, 2013
Messages
2,069
Reaction score
1
Location
Long Island
hm. What did I like about the PT? I guess... the Trade Federation's droid army was an interesting concept. I did like to see them get deployed. The non-Anakin castings also seemed pretty promising.
 
Joined
Oct 27, 2009
Messages
8,402
Reaction score
0
I proudly proclaim to be an OT purist snob. I do not like the EU and the Prequels but most of my Star Wars hatred is directed at the Special Editions of the OT. The disappointment of the PT does not affect my everyday life but it doesn't matter if it's been 5 years, 10 years, or 50 years, if someone asks me if I enjoyed AOTC the answer will always be no. I will not pretend to like something or lower my standards just because something is "Star Wars."

The PT are some of the goofiest movies I've ever seen and have no redeeming qualities that I can think of. I thought about listing reasons why i hate them but we have already spent 13 pages of this thread and countless other threads explaining why they fail as good movies.
So well put.


I liked the designs in the PT. I loved the "Art of" prequel books, especially the Ian McCaig stuff. That being said , as beautiful as the designs were, as time goes on, I've realized I don't believe that look was the right look for the Star Wars universe. Everything was so smooth and aesthetically pleasing. People love to defend this by saying "well it was a different era in the Star Wars universe like the 1920's!". Firstly I don't think the Star Wars universe should have looked SO different from the previous era. Different? Sure, but not that different. Secondly I don't agree that the look of the universe needed to "be like the 1920's" where for some unknown reason aesthetics was so important. Because of this idea that the universe needed to be more beautiful (and the designs were beautiful) Star Wars lost it's grit, and believability for me. Luke's xwing was cool but it was so gritty and almost tacky looking. The Falcon was used and clunky looking. That's how the real world is. Even the Ewoks films held on to this. It was completely gone in the PT. Everything was so clean. Who did all the cleaning? I remember as a kid seeing the ships looking dirty suggested so much more beyond the camera. Luke gets his x wing and we see that fighter used through the trilogy. I loved that Luke was using it as regular transportation lol. It's all he had! Every time the story needed Anakin or obi wan to go from one place to another....there was a beautiful clean new speedy vehicle just waiting for them. It was ridiculous. Who can relate to that? That's like walking outside and everytime you need to go anywhere there's a new Lamborghini or porche outside lol and of course it's brand new and super clean each time. Just silly.

We had to see a new "hero" fighter each time? Why couldn't the the Jedi star fighter from one film be reused in another? And I could see maybe naboo being overly concerned with beauty and aesthetics...but the whole galactic society?
 
Last edited:
Joined
Aug 26, 2014
Messages
1,193
Reaction score
0
Location
Chicago
Honestly I don't subscribe to the "different era" argument either. My hypothesis as to why everything isn't so clean looking is because of the nature of the Rebel Alliance. They're a ragged band of outlaws usually on the run from the Empire. We don't see as many modernized planets in the OT as we do the PT. In the OT, the most advanced place we see is Bespin, a mining town. Other than that we get backwater planets with little to no modernization like Hoth, Endor, and Tatooine (Mos Eisley especially is basically set up as a 4chan).
 
Last edited:
Joined
Aug 18, 2006
Messages
5,690
Reaction score
146
re: the "different era" theory: the OT happens 20 years after the decline of a once-great society. so everything is 20 years old and rusty looking. been to Cuba lately?* every car you see is a 1950's-era survivor, that has been recycled and rebuilt over and over again. they haven't had access to new shiny american cars since 1962, so they make do with whatever is lying around. by contrast, the PT is more like the 1950's, where everything had an opulent design aesthetic that was almost unnecessary.

* I have a friend who got married there (canadian) -- I wasn't able to attend the wedding but I saw the photos -- the place is stuck in a moment of time. you've never seen so many '57 chevys in one place. everything is old, busted, and recycled. the photos reminded me of tattooine.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Oct 27, 2009
Messages
8,402
Reaction score
0
I understand that, I get that I really do. But this is Lucas's problem. As long as he can "explain it away", he puts it in, regardless of whether or not it works. As long as there's an "in universe explaination" he puts it in. The fact is, the "used" universe look of the OT blew people away...it REALLY worked. It made the events and the characters and objects in the story feel so grounded that it was believable. The PT was almost sterile. Everything was new and zippy looking. There was still function and grit in the 1950's. The PT took "opulent design" to an unrealistic level. There was no sense that those objects/ships existed before or after we saw them on screen. This is in stark contrast to what we saw in the OT. A "once great" society still has imperfections. Where and when in the history if humanity have things been SO great that everything was clean and slick and flawless?! It's completely unrealistic no matter how many fictional in-universe explaination there are. And again ... The ships for example simply exist to tell the story and then they go away. Anakin jumps into "some ones" taxi...drives it away and when he's done he just...leaves it. Never to be seen or used again. When he needs to go to talk to mace Windu...there's just this super new clean never before used slick ship. He hops in it, zips away, lands and we never see it again. This happens all through out the PT. There's no accounting for objects or possessions. On tatooine Luke is scene talking about his one and only crappy land speeder. He DOES something with it. He sells it. The xwing...he acquires when he joins the rebellion. He proves he can use it, and he keeps it. We recognize it as Luke's the way we recognize a friends car. His snow speeder is destroyed. His tauntaun is killed. His speeder bike crashes. Everything is already existing before the camera sees it. It's used in the story and then it's accounted for after. In the PT, whenever our characters need a vehicle it exists only to serve the scene. Nothing's reused. I would have loved to see adult Anakin come across a naboo fighter. He sees it and jokes that he hasn't piloted one of those since he was a kid, and someone kind of looks at him funny because that's absurd. "Well can you still fly it?" "I guess we'll find out", and maybe it's rough at first but he gets the hang of it. As the story/films go, the mechanical skills (set up in the TPM that we never see again ) come in handy and he's making repairs to it. Maybe it's dirtier and used. Instead we get this stupid explaination about the "once great society" where everything was new and spiffy all the time. That's bull ****. Why was Luke's land speeder dirty and crappy ? Because it's part of the rebellion? Nope! It's because it's an imperfect world. Why was the falcon a piece of junk? Because it's part of the rebellion? Nope! It's imperfect and used like my 2000 jeep Cherokee sport. We can relate to that.
 
Last edited:
Top