Are the prequel "Star Wars" films better then the

[milojthatch]

This was on Yahoo and is a very interesting read. It's a bit academic, but still makes some interesting points.

Why the 'Star Wars' Prequels Are Better Than the Original Trilogy

By Timothy Sexton | Yahoo! Contributor Network – Fri, Feb 10, 2012 6:04 PM EST


It verges on cinematic treason to suggest that the "Star Wars" prequel trilogy is in any way superior to the original trilogy. However, history has proved that treasonous behavior is just as often necessary to stimulate progressive revolution as it is to endow malevolent forces with unrestricted authority necessary to obstruct basic human rights. So here goes: the first three episodes in the saga of Anakin Skywalker are deeper, better structured, and more politically astute than the final three. Not only is that why the prequel is superior, it is also a pretty decent elucidation of the original trilogy's greater popularity.

That the "Star Wars" trilogy embraced by American moviegoers is the one that presents a far less complex universe is not incidental to the rabid rebuke of the prequel. "A New Hope," "The Empire Strikes Back," and "Return of the Jedi" reflect the Cold War milieu in which they were created, offering up a comforting us-vs.-them story told in bold strokes lacking nuance, complexity, or intellectual ambiguity. That isn't to say that times have changed much; with the exception of "The Phantom Menace," the second and third installments of the prequel were released to an America that had embraced absolute views even more so than the original trilogy.

The difference is that the original trilogy appealed directly to the simplistic moral perspective of an America above reproach and always on the side of right in global geopolitics, whereas the much more subversive prequel trilogy stands in defiant counterpoint to the much more dangerously simplistic moral absolutism of the Age of Bush.

The original trilogy holds a special place in the bosom of American moviegoers precisely because we view ourselves comfortably in place of the Rebels. Americans revel in their historical construct as rebellious underdogs constantly at war against an easily identified and unquestionably evil empire. Hence, the reason most Americans love the original trilogy has much to do with placement of ourselves in the role of the inheritors of the mantle of the Jedi.

The problem is that the post-9/11 world meant Americans also were forced to identify themselves with the Jedi in the prequel trilogy as well, and we don't like the face we see in the mirror. Let's face it, the Jedi don't exactly come off too swell in the prequel. This time around they are the guys in charge, and it is painful to watch them screw it up, especially when the way they hand over the keys to the Empire is so eerily familiar to a historical era defined by words like "signing statements" and "Patriot Act."
Just in case you didn't notice in your rush to castigate Jar-Jar Binks and complain about the wooden dialogue of the prequel, the peaceful Galactic Republic in place at the beginning of "The Phantom Menace" doesn't turn into the dark empire in place at the beginning of "A New Hope" due to an invasion by a foreign element. The Republic falls as a result of due democratic process, albeit due democratic process that is manipulated through lies and deception. Again, sound familiar?

Watching the "Stars Wars" prequel trilogy is like the most entertaining lesson in civics ever given -- specifically the way it reveals how even a republic peopled by representative leaders with the best of intentions can make decisions that result in disastrous policies, accompanied by devastation and the crumbling of great ideas. Yoda's observations about anger, hate, fear, and suffering are not said lightly; they may be the most prescient words spoken by a movie character in recent memory.

Not much less important is another quote associated with "The Phantom Menace," a quote that hasn't proved anywhere near as memorable as Yoda's but nonetheless plays a huge part in the events that will follow. Chances are you don't even remember these words of Darth Maul: "Fear is my ally." One can well imagine that slogan scrawled across the office walls of men like Scooter Libby and tattooed across the back of Dick Cheney.

Nowhere in the original "Star Wars" trilogy is there any sequence of events nearly as profound in their application to real life as Palpatine's manipulative orchestration of the separatist movement "headed" by Count Dooku. Palpatine's nefarious scripting of events allows him to go before the senate and ask for special "emergency powers" to deal with the growing threat facing the peace of the republic. Perhaps if Americans had embraced the prequel in the way they did the original "Star Wars" trilogy, they would recognize the danger when an elected member of a representative republic asks for "emergency powers" to combat a threat.
Palpatine's actions in the prequel are positively Machiavellian, and his evil in those first three movies is far more chilling than his appearances as the emperor in the original trilogy. In those movies, Palpatine is so far removed from us we can only approach him from the perspective of a Hitler. We must always remember that Hitler didn't ascend to dictator by using tanks, but the ballot box.

Just as Palpatine is far more chilling as a politician abusing the system than he is as an emperor in comprehensively malevolent control, so is Anakin Skywalker far more chilling as a powerless pawn than he is as powerful Darth Vader. No more alarming scene exists in the entire "Star Wars" canon than the political conversation that takes place in "Attack of the Clones" between Anakin and Amidala when the boy-who-would-be Vader suggests the system is broken and needs to be replaced with something where one person in charge has the power to enforce laws he feels are for the good of the people. Amidala replies, rightfully, that what Anakin is talking about sounds like a dictatorship. And then these all-too-familiar words from Anakin: "Well, if it works."

