Star Wars Discussion Thread v. Rogue One

[MrBoom_shack-a-lack]

OT is the best them!

[jingle.boy]

So Mrs. P had the great idea to watch the previous Star Wars movies prior to our Christmas Day viewing of The Force Awakens. I grabbed the original trilogy box set, and she overrode me and put in The Phantom Menace.  I rolled my eyes, and she said, "Oh, come on. It's not that bad."

When it was over, she looked at me and laughed and said, "You may destroy that DVD. The suck is strong with that one!" 

That's awesome.

Jingle.son and I watched all 6 leading up to TFA.  I and II were lol-worthy at some points, and we couldn't help be just pick apart some of the gaping holes.  But, not to digress or be 'elite' about it.   

We watched an unaltered version of the OT, and man that was refreshing - no Jabba in ANH, no excessive CGI additions, the original Emperor.  It was grand.

[TheOutlawXanadu]

I personally revel in both the amount of blind love for the OT and the unrivaled hate towards the PT. When you get right down to it, both the amount of love and hate is ridiculous. The OT is not the pristine, ingeniously sculpted, brilliantly deep, intricately woven tale that many seem to elate it to and the PT isn't nearly as much of a horribly dry anal raping that the other side stones it for. Star Wars is, and always will be no matter what deluded, addicted, deranged mofo tells you (again, on either end), simply good fun sci/fi. It has some great lore, interesting mythos and some awesome characters with a nice backdrop of a space epic. It's certainly not the end-all of space-epics and is pretty by-the-numbers sci/fi. The utterly asinine, almost immature 'battle' of PT vs. OT (and now vs. NT, New Trilogy) will always and forever be brought up when discussing anything Star Wars related and it's a damn shame because holy fucking hell no one should give that many shits about anyone's opinion, let alone a series that is just full of a good time and nothing more. Star Wars has always been, at its core, about the sense of self, adventure, and the motherfuggin' force. To go beyond that is to tarnish its name and even (rather, especially) the most addicted of fans can't even see that because they're too busy running their mouths about what the pros and cons are of each film and each set of trilogies. But that is just my own opinion.

Great, fun series...also not worth anywhere near the amount of ludicrous arguments that are spent over it for any amount of time. 

That said, it's not like any of this will deter either faction towards any kind of sanity, so let the weirdly obsessive battle continue! 

/gump And that's all I hafta say about that. /gump

You really hit the ball out of the park on this one. Well said sir.

[Implode]

Jay Bauman said it pretty succinctly here:

[bosk1]

You also gotta keep in mind that Episode III was preceded by two of the worst films in human history,

Thanks for reminding me why I tend to avoid talking to people older than myself about Star Wars. This is an absolutely preposterous statement. No one who has seen The Room, Titanic: The Legend Goes On or Birdemic: Shock and Terror could possibly think that Attack of the Clones is anywhere in the league of the worst films in human history. There are films that came out this year that are vastly, VASTLY inferior to The Phantom Menace. Films that came out this week (Alvin and the Chipmunks: The Road Chip, anyone?).

Dislike the prequels if you want. You're wrong and you're missing half the story, but dislike them if you want. But when you are making utterly insane statements like they're "two of the worst films in human history"? My God, they obviously are not. They are mediocre at worst. And at the point where you're saying that, it's evident that you aren't looking at the films with anything that resembles an objective perspective. It's just irrational hatred at that point.

My brief period of engagement in this forum's Star Wars threads is about to come to a predictable end, I think.

Dude, get off your high horse.  Seriously.  Saying things like "you're wrong," "you're missing half the story," and "you are making utterly insane statements" is just textbook ad hominem.  You don't need to make it about the person just because you disagree with the statement.  In all likelihood, calling episodes I and II some of the worst films in human history was hyperbole and should be understood as such.  But even if he truly feels that way, that is no reason to attack the person and stop being civil.  If you are going to hold the prequels in such high esteem and debate your position, you need to be aware of the fact that you are in a VERY small minority and are going to have several people vocally disagree with you.  You also need to be aware of the fact that many can point to fairly objective criteria for why the OT films are "better" films than the prequels.  You accuse anyone who disagrees with you of either being the "wrong age," or looking at the OT films through rose-colored glasses and holding them up as perfect, and then use that straw man as an excuse to go on the attack.  The twofold problem with that is, (1) I don't think anyone in this thread (or at least, hardly anyone) is saying the OT films are perfect--in fact, most have openly acknowledged that they are very flawed, but like them anyway for what they are and simply point out that the flaws in the prequels are bigger and more glaring; and (2) even if you are correct, that doesn't give you the right to attack others who disagree with you.  Most of the elitism and conflict I see in this argument is coming from you, so you need to either figure out a way to discuss your point of view civilly or excuse yourself from the discussion.

