Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 9, 2018 3:41:01 GMT
Why do you dislike these movies? If you are someone who thinks they suck, what are the reasons behind that exactly?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 9, 2018 17:06:25 GMT
Why do you dislike these movies? If you are someone who thinks they suck, what are the reasons behind that exactly? I personally don't 'hate' the idea of a prequel. It's the execution I find annoying.
For example, if a film stands well on it's own, and it didn't have intend to have a sequel or prequel, don't make one up out of thin air. I'd prefer someone make a prequel if a character's story needs to be told.
For example, what if you make a trilogy out of order? Start with Part II as the first film, then Part I (prequel) then a sequel (Part III). Maybe the protagonist doesn't get involved until PART II. Then at the end a specific character tells them how it all lead up to his arrival, and thus the prequel comes out. Then after that film is over, it ends with them back in the room where part II concluded, therefore it logically goes into the next story, the sequel.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 9, 2018 18:10:36 GMT
I don`t
|
|
|
|
Post by drystyx on Jul 9, 2018 21:31:45 GMT
The only prequels I recall seeing off hand are Star Wars 1-3 and the Hobbit.
Both suffer for different reasons.
Star Wars struggled to just try to fit the old story in with the newer older story. It was obviously concocted afterwards to fit in, and maintain as much Hollywood stereotyping and formula as possible. It's what Saturday Night Live would have come up with as a skit in 1984 after return of the jedi as basically a farce. Exactly the same.
The Hobbit was just sloppy. There were a few decent bits in it, but it looked like someone trying to cram a movie into a budget. Sloppy.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 9, 2018 21:56:16 GMT
Why do you dislike these movies? If you are someone who thinks they suck, what are the reasons behind that exactly? Which prequels? If you mean the Star Wars prequels, it's because they are terribly written, terribly plotted, terribly acted movies. None of that kills a movie for me - some of my favourite movies have those qualities. But the Star Wars prequels had essentially unlimited budget and talent at their disposal. They SHOULD have been great movies, and they're just the exact opposite of that. As for why exactly... go watch the Red Letter Media reviews, possibly the most devastating piece of film criticism ever produced. To that point, anyway. If you mean the Hobbit movies, their issue is that they are so needlessly padded out. Hell, I get that the studio wanted a trilogy, but even then - why have a trilogy of three hour movies? Cut the extraneous crap and make them 100-120 minutes each. Hmmm, other prequels... The Thing? I quite liked that one, except that dammit, why go to all the trouble of reproducing the original Norwegian camp events if you're going to ignore the fact that they blew up the ship excavating it with bombs, and stick that silly explosion ending on? Bleargh. Can't think of any other prequels you might mean. |
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Jul 9, 2018 22:01:28 GMT
They were pointless. We already knew the story and even with that Lucas decided to change it like a moron.
It wasn't entertaining. It felt like a tech demo.
The main character was the least interesting. The only way the movies would have worked would be to explore Obi Wan's conflicts.
Lucas decided to remove the magic and instead pretended like there were logical explanations for everything which, ironically, was illogical.
|
|
|
|
Post by MCDemuth on Jul 9, 2018 22:54:21 GMT
I think most people who hate the Star Wars prequels don't know what they are talking about...
Did We Really?
HEY FUCKING "MORONS"... LUCAS CHANGED THINGS EVEN BEFORE THE PREQUELS...
Just for starters:
In "A New Hope"
Darth Vader killed Anakin.
Luke & Leia were not related.
In "Return Of The Jedi"
Anakin became Darth Vader
Luke & Leia were Fraternal Twins.
And you guys are only blaming "The Prequels" for changes? ROTFWL!
ALL Lucas did was constantly change things from "Empire Strikes Back" On!
To be honest here, I am actually amazed at how well Lucas was able to get everything he started out doing with "The Phantom Menace" to wrap up with "Revenge Of The Sith" and have it all still flow pretty nicely into "A New Hope"...
That's the problem with a prequel... The end of the film, has to tie in with the first...
And So, we all knew that Anakin would become Darth Vader, and Obi-Wan and Yoda would not be killed... That actually took away from some of my enjoyment of some of "Revenge Of The Sith"... Because I knew they would survive the Jedi Massacre... I just didn't know, HOW...
For the most part, I liked the Star Wars Prequel Films...
However, As I said, the thing I don't like about most prequels, is because they partly give away the ending... Certain Things have to happen, such as: Characters not being in mortal danger, in order to set up the first movie...
