Are The Star Wars Prequels Actually Good?
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 12 ก.ย. 2024
- Today I answer the age old question: Are the Prequels a misunderstood masterpiece or a cinematic abomination?
Every time Star Wars quotes itself: • Every Time Star Wars Q...
George Lucas Interview: • George Lucas interview...
Music used: • Video
So George Lucas ruined Star Wars?
Yes
No, sw is ep1-6. Disney trilogy ain't count.
@@whysoserious652 Why so serious?
@@dwightsarmy14 because daddy cut a smile into his face as a kid
@@whysoserious652 did you ever dance with the devil in the pale moonlight?
i love the prequels and glad that they went in a new political direction. the stories are rich and love the depth and consideration behind all the characters and their arcs.
I acknowledge they have some faults, as the originals did, but I'm pretty convinced after years of dissecting them that they're indeed great.
Many people don't like them because they changed many thigns from the first three, yes, but they generally did for the better: there was a huge step up in production design and special effects. Imagine for a moment how would Naboo, Coruscant, Mustafar, Kamino, etc. be back in the original trilogy. Now you see how restricted everything was at the time. A closed spaceship, bases with little details, a desert, a forest and an ice planet. Or think about the alien spieces. They were all super restricted. And the thing is that those planets were not made up suddenly, but were perfectly coherent with what Lucas had already done.
And talk about the complexity of the story and characters, the conflicts, which are way superior in the prequels than in the original trilogy. For instance I'd argue Padme was a much more profound character than Leia.
Anyway, good video!
I think the reason the dialogue is so different in the prequels is simply because Lucas was trying to portray how the way the a society talks will change significantly between generations sometimes. In this case he's trying to say that people were more formal during Anakin's time than during Luke's time. This also goes right a long with old Ben Kenobi saying that it was "a more civilized age".
For a real world analogue, The Original Trilogy is mid to late 1800s, everyone uses guns, maybe a few stragglers around with their cavalry sabers, people talk more brash and low brow. The Prequels are the late 1700s to early 1800s, the colonial era, where everyone at least tried to speak as erudite as they could. I believe, both in real life and in Star Wars, these differences exist because of the way social status works in society. In the late 18th century, legends and heroes were statesmen and disciplined soldiers. In the late 19th century legends were almost always some form of gunslinger, either vigilantes or outlaws.
In the late Galactic republic people looked up to Knights.... Jedi Knights, the formality and chivalry is implied by the name alone. People should have never expected anything different. Imagine if Obiwan told Dukoo, during the discussion on Geonosis, "Just shut up, you nerf herder. Qui-gon would never join you!" I mean the prequels don't have any space slang, or actual insults. The closest we get is when the guy try to sell the Death Sticks to Kenobi. I personally believe that "Death Sticks" was meant to be slang for some unnamed in-universe drug, but it seems that all the EU writers took it so serious that "Death Sticks" is like the official scientific name of the drug lol.
On top of this, in the OT, the story and 90% of the dialogue is centered around a ragtag group of vagrants galivanting across the galaxy trying to fight the Empire. Whereas the Prequels almost exclusively follow people in the upper crust of society. Politicians, and the official Republic security force (Jedi).
Someone who actually gets it!
@@alih122 most of the time when people hate on the prequels it's because they just don't get it.
Like Mike Stoklasa, as much as I love the guy, says the politics are complicated.... But they are pretty basic, actually, for anyone who knows a little about politics.
"So let me get this straight, you think ROTS is the best Star Wars movie?"
"It is. And I'm tired of pretending it isn't"
Great video! Glad that your video popped up in my feed!
Keep on the great work :)
Thank you! Glad you enjoyed it
The prequels are made for the smart SW fans who see the franchise as more than simple space adventures.
That's how you know the real fans, those who understand that what made star wars great was stories it told and that includes the games, the novels etc.
