Why do people prefer the Disney Trilogy to the Prequels?

[Unlucky Bastard 7,782]

I mean it's so ridiculous. The Disney movies have boring characters, are a bit full of themselves, and seem to be fixated on pleasing demographics and maximising sales through mass appeal. And it's hard to accept anything from the Disneyverse as canon anyway since George Lucas isn't involved. I mean, the guy IS Star Wars, not all these other hangers-on.

 

But the prequels, man. Those were where it was all happening. They had a clear direction, a visionary leader, a greater sense of unified artistry. And ROTS, that movie is amazing. It's a film that moves, and has suspense and things are happening all the time. You always remember the dialogue in these movies too. They're about things too, like a man's love for his woman. They're great!

 

But these sterile Disney flicks? Do people just go for these because of brand loyalty that's been drilled into them since the early 90s? I'm thankfully immune to their dainty princessy crap for kids, but it seems everyone else is enamoured by it. Makes me feel sick.

[Arpy 4,145]

Well, for some it's the Disney trilogy's reverence for the OT in going back to the iconography that made Star Wars 'Star Wars'.

 

I think the Prequels, whilst creative and featuring some impressive visuals and gorgeous music from the Master, it's the story and script where things become dull and tedious. Personally, I can let some of that slide because it's secondary to the visual storytelling, however it's where I think a lot of Star Wars fans/followers/adherents/devotees felt it was a departure from the Star Wars they knew.

 

The characters in this new trilogy are by far the weakest elements, but I like being along for the ride and getting to hear Williams show off his talent and trounce every other composer out there for the last few years.

 

I choose to see it as one continuous saga and not be distracted by other's expectations and proclamations of what Star Wars should be. 

In the immortal words of the meme herself: 'Ain't nobody got time for dat'. Just watch whatever you want and be at peace.

[Gruesome Son of a Bitch 6,488]

For all the criticism about the characters, script, dependence on computer graphics etc., the prequels tell a clear story and fill the gaps in the saga. The Disney movies are just more, with no real purpose other than to cash in on the franchise. They're doin' it for a shitload o' money! Lucas certainly profited off Star Wars, but it still feels like completing the saga was personal to him and these White Slavers calling the shots now are just profiteering.

[Unlucky Bastard 7,782]

They're profiteering off nerd naivety.

[Gruesome Son of a Bitch 6,488]

The new ones just don't feel...special. There's a certain Star Warsian magic in the prequels from Lucas' touch and with the aid of the maestro, of course. The dialogue is insanely quotable as Star Wars should be.

[Kasey Kockroach 2,343]

Some people find Daisy Ridley even hotter than Natalie Portman, I guess. I myself have no preference.

 

 

[A24 4,326]

Don't the Prequels have more stiff and wooden characters as opposed to the OT and Disney? Wasn't that the whole idea to forget The Prequels and to bring back the feel of the OT?

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

1 minute ago, Alexcremers said:

Don't the Prequels have more stiff and wooden characters as opposed to the OT and Disney? Wasn't that the whole idea to forget The Prequels and to bring back the feel of the OT?

 

That's exactly what the sequel trilogy is. Whether they succeed depends on whoever's watching them of course.

 

 

[Gruesome Son of a Bitch 6,488]

7 minutes ago, Kasey Kockroach said:

Some people find Daisy Ridley even hotter than Natalie Portman, I guess. 

 

They must be insane.

[Kasey Kockroach 2,343]

You clearly have not recently massaged Daisy Ridley’s abs.

[Arpy 4,145]

53 minutes ago, Gruesome Son of a Bitch said:

 

They must be insane.

Count me insanerer then. Williams isn't wrong to be smitten with her...

[HunterTech 987]

I feel like I'd much rather have something I could have fun with even if lacking in creativity and vision, as opposed to something that is conceptually interesting yet feels ultimately lacking in execution. Call me the sort of guy RLM would mock for being the mindless consumer, but that's how I am.

 

That being said: I was never too much of a SW guy to begin with. ROTS was like the only film from the series I knew for the longest time, and I can thank it for gracing me with "Battle of the Heroes." But for as neat as the concept is, I find something like HP more appealing.

 

Which obviously means whatever people are feeling for these newer SW films are what I've felt with JK's general exploits as of late. Where's the hate for Cursed Child? I want more of that.

[Arpy 4,145]

Go to the Potterdom threads @HunterTech there you will find the Cursed Detractors.

