Jump to content

Why do people prefer the Disney Trilogy to the Prequels?


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 239
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

I’m sorry but if a diverse cast is really that distracting to a viewer I have exactly no sympathy.   Watching the new trilogy I never once found myself conscious of the fact I was watching a

I find AOTC in no way an improvement over TPM personally.   Those "love scenes" are rank!

Because they are much more entertaining!!  The characters in the PT, other than Obi Wan and Palpatine are awful.  The acting is awful.  The dialogue is awful. Anakin's turn is awful.  It didn't appear

I still don't really see that in these new movies. 

 

oh god i just had an image of someone posting the fathier sequence as a rebuttal then i counterrebuttal by saying anti-animal cruelty is just basic decency then they countercounterrebuttal by bringing up stuff like mary sue oh god the cycle im contributing to the cycle 

Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Þekþiþm said:

Not that kind.

 

The modern sexual politics kind.

 

Sure.

Star Wars has always had a political context that is pertinent to the era it was made in. So post-Vietnam War in the first film, post 9/11, anti-Bush in ROTS in particular and in this day and age gender and racial equality. (In particular in TLJ)

 

I don't see why so many people have a problem with it?

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Eh I don’t really see the sexual politics in the new films any more provocative than the original film featuring a competent female lead (Leia) who could hold her own. That was pretty trailblazing for a sci-fi blockbuster at the time.

 

The new films just have more than one competent female character, one of whom is Leia anyway. They’re not that progressive, relatively speaking. No moreso than the Marvel films.


Meanwhile Padmé went from a decisive politician and leader to a lovesick teenager and ended dying from a broken heart. She’s got nothing on Leia or Rey, who have motives beyond their closest male relationships.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, I really like Rey, but she’s the kind of “strong female character” who is “strong” by virtue of being stripped of a lot of her femininity, having been swamped in clothes and lacking any romantic attachment to another character.

 

I mean, look at Wonder Woman. That character was no less a strong female character for being presented as sexually desirable to the audience (that corset!), to the characters in the film, and engaging romantically with one of them, herself.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Chen G. said:

Yeah, I really like Rey, but she’s the kind of “strong female character” who is “strong” by virtue of being stripped of a lot of her femininity, having been swamped in clothes and lacking any romantic attachment to another character.

 

I mean, look at Wonder Woman. That character was no less a strong female character for being presented as sexually desirable to the audience (that corset!), to the characters in the film, and engaging romantically with one of them, herself.

 

I mean, holy fuck

images - 2019-12-16T201225.175.jpeg

Link to post
Share on other sites

It’s not sexual in a carnal way, but that doesn’t mean that the women of Star Wars are not romanticized.

 

Princess Leia was definitely supposed to look desirable, and she was (as originally written) stuck in the middle of a romantic triangle with Han and Luke; and she did end up romantically tied to one of them.

 

Which is to say nothing of Padme.

Link to post
Share on other sites

"If you are not with me then you are my enemy" was a very obvious Bush reference at the time. People don't think twice about it now. Same will be true about the sequel trilogy's "politics" such as they are.

 

2 hours ago, Chen G. said:

Princess Leia was definitely supposed to look desirable

 

She is literally swamped in a white toga through the whole first movie! At least you can see Rey's arms and neckline!

 

Luke has a little "whoa she's hot" moment but so does Finn. I always thought Rey's ass looked pretty good going up them Jedi Steps.

 

giphy.gif

Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Bofur01 said:

 I’m all for a topless Poe, but I don’t see Chen complaining about *him* having lost his masculinity for being sWaMpEd In ClOtHeS.

 

 

Poe's not a character, he's a living script.

Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Stefancos said:

Times change. And people who are introduced to these film lets say 5 to 10 years later might not catch what the audience caught originally.

 

Right. I was 15 so just barely old enough to be aware of that and the Palpatine parallels. Plus my parents are conservatives, they were pretty annoyed haha. But a 10 year old watching it? We could ask the majority of the Prequel Memers who are probably younger than me and I doubt they know or care. And even an adult watching it for the first time or rewatching it years later would have to make some extreme contextual leaps to put that movie back in a world 3.5 years after 9/11. I hadn't thought about it until this moment.

 

Just for fun, CBS News' report from Cannes and the politics of Episode III

 

And one I remember from back when, a quote from this conservative Christian movie review

 

Quote

some politically correct implications such as a possible (but subtle) allusion of criticism aimed at President Bush’s War on Terror, the Iraq War and Republican control of the executive, legislative and judicial branches, plus a PC line of dialogue contradicts the movie’s moral elements (“Only the Sith deal in absolutes”) and indicates that only evil people believe in absolutes and that truth is never black and white (this is more clearly stated in the novelization and seems to be an attack on conservatives and religious people who believe that there are at least some absolute truths and absolute moral laws)

 

I mean, really.