They are as flawed as the Originals and are equally as awesome, for different reasons, amongst which: they make the worldbuilding and lore establishing, because lets be honest, the originals just told a story but the world building was nigh absent and the lore establishing was very limited, the lightsaber duel are just supreme and so is every battle scene, the villains are scary except one (grievous) unlike in the OT where the reverse is true (they are unscary except one, vader), i mean, the droids remain treathening across the 3 movies and DONT GET KILLED BY TEDDY BEARS, the CGI holds up very well considering the years it came out in and the practical effects in TOM are very good still.
Jar jar is annoying, but at least he was ON PURPOSE AND HAD A ROLE TO PLAY UNLIKE MODERN STAR WARS CHARACTERS.
I can go on, but i think i made the point clear.
The blockbuster buster once said that movies are like paintings not everyone who looks them appreciates them the same way I think there some truth to that and the Star Wars prequels did not ruined Star Wars they help Star Wars it was the Star Wars sequels almost ruined Star Wars
Then those Disney+ series came along and put the final nail in the coffin
@@samwilsoncaptainamerica233 hey they not all bad andor pretty good and first 2 seasons of Mandalorian we’re good yeah we had bumps in the road like book of boba Fett and 3 season of the Mandalorian and obi wan Kenobi are good not great the Disney plus Star Wars plus are hit or miss
This was actually a pretty good video pal, like something after i was like mmmmm. Like my time hasn’t been wasted, keep it up mate
I think Style is Substance's critique of TPM is the best video essay I've seen cover the film that tries analyze it just as a film, not as some raging nerdgasm
I’ll have to check it out
Watched it. Thanks for the recommendation. Really good analysis. He went really in depth into the movie in a really interesting way.
No they are not real good in a lot of ways. The thing about that series though is it did a good job of world building. The stories within the story are more interesting than the actual plot, which is a problem for movies.
Palpatine doesn't START manipulating Anakin in Rots,he was doing it for 13 years already.
He gets much more blatant in rots but yes he was doing it the whole time
In this case it's not good that fandom summarise movies in trilogies. I rank the canon 6 movies in that order (From best to worse):
Revenge of the Sith 10/10 (perfect beginning, the best pacing in series, the best SW light
saber battle, Palpy so enjoible to watch)
The Empire Striikes Back 9,5/10 (almost perfect movie)
A New Hope 9/10 (watched that more than 35 times)
Attack of the Clones 8/10 (some effects needs polish, but noir atmosphere is so good)
Return of the Jedi 7,5/10 (ewoks part was almost unbearable to watch)
The Phantom Menace 7/10 (J. J. Binks, Endor part last too long)
From Disney era only movie who I bother to watch more than 2 times was Rogue One (8/10). Gareth Edwards make something that look and feel like Lucas movies.
BRO this video hella different from your old stuff from rainbow but im enjoying it 😎
I can’t help but wonder what would happened if prequels the first the original trilogy came after and sequels came after that can’t help that world be like and how the internet would reaction to Star Wars in that world
It’s fun to think about.
My problem has always been the acting and dialogue complaint. I am in 40's and I love the OT and would NEVER disparage them, 1-6 are my favorite movies. People need to STOP acting like their was a drop off in the acting and dialogue in the prequels. It has always been the same caliber. It has been always hokey and cheesy, I don't care either. Star Wars for me always has been about great story, unforgettable characters, amazing special effects and fun/escapism. I always get that watching 1-6....I am good!
I watched them recently and here’s how I’d rate the 3 of them
TPM-2/10
ATOC-1.5/10
ROTS-9.5/10
I’m not really a fan of the first 2 but I do like ROTS and I respect your opinion if you do like them
😢 they weren’t that bad lol
I'd say:
TPM - 8/10
AOTC - 7/10
ROTS - 10/10
So... it doesn't live up to the hype, good bad, or ugly
We are over 20 years removed from the hype at this point
There's a difference between "This is a good movie" and "I like this movie." Also, when making a case for why a movie is "good," it is a waste of time to attack others' opinions. Their opinions are not part of the text of the movie and are irrelevant (it can also lead to cherry-picking and strawmanning which weaken your credibility.) Just make your case.