Anakin's justification that if authoritarian control works in keeping us safe was being repeated on a daily basis by those in charge at the very time the scene was being projected onto multiplex screens around the world. Too many Anakin Skywalkers existed then and, amazingly, exist right now in this country who are far too eager to give up hard-earned civil rights for the illusion of security. And it is the very fact that one can write about Anakin without calling him either evil or good that elevates the prequel above the original. Try naming a single character in the original trilogy that can attain such an authentic level of ambiguity.

There is absolutely no element or character in the original trilogy that isn't delineated in stark black and white terms. Episodes IV through VI tell a much happier story, one that is consistent with the birth of the American democracy through acts of rebellion by a ragtag group of people who held the moral high ground. Episodes I through III, by contrast, tell a much less happy story about how a democracy can come to an end -- not at the hands of foreign interlopers, but directly through the democratic process itself. More people may prefer the original "Star Wars" trilogy, but there is no question that the prequel is a more challenging, illuminating, and superior work of art.

http://movies.yahoo.com/news/why-star-w ... 00514.html

[PixarFan2006]

I have only two words for this argument:

Hell. No.

[TheValentineBros]

"Are the Star Wars prequels better than the original?"

FUCK NO!

[JiminyCrick91]

I see the points being made but I unlike many geeks love all the films so it does not much matter to me. Fun if not controversial read though.

-Skyler

[jpanimation]

This guy is an idiot. He thinks the political aspect makes the prequel trilogy superior (since that seems to be his only “evidence” on why he prefers them). NO! The politics of the prequels makes no sense and are some of the most hated aspects of them. He really needs to watch the Red Letter Media reviews of the prequels, since it seems he is having trouble understanding what shit looks like.

[ajmrowland]

I see the points being made but I unlike many geeks love all the films so it does not much matter to me. Fun if not controversial read though.

-Skyler

same.

[milojthatch]

I see the points being made but I unlike many geeks love all the films so it does not much matter to me. Fun if not controversial read though.

-Skyler

same.

Same here. But to be fair, I'm not a die-hard Star Wars fan, which I feel might make some of the difference.

[pap64]

I'm not a big Star Wars fan despite seeing all six movies, but I do respect the franchise and think a lot of it is really cool. But what this guy doesn't get is that what matters in storytelling is NOT what you are telling, but HOW you are telling it.

Yes, in technicality, the prequel movies offer better stories because they explore how the events in the original trilogy came to be and why the characters in those stories were fighting to hard for them. But their biggest flaw is that they are POORLY told stories. The acting is bland and dry, there are a lot of conversations, they are VEEEEEEEEEEERYYYYYYYYYYY slow and at times you just don't believe in the cause they are fighting for.

The original film trilogy worked because while they were simply it was more grounded in its narrative. Not to mention a narrative founded upon classic film and literature archetypes. The characters were more alive and spirited while the setting and story more defined.

The original film trilogy was about these plucky rebels that were fighting for a good cause while it featured a main character that had to struggle with the revelations of him being deeply connected to the issues at hand. The prequel film trilogy clumsily tried to have a deep plot that dealt with the complexities of the political system with a narrative that focused on a complex lead character and his growth from innocent being to a corrupt and tragic soul.

The prequel trilogy tried too hard to have a deep and complex story but in the end it was all very boring and told in the worse way possible. That's why people love the original trilogy so much: it was a simple adventure with great settings and unforgettable characters. Like the article says it was easier for us to be in the boots of Luke, Han Solo and Leia as they fought against the empire. It provided a lot of emotional satisfaction, hence why such a strong franchise was born out of it.

It's very Disney in that regard.

[slave2moonlight]

As a hardcore Star Wars fan since I was a small child (and I was born a couple years before the first film of the original trilogy was released), I will say this much:

The awfulness of the prequels is greatly exaggerated.

The first film was mostly boring. Lots of boring political stuff and characters with not enough (or not fun enough) personalities, or ones with way too much (Jar Jar and the other cartoons). However, it also had some very cool moments and even JarJar was not as bad as he was made out to be (except in the bongo/planet core scene).

The second film was actually pretty great, aside from some badly written romance stuff between Amidala and Anakin. Hard to blame Lucas for having an "old movie" view of romance. It would seem that, despite his millions or billions of dollars, his love life is a close reflection of my own, ha. Translation: Not much experience due to women just not being interested. This is just a theory based upon interviews though, and its probably changed since that 60 minutes report on the making of Episode 1.

The third film was actually pretty awesome. Again, a little bit of cringe-worthy romance dialogue, the actor who played Anakin is rather stiff again (and, frankly, never liked Jake Lloyd's Anakin all that much either), but over all, that is an awesome flick.