[HunterTech 987]

Considering what I've witnessed in fandoms prior, perhaps I shouldn't get too tangled up in those circles much.

 

I refer more to the casual circles, since it's pretty clear to me TLJ made a much bigger impact than just about any other detested sequel in a big franchise. Granted, it's not particularly fair to compare a stage play to a multimillion dollar production made to be sent to as many households as possible in this instance. But maybe it's because I am that detached from SW, but it does annoy me a lot that somehow this particular iteration caused this much vitriol. Like, what makes this inherently worse than any other bad movie in a series, besides the fact it was for basically the first multimedia franchise in the way we know them today?

 

Feel free to dislike it by all means, but it's bothersome when people still can't seem to shut up about TLJ 2 years later. It makes the atmosphere feel particularly bitter and just not fun. Which is why I'm only now barely looking at the SW discussions here, and I already am starting to feel I made the wrong choice.

[Bespin 8,477]

Because they are young and dumb .  I am 45 and movies were better « before », that’s a fact.

[Nick Parker 3,040]

Obviously the new movies are "objectively" better made. The writing is more consistent and natural, the visuals are more dynamic and used as a storytelling devices more than most moments in the prequels, the performances are better and better directed, etc.

 

But there is a certain depth, a certain spiritual well that Lucas has always had--listen to him talk about what he's doing, holy crap--that makes it way even into the prequels. I never bought the argument he did it just for the money. 

 

 

3 hours ago, Þekþiþm said:

They're profiteering off nerd naivety.

The sad part is that some nerds know full well what's being done to them! Yet they still want more!...And they know they shouldn't!

 

14 minutes ago, Arpy said:

Go to the Potterdom threads @HunterTech there you will find the Cursed Detractors.

 

Harry Potter and the JWFans of Detraktaban.

 

 

 

 

[Unlucky Bastard 7,782]

But that's the thing, why even complain about these new Disney movies when they're not even canon? Only the prequels matter.

[HunterTech 987]

I find it much more interesting to hear about what fans actually like, just so I can better understand what makes the newer material frustrating to the point of exhaustion. But considering there's so much stuff spanning decades out there, there'd be a boatload of reasons one could have. And considering the stuff most people have responded to positively in the newer films are very fanservicey elements, it's easy to assume they just want to be pandered to and nothing more.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

18 minutes ago, HunterTech said:

Considering what I've witnessed in fandoms prior, perhaps I shouldn't get too tangled up in those circles much.

 

I refer more to the casual circles, since it's pretty clear to me TLJ made a much bigger impact than just about any other detested sequel in a big franchise. Granted, it's not particularly fair to compare a stage play to a multimillion dollar production made to be sent to as many households as possible in this instance. But maybe it's because I am that detached from SW, but it does annoy me a lot that somehow this particular iteration caused this much vitriol. Like, what makes this inherently worse than any other bad movie in a series, besides the fact it was for basically the first multimedia franchise in the way we know them today?

 

Feel free to dislike it by all means, but it's bothersome when people still can't seem to shut up about TLJ 2 years later. It makes the atmosphere feel particularly bitter and just not fun. Which is why I'm only now barely looking at the SW discussions here, and I already am starting to feel I made the wrong choice.

 

Thank you.

[bollemanneke 3,337]

4 hours ago, Gruesome Son of a Bitch said:

For all the criticism about the characters, script, dependence on computer graphics etc., the prequels tell a clear story and fill the gaps in the saga. The Disney movies are just more, with no real purpose other than to cash in on the franchise. They're doin' it for a shitload o' money! Lucas certainly profited off Star Wars, but it still feels like completing the saga was personal to him and these White Slavers calling the shots now are just profiteering.

there's a lot of truth in this post, but I still prefer the Disney triology to the prequels, even though you're absolutely right about the movies only being made for profit.

[A24 4,326]

1 hour ago, Nick Parker said:

Obviously the new movies are "objectively" better made. The writing is more consistent and natural, the visuals are more dynamic and used as a storytelling devices more than most moments in the prequels, the performances are better and better directed, etc.

 

But they are also a lot more conventional, which is probably why I fall asleep with most of them, except TLJ, which is also a bit of an oddball. 

 

BTW, nothing in the Sequels can match the visual strength of the whole 'Obi/Qui-Gon vs. Darth Maul' segment. That is George Lucas and Star Wars at its best.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

5 minutes ago, Alexcremers said:

except TLJ, which is also a bit of an oddball. 