[hefdaddy42]

It's certainly not the end-all of space-epics

I am going to disregard the rest of your post because opinions vary and whatever, but SW, by virtually any measure, most certainly IS the end-all of space-epics, regardless of preference of PT or OT or EU or NT or anything else.

In fact, I would almost argue that the phrase "space-epic" wouldn't even apply to any other film or film series.

[bosk1]

^You know, I originally accepted that statement at face value, but after having had you point that out, I have to agree, Hef.  Star Wars really launched (ha!) the genre and made it a huge cultural phenomenon when it wasn't a popular genre at all. 

[425]

Dude, get off your high horse.  Seriously.  Saying things like "you're wrong," "you're missing half the story," and "you are making utterly insane statements" is just textbook ad hominem.  You don't need to make it about the person just because you disagree with the statement.

The statement "you're wrong" was intended to be tongue-in-cheek. It was meant to mock the attitude that it is indisputable that the prequels are inferior (and therefore that I am wrong for thinking that they are not). I admit that could have been made far clearly by me, and apologize to Zantera for that.

"You're missing half the story," however, is objectively true, when referring to the story that Lucas intended to tell. It's a six part story, if you neglect three of the parts, you are by definition missing half of the story. That may not be a bad thing in itself, and whether it is a bad thing is open to argument, but it is an objectively true statement.

I was told in the other thread that my statements in defense of the prequels were laughable, which is just the same as telling someone that they are making insane statements. And which, I notice, was not criticized by anyone but me as an uncivil arguing tactic. Neither claim "you are making utterly insane statements" and "you are making laughable arguments" [paraphrased] is ad hominem. I did not say "you are utterly insane," and the person in the other thread did not say "you are a laughable person." Strongly worded language that still attacks the argument is not ad hominem, because ad hominem attacks the person instead of the argument. You could say I (along with the person in the other thread) was being overly polemical and you'd probably be right, but I did not use ad hominem.

Neither of the other two statements are ad hominem either, since one is just objectively true, and the other is shorthand for "you are wrong when you make the argument you are making," which, again, is overly polemical, but not ad hominem.

Nevertheless, I already said that I am done engaging in this type of conversation. I'm only posting now to 1) clarify the intended tone of "you're wrong and you're missing half the story" and 2) defend against the claim that I used ad hominem attacks.

[gmillerdrake]

[bosk1]

Dude, get off your high horse.  Seriously.  Saying things like "you're wrong," "you're missing half the story," and "you are making utterly insane statements" is just textbook ad hominem.  You don't need to make it about the person just because you disagree with the statement.

The statement "you're wrong" was intended to be tongue-in-cheek. It was meant to mock the attitude that it is indisputable that the prequels are inferior (and therefore that I am wrong for thinking that they are not). I admit that could have been made far clearly by me, and apologize to Zantera for that.

"You're missing half the story," however, is objectively true, when referring to the story that Lucas intended to tell. It's a six part story, if you neglect three of the parts, you are by definition missing half of the story. That may not be a bad thing in itself, and whether it is a bad thing is open to argument, but it is an objectively true statement.

I was told in the other thread that my statements in defense of the prequels were laughable, which is just the same as telling someone that they are making insane statements. And which, I notice, was not criticized by anyone but me as an uncivil arguing tactic. Neither claim "you are making utterly insane statements" and "you are making laughable arguments" [paraphrased] is ad hominem. I did not say "you are utterly insane," and the person in the other thread did not say "you are a laughable person." Strongly worded language that still attacks the argument is not ad hominem, because ad hominem attacks the person instead of the argument. You could say I (along with the person in the other thread) was being overly polemical and you'd probably be right, but I did not use ad hominem.

Neither of the other two statements are ad hominem either, since one is just objectively true, and the other is shorthand for "you are wrong when you make the argument you are making," which, again, is overly polemical, but not ad hominem.