I think you did a good job of explaining why you like the prequels, but you really didn't make any case why an objective viewer should qualify the films as "good."
Personally I think they're bad movies with some fun moments. Anything that might provoke interest within the prequels only do so in relation to the characters and events in the earlier movies. Also fyi, Clinton was President when Episode 1 was released, so probably not an allegory for contemporary events but more likely intended to parallel that guy from the 30s.
1. There is no such thing as an objectively good or bad movie. A movie being good or bad is determined by a larger community. So if a community of people determines a movie is bad then the movie is considered bad. So if you are arguing that a movie is unfairly judged by a community it is important to point out why they are wrong.
2. A lot of what makes the movies "good" is George Lucas's reincorporation of images and themes from other movies (including other star wars movies). If you are interesting in learning more about this there are lots of videos that including: th-cam.com/video/HKw-sW2DOrQ/w-d-xo.html, th-cam.com/video/vqnjzVX8EKA/w-d-xo.html I didn't go very in depth into this in my video because I didn't want to just be repeating others points, and more just wanting to talk about the movies from a personal perspective.
3. While George Bush wasn't president while the The Phantom Menace was released, a lot of the themes of the film have a direct correlation to the George Bush presidency as well as contemporary politics. The films are meant to be a cautionary tale of the rise of a leader manipulating wars and government to gain more power. Look at the USA invading Iraq after 9/11, or the patriot act as examples. While the films may not literally be about George Bush, they are about the type of leader he represents. Also many of George W Bushes policies and agendas were a continuation of his fathers: George H.W. Bush who was president from 1989-1993.
@@dwightsarmy14 It is a cop out to say that movies can't be "objectively" bad. No one is claiming they are objectively bad. You are using the terms good and bad yourself, so to add the term "objectively" as a defense when someone else uses good/bad seems dishonest. The elements that make up a movie can be judged as being successful or unsuccessful, good or bad. If a movie is on the whole unsuccessful or poorly executed, it is reasonable to judge it as a bad movie and unreasonable to judge it as a good movie (although one might still like it.) The prequels are bad. It seems silly to claim that the community determines if a film is good or bad, then claim a film is good because the community is wrong. Again, simply make the case for why the film is good. You don't need to address other criticisms because you have the text of the film to talk about. Even if you make a counter argument to every single criticism of the films, you still will not have made any positive case for why the films are good.
These movies are not good. You like them and are entertained by them which is fine. The points you make about parallels to other films and allegories about dictators (which again, are clearly about the guy from the 30s,) do not impact the argument because those existing aren't necessarily a positive or negative. It's the execution that matters and the prequels on the whole are poorly executed in terms of tone, structure, performances and story.
@@hitoshijohnson I think we will just have to agree to disagree. You say its a cop out to talk about movies being objective and then in the next sentence say that "If a movie is on the whole unsuccessful or poorly executed, it is reasonable to judge it as a bad movie and unreasonable to judge it as a good movie (although one might still like it.)" But who judges if the film is unsuccessful or poorly executed? Each individual who watches it will have to determine that for them selfs. You then say that "the prequels are bad" as if this is just objectively true. While in your opinion they may be unsuccessful and poorly executed this is not some objective truth. Everyone looks at movies differently. Is Who Killed Captain Alex a good or bad movie? What about Jeanne Dielman, 23, quai du commerce, 1080 Bruxelles? What about The Boondock Saints? Determining if these movies are good or bad will be up to each individual who watches them. Depending on what you value in a movie will also determine how good or bad you think it is. Do you value story? Acting? Pacing? Cinematography? Special effects?
You also are against addressing criticisms others have of a film. This may not be necessary in every film review however I think some meta discussion of the reception of a film is warranted when you are talking about one of the most discussed and polarizing films of all time. Films aren't made or released in a vacuum and so the cultural reception of a movie like this is important to talk about or at least mention.