 

Which is the one the fans hated!

[leeallen01 2,133]

It's simple. Think how stupid the average person is. Then understand that half the population are more stupid than that.

[publicist 4,643]

1 hour ago, Nick Parker said:

But there is a certain depth, a certain spiritual well that Lucas has always had--listen to him talk about what he's doing, holy crap--that makes it way even into the prequels.

 

You mean like re-introducing dumb Stepin Fetchit caricatures and presenting a love story clueless of human behavior? Lucas lost whatever he may have had in the early 80's and the awful prequels offer living proof of that (though admittedly, their oddness offers a certain freak accident value).

[Sweeping Strings 2,344]

The last time I watched ROTS, I was disconcerted by just how much of it is CGI/greenscreen. Thank God the new films went back to shooting on actual sets where possible. 

Also I don't think Christensen and Portman are bad actors, but under Lucas' 'clearly-more-interested-in-the-technical-aspects' direction ... bloody hell. 

[Fabulin 3,510]

.

[Bilbo 3,709]

I prefer the Prequels. 

[Romão 2,274]

While I still need to the see how this trilogy wraps, I must say in terms of acting alone it is vastly superior. Concerning the lack of characters, the new trilogy did bring us Kylo Ren, which I find to be one of most interesting and well acted characters in the entire saga. The prequels couldn've been much better had they have an actor of Driver's caliber playing Anakin

[leeallen01 2,133]

Daisy Ridley cannot act. She has one reaction to everything; eyes wide/mouth open.

 

Adam Driver is a great actor, with nothing to work with other than 'be emotionless and bored, followed by extremely angry...and repeat.'

 

Boyega is an okay actor. But doesn't fit this style of acting at all. And his character's interesting premise is completely wasted.

 

Isaac is a great actor. Again, given nothing to do.

 

Ford was there for the money and to get rid of his character. Fisher was a cardboard cut-out, and Hamill was brilliant, even in having to reluctantly but contractually destroy his own iconic character.

 

 

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

The Prequels are boring. Star Wars should never be boring.

[leeallen01 2,133]

The prequels had an interesting story. It was just poorly executed. 

 

The sequel trilogy has a boring story. That is also poorly executed.

 

 

Prequels - The rise of Sidious and the fall of Vader. The rise of the Empire and the fall of the Republic. Interesting.

 

Sequels - The instant perfection of Rey and the instant imperfection of Kylo. The already risen First Order and the 15 second destruction of the New Republic. Boring.

[mrbellamy 6,272]

Prequels have a more broadly definable premise, but those movies individually are barely about anything. Ballsier music, cooler world-building, planets, ships, sounds. Higher kitsch value, JJ doesn't really go for this, I enjoy a couple things on that level in TLJ like Luke milking the tits and Space Leia but Lucas was more tapped into that, grotesque stereotypes and all...

 

Sequels I admire most from a directiorial standpoint which Lucas phoned in except for key sequences. Stuff like Podracing, Duel of the Fates, Padme's Ruminations show he had some interest, especially in editorial; anytime the prequels go into montage, it stands out. I like the one bit in II when he has Anakin/Dooku fighting for a few seconds entirely in close-up, pretty slick. The Plagueis story is brilliant and just about the only scene that uses RLM's hilarious "sitting on a couch" observation to its advantage. But Lucas never wanted to direct those things and Abrams and Johnson are obviously having more fun with the staging in even the smallest dialogue scenes. And it just goes without saying the actors in the sequels are more interesting to watch. The prequel actors/characters merely have funnier memes aside from Kylo Ren.

 

As far as adding to the saga, the prequels are more relevant but the original three has everything, anyway. That is one hell of a nice story and there's nothing in the prequels that enhances those movies seriously. For the most part they take away the magic and a lot of it is contradictory. They are pure novelty and so are the sequels, but I like them for what they are. The most accurate take on Force Awakens is that it's a movie about Star Wars (Rise of Skywalker will undoubtedly be the same), which is either fun or hack depending on how you look at it. Last Jedi is better than the YouTube subscribers will ever give it credit for even though I'd acknowledge some of it is out of whack. But I like its half troll-y, half sincere vibe.

 

Idk, it's Star Wars, who cares? The saga's a mess and there will be many glorious 1-9 box sets. And they're all scored by John Williams. That is cool.

[Trent B 337]

Personally I think the new trilogy is not bad.  Yes it has a lot of flaws but so to the Original and Prequel trilogies.  However, I do prefer the Prequel trilogies over the new trilogy and the Original Trilogy over everything else.