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, crumbs said:

Why does Rey's character need to have sexuality or sexual overtones to her character, purely because she's a female?

 

Do all male protagonists in films have sexual overtones integrated into their character?

 

Frankly, some of these so-called "criticisms" are disgustingly shallow and, frankly, sexist. How is a female character flawed just because she isn't showing sexual interest in other characters?

 

Thank you!

Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, crumbs said:

Why does Rey's character need to have sexuality or sexual overtones to her character, purely because she's a female?

 

Do all male protagonists in films have sexual overtones integrated into their character?

 

Frankly, some of these so-called "criticisms" are disgustingly shallow and, frankly, sexist. How is a female character flawed just because she isn't showing sexual interest in other characters?

 

JWFan is a sausage party and many of us are curiously free to hang out on JWFan at all hours of the day. Do the math.

 

im horny GIF

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, mrbellamy said:

"If you are not with me then you are my enemy" was a very obvious Bush reference at the time. People don't think twice about it now. Same will be true about the sequel trilogy's "politics" such as they are.

 

Ok, so one reference I forgot about because I haven't watched it in 10 years.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Stefancos said:

Of course, but that's not why George put in in his film.

 

No, but it's a good example of a bigger truth that withstands the test of time. Whereas the dreaded Di$ney diversity and gender bullshit - hooray for political correctness at any cost, even at the risk of self-parody - will date their movies much faster.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, publicist said:

 

No, but it's a good example of a bigger truth that withstands the test of time. Whereas the dreaded Di$ney diversity and gender bullshit - hooray for political correctness at any cost, even at the risk of self-parody - will date their movies much faster.


Does it truly trigger you when you see people who aren’t white men on the big screen? If any politics are a bit ham-fisted in the ST, it’s the rich Canto Bight stuff in TLJ rather than any “diversity and gender bullshit”

Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem with Rey is not that she's female, but that she's so perfect at everything she does. Both Anakin and Luke had to be trained in the use of the force, but she pretty much can immediately use the Force (and mind tricks and whatever) after that single vision scene in TFA. She effortlessly beats Kylo in both of their encounters (way to  make you antagonist seem a threat), knows how to use mind tricks without being taught how, even lifts dozens of heavy rocks after the trilogy started like a couple of days ago in story time. Her only real flaw is the whole seeking-for-replacement-parents thing (terribly handled as it is in its finer details, but I digress...).

 

Basically, she should ideally be a well written character who just happens to be a woman, rather than "A Strong Female Character". The likes of Leia, Ripley, or Sarah Connor are examples of the former, and I don't recall anyone complaining about them. Rather, she's part of the trend where a minority/female character needs to be decipted as an overly perfect Mary Sue in order to be some kind of "empowering icon". This will date these films horribly down the road. Granted, there are characters - such as Roger Moore's James Bond - who are beloved wish-fulfillment characters of overt perfection, and in principle there's nothing wrong with having a female equivalent. But here's what's important: Neither of the previous Star Wars protagonists were decipted that way, but were characters who had flaws and challenges to overcome.

 

She's also part of the trend where modern Hollywood hacks cast minorities or women into roles as a shield for criticism. If people complain about these poorly constructed characters, the filmmakers can immediately smear these critics as being part of a toxic fanbase of manbabies or whatever, which will then mobilize the social justice people to defend your film, regardless of its actual quality, or the quality of the characters in question. If people complained about a Steven Seagal character being a Mary Sue (which his characters most certainly are!), the filmmakers couldn't defend themselves from this accusation. But turn him a woman or a minority character (in itself absolutely no problem), suddenly these critics can be dismissed as "hating women" or "hating blacks" or whatever else. I don't care who you cast, just make them good characters, period.

 

There's also the pandering to Chinese censorship in these films (why so selective in your wokeness, Disney?). The Chinese censorship of ghosts is why the force ghosts are no longer so transparent, and can now interact with the world (if force ghost Yoda can summon lightning or hit Luke with his stick, why didn't he just go to the Emperor after dying in ROTJ and kill him with the lightning?). I also suspect this is the reason for the whole disturbing "obey authority without question" message(?) in the Poe mutiny subplot, as well as an alternate explanation for why Rey can learn the Force so effortlessly (it makes it seem more like a superpower she had since birth, rather than some some of that "dangerous spiritual stuff")

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.