Nevertheless, I already said that I am done engaging in this type of conversation. I'm only posting now to 1) clarify the intended tone of "you're wrong and you're missing half the story" and 2) defend against the claim that I used ad hominem attacks.

I don't want you to stop engaging in discussion.  You raise some great points (as you often do in other threads as well).  I just felt like you were pushing TOO hard in this one and crossing the line.


EDIT:  And @ that post by GMD

[BlackInk]

"You're missing half the story," however, is objectively true, when referring to the story that Lucas intended to tell. It's a six part story, if you neglect three of the parts, you are by definition missing half of the story. That may not be a bad thing in itself, and whether it is a bad thing is open to argument, but it is an objectively true statement.

To be fair, no one is "missing" half the story. We've all seen the prequels, we all get the point of them, it just didn't succeed in being enjoyable movies for most of us.

[425]

True, in the strictest meaning of the word, y'all aren't "missing" it. But let's use a different example. Let's imagine I watch Lord of the Rings and I think that The Fellowship of the Ring is awful, but I love the other two. I vow that I'm never going to watch Fellowship again, but that I love the other two movies. You would not be wrong to tell me that I'm missing a third of the story. The proper response to that from me would be "well, who cares, I hate most things about that third."

[bosk1]

But I'm not sure that scenario is an accurate comparison because I don't think it really is how you described.  In either example, it isn't accurate to tell the "hater" that they are missing part of the story because they aren't "missing" it.  They have seen it, and understand that it is part of the story--they just have no desire to revisit it for repeat viewings for whatever reason.  In my case, the hypothetical dialog would be more like:

Me:  I think the prequels are awful, and I am rarely, if ever, going to watch them again.
You:  You are missing part of the story.
Me:  No, I saw them and understand the entire story and how they fit in.  I just feel that, as movies, they failed in several respects and did not execute as they should have.  But I still understand the entire story arc, so there is nothing "missing" from the story whatsoever for me. 

That is VERY different from "I saw them and am just going to imagine that they don't exist at all and ignore them."  Then, yeah, it would be accurate to say in response, "That's your prerogative, but you are then missing the artist's complete vision of the story." 

[Implode]

I like to ignore a few things about the prequels, and yes. I'll acknowledge that that's going against the "artist's vision" (which I'll also argue has changed a million times over the years and is kind of baffling to follow), but that also let's me enjoy Star Wars in a way that works best for me. And that's all that's important really.

[jingle.boy]

@ 425... I said that the love story between Anakin and Padme was laughable.  That's different than stating that your defense of the prequels is laughable.  I expressed my opinion/thought on the execution of certain elements of AOTC and ROTS.  There's no need to take a shot at the prequels as a shot at you personally.

[gmillerdrake]

@ 425...  There's no need to take a shot at the prequels as a shot at you personally.

Unless your the reason Hayden Christensen forgot how to portray any type of emotion or you personally rendered him incapable of basic acting.....then it's a shot at you.









I'm only teasing....trying to lighten things up a bit. 



























unless....

[BlackInk]

@ 425... I said that the love story between Anakin and Padme was laughable.  That's different than stating that your defense of the prequels is laughable.  I expressed my opinion/thought on the execution of certain elements of AOTC and ROTS.  There's no need to take a shot at the prequels as a shot at you personally.

I thought what he meant was when I said that him praising the prequels as much as he did was "like he was joking".

[Tom Bombadil]

Just watched AOTC last night and I really tried to actually watch the whole thing but the cringe was much too strong so I skipped all the Naboo scenes.

It was still pretty bad, but it's definitely better if you just skip those moments (I watched like two seconds of Anakin using the force on the fruit and I almost got sick). Also it seemed to me that half of the content of the movie was created with the idea of selling merchandise in mind.

[hefdaddy42]

Excluding Episodes 1-3 is not missing half the story.  Episodes 4-6 were told, and THAT was the story that I grew up with.  Literally everything included in Episdoes 1-3 is filler and backstory that is essentially unnecessary, because we already knew the basic gist of it from the crawl in Episode 4, and Obi-Wan's discussions with Luke throughout the OT.

I'm glad that you like them as much as you do, 425.  But the protestation of other people's disregard comes off as a little much.  Even for us older fans who much prefer the OT, we didn't go into the PT expecting it to suck.  We wanted to love new Star Wars as much as we did old Star Wars.  But what we got was not in the same vein as what we were originally given, and it certainly was not an improvement over what came before. 