Overall, the prequels aren't bad, the first is really the dull one. The other two aren't really dull and Jar Jar is hardly in them (plus, he serves a good purpose). They all lack the Han Solo (roguish hero) factor. No, douchebaggy Anakin doesn't count. Episode 1 would have been better served to view the changing political climate from the sidelines with the droids as our guides, like in the first film. In other words, we should have entered the film with R2 and 3-PO and some average-joe young adults getting caught up in the events. I mean, did Anakin really have to be 10? Even an 11 yr old would have been better, ha. Better actors would have helped immensely for certain roles as well. Mainly Anakin, throughout the saga. JarJar needed to be toned down, too, or replaced with something else all together. And, maybe the queen's formal side shouldn't have been quite that weird, with the deep, monotone speech and clown make-up? Regardless, these films are much better than they're made out to be. However, they lack the fun factor on the level of the originals, which were just incredible. That's the big problem. We can relate to the characters in the original, and they're just fun! The stories and even the action is more fun (and less complicated). The original trilogy was just excellent (I even love the Ewoks, myself, and I think the complaints about them are stupid). It's pretty hard to live up to those, but Lucas should have been able to do much better. Still, the prequels are mostly good films. I enjoy them all, though the originals I enjoy MUCH more.

[yamiiguy]

I am not a huge fan of any of the Star Wars films but to suggest that the prequels are superior to the originals is just preposterous. Like a previous poster said, the story of a film is irrelevant to whether or not it's good - it's how you tell it.

George Lucas is a really, really terrible director. Even experienced actors wobble under his direction and just look at Hayden Christensen - before Star Wars he was an up and coming star, nominated for a Golden Globe at quite a young age. Now, he's almost universally regarded as terrible and is unlikely to get a role in any good movie. To be fair this isn't helped by the script which was really, really bad.

The script for the originals was weak but the prequels just took it to a whole other level. To begin with is the gratuitous exposition where characters just seem to sit down and explain the the plot but end up making it even less interesting and more confusing. This is probably worst in Episode III. Just two, very cringe worthy scenes are the scene where Obi-Wan, Windu and Yoda are discussing Anakin. That is some terrible dialogue alright. At least you think so until you get to the lava planet that I can't remember the name of. I can't imagine how embarrassed the actors were when filming those scenes and it shows in their woodenness.

[dvdjunkie]

Before anyone jumps all over me for this, remember that this is just my opinion on the subject.

I truly think that everyone missed the reasons why the first three episodes were number IV, V, and VI. Lucas had originally planned NINE films, but after the success of "A New Hope" and "The Empire Strikes Back", he consolidated the final four chapters into one film - "The Return of the Jedi".

After several years of tweaking the trilogy and regaining he want to direct again, he decided to do the first three chapters that all lead up to Chapter IV.

None of these three films were supposed to be classics in the way the original trilogy was made, but he wanted to tell the story about the origins of Darth Vader and how the Republic and Empire became enemies.

I love watching these six films in their numerical orde - I thru VI. The only one of these movies that I seem to watch more than the others is "Empire Strikes Back", which to me is the best of the six.

Are the first three films as good as, or better than, the original trilogy. NO WAY!!!!

But that being said, I do enjoy all of the movies equally. On another forum that I visit quite regularly, some are suggesting that Lucas should remake the original trilogy while he still has his ideas 'free-flowing'. But to me that would be ridiculous.

I own the box set on Blu-ray and am totally satisfied with what the finished product looks like, and yes, even the infamous "NOOOOOO!!" that has been inserted into the final chapter, and wasn't needed.

[DarthPrime]

I've heard the 9 films thing before. Also from what I heard the Death Star was not supposed to show up until the end, but Lucas wasn't sure how many movies would get made and put it at the end of Star Wars (Episode IV). When Star Wars was a success and Empire was being made he renamed it A New Hope, and gave it the Episode IV title.

Anyway I really hope no one remakes the Original Trilogy. Even with the additions its fine... Although I still want the Original versions to be restored and released.

As far as the Prequels, I rarely watch them anymore. They just haven't held up as good as the Originals for me. One thing I have noticed on repeated viewings is Episode I isn't as bad as I once thought. Episode II is slowly taking my least favorite spot.

[SpringHeelJack]

I've long maintained that "Attack of the Clones" is the weakest movie. Had "The Phantom Menace" given Jar Jar some dignity, improved some of Anakin's issues and trimmed down the six hours of pod racing (and maybe digitally killed off that creature that farts on Jar Jar) I'd be pretty okay with it.

"Clones," on the other hand, has little going for it save for the battle at the end. You have to sit through Anakin and Padme's awkward romance and deal with a bunch of crap like the unsolved Sifo-Dyas mystery to get to the good stuff. Also, the general story is just weak. My one piece of advice to George is if you want to foster some sense of mystery regarding Padme's assassination attempt, don't reveal who was behind it in the first five minutes then try to make us wonder for the rest of the film. When you have Padme say right out "I think Count Dooku did it" then have Mace say "PSH NO" only to reveal two hours later that it was the guy you mentioned as probably having done it in the third scene... you've kind of failed as a mystery writer.