More often than not, when another movie, especially trilogies, are created, writers always want to do something "NEW"... and in this case they came up with stuff like: "Midichlorians" (or however it's spelled). They should have left much of that stuff out... but it wasn't unexpected.
I really can't think of any Prequel that I have seen, where it wasn't different, in someway, than how the history was presented in the first film.
I think people should quit bashing the Star Wars Prequel Films... As to how they were written... and just say, they should never have been made because they were... "Prequels".
Oddly, it seems the "sequels" are actually worse, than the "prequels"...
Perhaps we should be grateful, that Lucas didn't have Obi-Wan killed in "The Phantom Menace", and then, had him resurrected in "Revenge Of The Sith" so that he could train Luke in "A New Hope"... Now that really would have been a mind fuck.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 10, 2018 0:19:52 GMT
Why do you dislike these movies? If you are someone who thinks they suck, what are the reasons behind that exactly? Which prequels? If you mean the Star Wars prequels, it's because they are terribly written, terribly plotted, terribly acted movies. None of that kills a movie for me - some of my favourite movies have those qualities. But the Star Wars prequels had essentially unlimited budget and talent at their disposal. They SHOULD have been great movies, and they're just the exact opposite of that. As for why exactly... go watch the Red Letter Media reviews, possibly the most devastating piece of film criticism ever produced. To that point, anyway. If you mean the Hobbit movies, their issue is that they are so needlessly padded out. Hell, I get that the studio wanted a trilogy, but even then - why have a trilogy of three hour movies? Cut the extraneous crap and make them 100-120 minutes each. Hmmm, other prequels... The Thing? I quite liked that one, except that dammit, why go to all the trouble of reproducing the original Norwegian camp events if you're going to ignore the fact that they blew up the ship excavating it with bombs, and stick that silly explosion ending on? Bleargh. Can't think of any other prequels you might mean. I mean, I'll say: I can't find a single thing wrong with any of the prequels. I mean I use to agree with Mike stoklasa on the prequel reviews but then I realized he didn't really know what he was talking about 70 percent of the time.
I mean, things people have pointed out as problems in the star wars prequels are not things I consider problems really.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 10, 2018 0:29:55 GMT
Which prequels? If you mean the Star Wars prequels, it's because they are terribly written, terribly plotted, terribly acted movies. None of that kills a movie for me - some of my favourite movies have those qualities. But the Star Wars prequels had essentially unlimited budget and talent at their disposal. They SHOULD have been great movies, and they're just the exact opposite of that. As for why exactly... go watch the Red Letter Media reviews, possibly the most devastating piece of film criticism ever produced. To that point, anyway. If you mean the Hobbit movies, their issue is that they are so needlessly padded out. Hell, I get that the studio wanted a trilogy, but even then - why have a trilogy of three hour movies? Cut the extraneous crap and make them 100-120 minutes each. Hmmm, other prequels... The Thing? I quite liked that one, except that dammit, why go to all the trouble of reproducing the original Norwegian camp events if you're going to ignore the fact that they blew up the ship excavating it with bombs, and stick that silly explosion ending on? Bleargh. Can't think of any other prequels you might mean. I mean, I'll say: I can't find a single thing wrong with any of the prequels. I mean I use to agree with Mike stoklasa on the prequel reviews but then I realized he didn't really know what he was talking about 70 percent of the time. Yeah, but the thing is that when you realised that, that was just your brain blowing farts out of its asshole without any particular correspondence to reality.
Well it's fine to enjoy terrible movies, I've enjoyed many myself. But the prequels don't rate as entertainingly bad to me. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 10, 2018 1:46:07 GMT
I mean, I'll say: I can't find a single thing wrong with any of the prequels. I mean I use to agree with Mike stoklasa on the prequel reviews but then I realized he didn't really know what he was talking about 70 percent of the time. Yeah, but the thing is that when you realised that, that was just your brain blowing farts out of its asshole without any particular correspondence to reality.
Well it's fine to enjoy terrible movies, I've enjoyed many myself. But the prequels don't rate as entertainingly bad to me. No I realized that most of his criticisms don't make that much sense. Anyway, it's not that hard to counter argue most anything in those reviews. It's not like this guy is some sort of genius or anything.
Believe me, they're entertaining because they're good, not terrible. And by the way, why would anyone enjoy a terrible movie? I've never understood that at all.
|
|
|
|
Post by sostie on Jul 10, 2018 10:04:57 GMT
Is "they were shit" an acceptable answer
|
|
|
|
Post by Caesar Roberto on Jul 10, 2018 10:27:09 GMT
I don't, because I'm not an ignorant moron.
|
|
|
|
Post by OldAussie on Jul 10, 2018 10:50:28 GMT
Badly written, badly directed, subsequently badly acted.