This is simply a situation of you liking something that a lot of other people don't like.  That's OK, but you don't have to prove to everyone else why they are wrong.  You just like it a lot more than we do.  That's fine.  But we aren't wrong about preferring the OT.

[425]

I thought what he meant was when I said that him praising the prequels as much as he did was "like he was joking".

Yep, everyone, this is what I was referring to. And it was the only thing I was referring to. Nothing that jingle or gmillerdrake said. Just this:

But 425, it's like you're joking with your arguments.

I mean, I'm not mad at BlackInk or anything. I just thought it was a bit abrupt and uncivil of a thing to say, but I was fine with it.

But then I say something similar but slightly less personal in this thread and get chastised for it. Either we were both okay or we both crossed the line. It's really hard to simultaneously argue that what he said is okay while what I said was so far out of line. Mostly I just want people to apply whatever standards for conversation equally.

I'm glad that you like them as much as you do, 425.  But the protestation of other people's disregard comes off as a little much.  Even for us older fans who much prefer the OT, we didn't go into the PT expecting it to suck.  We wanted to love new Star Wars as much as we did old Star Wars.  But what we got was not in the same vein as what we were originally given, and it certainly was not an improvement over what came before. 

Would you not agree that it will be interesting to see where popular opinion goes as those of us who grew up with the prequels become more of a presence in popular media? Because, totally anecdotally, nobody I know who is my age (college age) regards the prequels with the level of disdain that is shown for them by older people. The general perception among people I know who have seen all the films is that the prequels are good, not quite as good as the original trilogy, but not that far behind, either. I have a friend who shares my view that ROTS is the best. I have a friend who likes ESB the best, but regards TPM and AOTC even more highly than I do. The lowest opinion I have heard from someone my age is that TPM is silly and not great, although it has some very good parts, but that ROTS is nearly at original trilogy levels. Also anecdotally, I have a friend who showed his friend the whole series when this person was around 16, and that person strongly preferred ROTS to all the other films and preferred Anakin's story to Luke's.

This is all anecdotal, but I think it will be very interesting to see how things are borne out as those of us who, for example, were just barely old enough to see Revenge in the theater when it came out, move into being the people who are doing a lot of the writing about these films.

Not to criticize fans of the older trilogy. But my perception of TFA has been very dependent on the age at which I first saw it. I notice this, I'm willing to admit this, and I'm trying to make sure it doesn't cloud my understanding of that movie, which is hard if not impossible. That's my own experience: the age at which I saw it mattered (I was 8 when ROTS came out. I think I first saw all six films when I was 8. I am now 19). Maybe it matters for others, maybe not. But I don't think it's too crazy to suggest that it might.

I don't want you to stop engaging in discussion.  You raise some great points (as you often do in other threads as well).  I just felt like you were pushing TOO hard in this one and crossing the line.

Thank you for the compliment, but nevertheless, I probably will pull out of this one (notice that despite being a huge Star Wars fan, I believe I did not post in any Star Wars thread here before Friday) fairly soon. I find it really hard to engage with Star Wars fans because every time the prequels are brought up, they get slagged constantly, which I vehemently disagree with, particularly in the case of Revenge of the Sith.

It's like, most of you probably wouldn't participate in that many conversations about Dream Theater if the awfulness of your favorite album, say, SDOIT, was taken as a given and every conversation about Dream Theater somehow became about how awful SDOIT is, and any time you tried to say that SDOIT is actually really good, people had a hard time taking you seriously. Nothing against those people for thinking like they do, but I imagine after a while you would get tired of having your favorite album picked on constantly, so you would probably participate in those conversations much less frequently. That's me and Star Wars conversations. I just get pretty tired of "well everyone knows the prequels are worse than everything that ever happened and were created when George Lucas was literally possessed by Satan himself."

[bosk1]

I get where you are coming from.  But let me just suggest something.  When you cast any disagreement or expression of dislike, no matter how reasonably articulated or how slight, as along the lines of:

I just get pretty tired of "well everyone knows the prequels are worse than everything that ever happened and were created when George Lucas was literally possessed by Satan himself."

that type of exaggeration and broad brush painting kind of sets you up for failure from the get go. 

And not to dismiss the anecdotal evidence from your own experience, but outside of your own circle of acquaintances, there are PLENTY of younger fans who have the same problems with the prequels, and they are all over YouTube and other Internet sources.  While there may be some correlation, it isn't simply and "old vs. young" thing.