[Chen G. 3,943]

Its a complicated question. The prequel trilogy is the most planned-out of the three Star Wars trilogy and there is something satisfying about that aspect of it, as opposed to not just the Disney trilogy but also the classic trilogy, which were both made up as the filmmakers went alone, and were both NOT the creation of any one visionary filmmaker but instead of several.

 

It also has scale and size to burn, not just with its plot's preoccupation with the downfall of the republic and its politics, but also in a lot of the visuals. By Revenge of the Sith, some of the Curoscant vistas look positivelly grand and impressive.

 

Lastly, to make a trilogy about a tragic hero was (and remains) quite refreshing in the blockbuster landscape, which tends to rely more on The Hero's Journey. I still find Revenge of the Sith a very daring film both in some of its visuals (the immolation), story beats (killing of the younglings) and in its willingness to close an entire trilogy on a very dour note.

 

However, a lot of the execution is sorely lacking. I'm not necessarily talking about the aesthetics of the effects: I can take all the green-screen in the world for a good story. Its more to do with the acting, as well as with some of the characterizations and storytelling. Look for instance at the portrayal of the Jedi Council: they're insufferable, stupid dicks, and it never feels like Lucas is actually criticizing their conduct, either.

 

Anakin has a similar issue: we first meet his as a kid with no indication that he is on a dangerous path (apart from the Jedi Council telling us as much), and then he transforms into a new character, and is seemingly already teetering on the edge of falling out with the Jedi, plus he's insufferable in his own way. His demise would have been much more tragic had we a) got to see some darkness in young Anakin and b) had established the adult Anakin as a likable character (with drawbacks) early on, before he started his descent.

 

While the broad brushstokes were planned by Lucas, he does also have puzzling missteps in the overarching storytelling of the trilogy. For instance, the lack of one overriding villain in a role similar to Vader's, the near-complete redundancy of the first film to the overall story, dropped story threads, continuity errors, etcetra.

 

By comparison, the execution in the sequel trilogy is really strong: the acting is the best of all three trilogies, the cinematography is excellent, action is thrilling, etcetra. The characters and story are engaging. Its main flaws thus far are the deriviative nature of The Force Awakens; The Last Jedi's frequnt use of bathos and sarcasm for comedy (completely foreign to the style of this series, which has always been much more earnst) and the overall redundancy of the entire trilogy.

 

I mean, once Vader was made Luke's father, the prequel trilogy really was a forgone conclusion: one simply had to have an explanation as to why and how Luke's father became Darth Vader, and what role he played in the downfall of the republic and the Jedi. The sequel trilogy, though? At the end of Return of the Jedi, the story of Star Wars is over and done with. The only reason there are three more films is because Disney can make them. Clearly they were so preocuppied with whether or not they could that they didn't stop to think if they should; and fans - for their part - were so eager for "more Star Wars" that they didn't stop to think whether there's a storytelling need for another trilogy. Its as if someone were to make a sequel to The Return of the King. It just shouldn't have happened.

 

Overall, judging them each as a trilogy, the Disney trilogy strikes me as by far the superior. However, we still have to see The Rise of Skywalker. Having Kylo Ren redeem himself might just tip the scales in favour of the prequel trilogy, for me.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

The Prequels is the only trilogy where Lucas is 100% responsible for everything. It's his most undiluted vision of Star Wars. However it's incredibly poorly made in just about every way. The sequel trilogy so far is far far better from a film making and storytelling standpoint. But you can certainly consider them redundant if you're a purist about these things.

 

I have zero interest in ever watching the Prequels again, not that I've seen them a lot anyway. No more that 3 times each. ROTS just twice I think. The sequels are very watchable.

[Quintus 5,399]

Everyone here slagging off the new movies as a way of finding merit in the PT... all phonies and hypocrites. Because most will still be watching ROS in the first week of release. Even if seeing it enables them to moan about it on here ad nauseam afterwards, they'll still see the new movie promptly as fuck. You're fooling nobody, self loathing fanboys.

 

As for the PT: no amount of reflective retrospective fuelled revisionism will make those things anything more than utter artistic failures. One of them is nigh on unwatchable and the other two manage to be somehow even more shit than Jacko's Hobbit movies. No mean feat.

[Nick Parker 3,040]

4 minutes ago, Stefancos said:

 

I have zero interest in ever watching the Prequels again, not that I've seen them a lot anyway. No more that 3 times each. ROTS just twice I think. The sequels are very watchable.