Their biggest sin is that they are as boring as dog sh!t.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 10, 2018 11:51:09 GMT
Yeah, but the thing is that when you realised that, that was just your brain blowing farts out of its asshole without any particular correspondence to reality.
Well it's fine to enjoy terrible movies, I've enjoyed many myself. But the prequels don't rate as entertainingly bad to me. No I realized that most of his criticisms don't make that much sense. Your brain just farted again. Go for it.
But there's nothing good about them. You just can't judge movies. *shrug* Mostly because people find them funny. For instance, I have a friend who loves watching shark movies. The more terrible they are, the more she likes them. One of her all time favourite movies is about a monster that is half shark, half octopus - literally called Sharktopus. It's just absurd, silly fun for us to watch the likes of Ghost Shark, Two Headed Shark, Super-Shark... Super Shark even has a wonderfully great music video. For me, it's Bigfoot movies. There's no such thing as Bigfoot; but the way Bigfoot movies tell it, you have like a 75% change of having a Bigfoot bite your head off every time you go somewhere that has more than five trees together. I just find them amusing. This is the only way I could envisage anybody liking the Star Wars prequels. They're certainly no better than Super Shark in quality. |
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Jul 10, 2018 12:47:09 GMT
Which prequels? If you mean the Star Wars prequels, it's because they are terribly written, terribly plotted, terribly acted movies. None of that kills a movie for me - some of my favourite movies have those qualities. But the Star Wars prequels had essentially unlimited budget and talent at their disposal. They SHOULD have been great movies, and they're just the exact opposite of that. As for why exactly... go watch the Red Letter Media reviews, possibly the most devastating piece of film criticism ever produced. To that point, anyway. If you mean the Hobbit movies, their issue is that they are so needlessly padded out. Hell, I get that the studio wanted a trilogy, but even then - why have a trilogy of three hour movies? Cut the extraneous crap and make them 100-120 minutes each. Hmmm, other prequels... The Thing? I quite liked that one, except that dammit, why go to all the trouble of reproducing the original Norwegian camp events if you're going to ignore the fact that they blew up the ship excavating it with bombs, and stick that silly explosion ending on? Bleargh. Can't think of any other prequels you might mean. I mean, I'll say: I can't find a single thing wrong with any of the prequels. I mean I use to agree with Mike stoklasa on the prequel reviews but then I realized he didn't really know what he was talking about 70 percent of the time.
I mean, things people have pointed out as problems in the star wars prequels are not things I consider problems really.
This is all that matters which is why it's odd to continue bringing this to a public forum constantly. If you invite the criticism and then pretend it doesn't matter, then why bother constantly bring up these sucky things? |
|
|
|
Post by vegalyra on Jul 10, 2018 13:08:20 GMT
The Phantom Menace had its good and bad points. I actually liked the Senate intrigue and debate (but I've always been a geek when it comes to that stuff). I liked Darth Maul and the interaction between Qui Gon Jinn and Obi Wan along with the Jedi council. The pod race was even fairly exciting.
However, it all went down hill from there. Jar Jar (of course), Midichlorians (ugh)... And then Attack of the Clones. What a piece of garbage. One of the few films I've ever fell asleep during in the theater. Absolute horror mixed with total boredom.
Sith had some decent moments, but again, like an earlier posted noted, both it and the other films seemed like a '90s tech demo disc to show off some new video card's potential for your computer.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 10, 2018 15:21:18 GMT
I mean, I'll say: I can't find a single thing wrong with any of the prequels. I mean I use to agree with Mike stoklasa on the prequel reviews but then I realized he didn't really know what he was talking about 70 percent of the time.
I mean, things people have pointed out as problems in the star wars prequels are not things I consider problems really.
This is all that matters which is why it's odd to continue bringing this to a public forum constantly. If you invite the criticism and then pretend it doesn't matter, then why bother constantly bring up these sucky things? cuz I suck? I guess I suck, I don't give no fuk. |
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Jul 10, 2018 15:28:06 GMT
This is all that matters which is why it's odd to continue bringing this to a public forum constantly. If you invite the criticism and then pretend it doesn't matter, then why bother constantly bring up these sucky things? cuz I suck? it depends Do you think you are you what you like? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 10, 2018 15:36:40 GMT
Why are people in industry so butthurt that no one likes the prequels?
|
|