[BlobVanDam]

Excluding Episodes 1-3 is not missing half the story.  Episodes 4-6 were told, and THAT was the story that I grew up with.  Literally everything included in Episdoes 1-3 is filler and backstory that is essentially unnecessary, because we already knew the basic gist of it from the crawl in Episode 4, and Obi-Wan's discussions with Luke throughout the OT.

Exactly. The PT was unnecessary for fans to get the entire story of the OT for 16 years or so. The PT was an afterthought to the OT to tell a story that didn't need to be told, and in many fans' eyes was better off not told at all (and isn't even entirely consistent with the OT). The OT is one complete story, the PT is another complete story, that is connected to the previously told story.
I think most people consider ROTS a solid movie (not me), so I don't think it's bandwagon jumping that people think the prequels are bad, and I don't think people are too harsh with the criticism of them. They're not the worst movies ever made, but given the budget and experience behind them, they're definitely well below standard imo.

[King Postwhore]

[BlobVanDam]

It should have had a legit crawl before it trolled with that. I'm pretty sure I've seen one that did the Fresh Prince intro too, as expected.

[BlackInk]

*pic*

That's awesome 

[Mosh]

And not to dismiss the anecdotal evidence from your own experience, but outside of your own circle of acquaintances, there are PLENTY of younger fans who have the same problems with the prequels, and they are all over YouTube and other Internet sources.  While there may be some correlation, it isn't simply and "old vs. young" thing.

Yep. I'm 19 and grew up with the prequels. I bored me as a kid (except for the lightsaber fights), II was enjoyable at the time but hasn't aged well in the least, and III was awesome when it came out and still pretty good. The problem for me is that even at their best, they're still very flawed. In fact, even III seems very mediocre to me in comparison to TFA and that's coming from someone who really enjoys it.

Some of the stuff I've been seeing on the internet about the prequels over the past couple years has been very strange. A lot of defenders are coming out of the woodwork and a lot of them (not talking about anyone on this forum) seem to come with the attitude that nobody truly hates the prequels, but they let the internet decide for them. I guess I can understand how frustrating it might be to feel like the only one who enjoys something, but I find it really strange that a lot of prequel defenders seem to boil it down to either the haters are bunch of sheeple or they're too blinded by childhood nostalgia/whatever to form an actual opinion. Are the flaws in the prequels that unnoticeable to these people?

[BlackInk]

I agree with the above post. I'm 21, and saw the OT relatively late in my life. However, I pretty much grew up in front of a TV playing Phantom Menace. I loved that shit as a kid, but from those days I only remember the pod race and the duel. Watching that movie with "adult" eyes has turned me around completely, 540 degrees.

[Outcrier]

While there may be some correlation, it isn't simply and "old vs. young" thing.

Agreed. If that was the case, there won't be any great movies/music/etc anymore, which isn't the case. The very Force Awakens is getting a solid feedback right now and, for another example, the new Mad Max was far more praised than any of the other movies of it's franchise.

[hefdaddy42]

Fantastic short (12:39) video essay on the lots of things related to Episode 4, including technical aspects and political climate, specifically about the Death Star assault.  Lots of great info and insight.

https://vimeo.com/148887200

[bosk1]

So, the whole family watched Ep. IV last night.  Interestingly, after seeing VII, I think I enjoyed IV more than I ever have.

[hefdaddy42]

So, the whole family watched Ep. IV last night.  Interestingly, after seeing VII, I think I enjoyed IV more than I ever have.

I intend to re-watch it soon.

[Pragmaticcircus]

I'm calling it (though very obviously)

The sequel trilogy is better than the prequels!

[Dream Team]

From reading this thread it seems people are more willing to say a movie is objectively better than another, while they tend to frown on people saying the same about music. I support both.

[gmillerdrake]

Just read an article that said Adam Driver turned down the role of Lex Luther in the upcoming Superman v Batman movie instead choosing Kylo Ren and the STAR WARS 'side'. Smart move (no brainer) IMO.....

[CrimsonSunrise]

This might have been already posted.  A friend of mine shared it with me and I found it an interesting perspective on the writing of the prequels.

https://www.gamesradar.com/george-lucas-nearly-wrote-perfect-prequel-trilogy-he-just-didnt-seem-notice/