 

Last time I watched Last Jedi about a year ago, I was surprised by how quickly I just fell into it.

[Yavar Moradi 2,585]

Are you kidding me?? You call the sequel trilogy characters "boring" and don't think the prequel characters are? At BEST the prequel characters are boring (Qui-Gon, Amidala, and yes even Obi-Wan, despite Ewan MacGregor being well cast and generally the least-terrible part of these movies). At worse they are just terrible/insufferable (Anakin even moreso than Jar-Jar Binks, IMO).

The sequel trilogy is messy and should have really been planned ahead more, but at the very least they created characters that people *care about and feel invested in*. If you compare Rey to Amidala I don't think it's fair to even call the latter a character at all. Hell, Poe has had the least screentime of any of the three new leads, but even in his initial 8 minutes of work on The Force Awakens, he was already a much better, engaging, and more memorable character than ANY of the characters in the prequels, perhaps McDiarmid's delightfully hammy Palpatine aside.

 

Yavar

[1977 1,743]

I cringe too much when watching the prequels. 

 

So many moments that just make me want to gouge my eyes out and stick something sharp in my ears, e.g. Anakin in AOTC: " You are in my very soul, haunting me." Ew. Could George not have hired someone who can write dialogue?

 

The sequels feel less stilted and more like the OT. Although TLJ does have it's cringey moments too, it's nowhere near the prequels level.

[Yavar Moradi 2,585]

10 minutes ago, Quintus said:

As for the PT: no amount of reflective retrospective fuelled revisionism will make those things anything more than utter artistic failures. One of them is nigh on unwatchable and the other two manage to be somehow even more shit than Jacko's Hobbit movies. No mean feat.

 

Say what you will about the Hobbit movies, but for me the most frustrating thing about them is that there WAS a lot of good stuff still, mixed in with all the absolute shit. I mean, Martin Freeman as Bilbo was perfect, and of course his scene with Serkis's Gollum in An Unexpected Journey just wonderful. I for one also really loved Cumberbatch's Smaug, although I think there should have been a lot less of him (no more than the book, or at least they should have added very little more). There are great moments sprinkled throughout the Hobbit films (moreso in the first one than latter two), and at least it feels like a good movie *could* be edited out of the footage. (Alas, I have yet to view the Tolkien Edit still, but I imagine it could be very good, cutting out two thirds of mostly extraneous crap.)

I don't think any amount of editing can help the Star Wars prequels. They are just utterly worthless apart from the scores.

 

Yavar

[A. A. Ron 1,738]

I cringed throughout the Prequel trilogy AND the midnight showing of TLJ, so much so that I will not even be seeing TROS in theaters.

[Ollie 1,059]

Chemistry amongst the characters.

 

Rey, Finn and Poe have chemistry, they have it with each other and with the original cast. The prequels were lacking chemistry amongst the characters.

 

 

 

 

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Those Ani and Padme scenes are awful.

[The Illustrious Jerry 3,356]

Just now, Stefancos said:

Those Ani and Padme scenes are awful.

hehe

 

Thanks for your opinion...milady.

[Kasey Kockroach 2,343]

I prefer Last Starfighter.

[Ollie 1,059]

The prequels managed to make Samuel Jackson boring.

[Fabulin 3,510]

.

[Nick Parker 3,040]

6 minutes ago, First TROS March Accolyte said:

 

I was listening to The Humpty Dance while reading, and I've discovered how satisfying it is to watch those locks dance to the beat. 

 

 

Thank you for your valuable post.

 

 

 

[Yavar Moradi 2,585]

11 minutes ago, Mr. Manfrenjensenden said:

The prequels managed to make Samuel Jackson boring.

Exactly — the sequels managed to introduce new characters that had chemistry with each other and were interesting and engaging, making us care about them. In the prequel trilogy mant want to root for Palestine because he’s the only character with any fucking LIFE in him!

If you can manage to make great actors like Liam Neeson and Samuel L. Jackson flat and boring... ya fucked up real bad.

 

And people can say what they want about The Last Jedi, but I’ll take THAT Yoda over prequels Yoda, *any day*.

 

Yavar

 

[1977 1,743]

2 minutes ago, Yavar Moradi said:

In the prequel trilogy mant want to root for Palestine because he’s the only character with any fucking LIFE in him!

 

Yavar

 

Careful Yavar, no politics discussion