And yes the movie is obviously about Hitler as he is the most well know fascist in recent history. However The point I was making is that the themes of the movies are relevant today and correlated to things that were happing in the world while the films were being released (history repeats itself).
@@dwightsarmy14 Let me help you. What I'm saying is a "cop out" is your hiding behind the word "objective" to wriggle out of the fact that you make qualitative judgements yourself about the movies and then when someone else does it you dismiss their observations bc 'it's all subjective,' to paraphrase.
I don't make any claim that movies themselves can be objectively good or bad. What can be done is determine criteria (subjectively) that make a movie 'good' and objectively (as a viewer) determine whether the film measures up to those criteria. It's what filmmakers and audiences have been doing for over 100 years - are you saying no conclusions have been reached? Even on a technical level? The community loves Neil Breen movies so I guess they're good in the same way that Mean Streets is good. "Can't focus your camera? Actors can't correctly interpret a simple line of dialog? Don't worry because no one can say for sure that it's bad. No standards have been set over the century of filmmaking." What a joke.
Again, YOU are the one who introduced good/bad language into the critique (it's in the title of your video.) You don't hold back in your derision or condescension regarding those fellows in that clip you reference, which stands in direct contradiction to your stated position that there can be no qualitative judgements made about films - except if you like it then it's "good" apparently as your title suggests. Whether or on not the video guys go as deep or notice the same things as you do can't really be argued bc according to you (sometimes, anyway,) there are no ways to assign value to anything that appears on screen.
"You also are against addressing criticisms others have of a film." - Um no. I am against you making a claim, then using as the bulk of your argument rebuttals to cherry picked criticisms. It was so incredibly lazy and dishonest that I had to ask myself if you had any positive original argument. That's why I wrote that in my first post. It's easy to take the dumbest or most poorly articulated statement and rebut that, and then use that as an unearned basis to rattle off a bunch opinions as established fact. - In writing this I now realize that is what bothered me most about your video, and why I felt so annoyed that you wouldn't/couldn't originate any real argument for why I should reinterpret those shit movies. The OT sfx were noticeable? Who gives a shit? Talk about the movie you're praising. People wanted a different story? Who gives a shit, tell me why the EP1 isn't a mind-numbing waste of time. (By the way, it's almost impossible not to try to mentally "fix" bad movies when you see them - hence the "I wish they would have done this or that" opinions.) Again, there's a difference between "this is a good movie" and "I like this movie." Otherwise there's no qualitative difference between Troll 2 and Blow Up.
@@hitoshijohnson Oh you are one of those !diots. I will never debate a lunatic who believes in objective truths in a movie which is a art form. It is all subjective. There is no hope with your type
No they are not good and there is a little canyon between masterpiece and abomination. Their biggest problem is that they are uninspired oatmeal.
Uninspired?!
Idk, I absolutely hated the prequels and sequels. But I watched that dubbed version of revenge of the sith "backstroke of the west" with my girlfriend the other night, which is a poorly translated version from a Chinese bootleg. And I found myself really enjoying the film. I was having to explain to her what was going on in the story because the dubbing is practically gibberish. The prequels weren't what we wanted. But over time...the new trash that will come out will consistently make them shine brighter.
Yes they are weak movies.
One thing about the originals is they had a realistic common man format with Luke, his guardians and Han. The Empire had the formal and unrealistic monologues, dramaqueen and anglo thespianing. However Luke, Han and eventually even Leia were just kids caught up into an adventure.
By the prequels everybody was this wooden british thespian from the Drama Club breaking into soliloquies on sand or their political intrigue.
If the prequels would have been handled like a Hitchcock movie...with the intrigue story unfolding around believable young people (The Lady Vanishes as example) they would have been good...even great.
Instead they just became B SciFi flicks with unrealistic dialog and situations.
The prequels are trash.
That’s just like your opinion man
@@dwightsarmy14 It's true
@@reek4062 only Siths deal in absolutes
the prequels are not trash the sequels are trash