WI: No Star Wars Prequels

[ColeMercury]

In this thread: "Hey everyone DAE the prequels sucks?!?!?"

I am so sick of every single goddamn thread about the Star Wars prequels getting overtaken by everyone complaining about them.

 

[oshron]

In this thread: "Hey everyone DAE the prequels sucks?!?!?"

I am so sick of every single goddamn thread about the Star Wars prequels getting overtaken by everyone complaining about them.

tell me about it. it's fucking impossible to discuss ANYTHING about them! even BOTH sides of the T-Rex vs. Spino debate COMBINED aren't as venomous as Prequel haters

 

[loneranger]

If Lucas still decides to make the 20th-anniversary Special Editions, he re-numbers ANH, ESB and RotJ as Episodes I, II and III respectively. His excuse is "Yeah, I totally did have a well-thought-out plan for a sprawling nine-film trilogy-of-trilogies epic [*cough*bullshit*cough*] but I've moved on and there's no point keeping the numbering for movies that are never going to happen."

What happens next for Star Wars depends on why he decides not to make the prequels in the first place. Perhaps if Young Indiana Jones lasts longer than one season, Lucas decides to make a prequel TV series for Star Wars instead (which honestly seems to me to be a better fit for the story he came up with). On the other hand, if his motivation is sitting down and trying to plan a prequel trilogy before deciding "Fuck it, it's not working", then he probably opens up the prequel era to the EU and lets other writers deal with it. (I'd like to imagine that Zahn writes an amazing trilogy of books that the fandom unofficially accepts as the "missing" three prequel episodes.)

I like the television option, but what network would be able to afford a Star Wars show in the late 1990's? That would be a prohibitively expensive proposition unless the show was animated. I would be curious to see what the plot of the prequels would look like if it were stretched out into three seasons of a show. If someone could figure out a way to deal with the cost issue and decide what network it would air on, this could be an enjoyable timeline. Given Star Wars' popularity and the built up anticipation by the time Episode I was announced, I think "Star Wars: the television show" would be a massive hit, even if there was some disappointment that it wasn't a film.

I would love to read a timeline about such a show.

If there is a prequel television show wouldn't Lucas leave the episode designation alone, given that "Episodes I-III" will exist in some form even if they aren't films?

Guys, stop. I was PMing someone about this exact idea probably a month ago (no joke!). I'll have to dig around and see if it was one of you two but I totally agree this would be such an awesome idea.

Or maybe it was a thread.

Anyways, I agree wholeheartedly. Get Zahn involved, do some tweaking and you could have Thrawn as the main villain of a prequel TV series in the 1990s/2000s. Thrawn wouldn't be that hard to do (just use blue paint) and he's such a good villain that he could carry the prequel trilogy tv series much better than say Maul/Dooku/Grevious. I wonder who his main fighter would be?

I've always been fond of the idea of Obi-Wan actually being OB-1 (a clone designation, basically). Could be fun to have "the original Obi-Wan Kenobi" as Thrawn's Jedi pawn, which would actually play well into Zahn's original plans of having Joruus be an evil insane clone of Obi-Wan.

Yeah, I really like this idea. What studio would conceivably pick up Star Wars. I definitely like the idea of Zahn having part of the writing, hell maybe bring Joss Whedon aboard (depending on when this takes place it could be post-Firefly.

Or FUCK wait it could take the place of Firefly and we can get some of their actors on the show. Nathan Fillion, Bounty Hunter?

I've been awake far too long so this probably makes no sense. Goodbye now.

 

[Emperor Norton I]

In this thread: "Hey everyone DAE the prequels sucks?!?!?"

I am so sick of every single goddamn thread about the Star Wars prequels getting overtaken by everyone complaining about them.

Because they're abysmal, and everything that discusses them in terms of the franchise and popular culture has to be resolved to the fact they were subpar films with a major negative impact on their franchise, a negative impact on their creator in terms of the view of him, it lead to the schism of the fanbase, etc. That is their legacy. To not discuss that is like talking about Rome with some stigma on talking about its fall and those pesky Dark Ages.

 

[Sabot Cat]

Because they're abysmal, and everything that discusses them in terms of the franchise and popular culture has to be resolved to the fact they were subpar films with a major negative impact on their franchise, a negative impact on their creator in terms of the view of him, it lead to the schism of the fanbase, etc. That is their legacy. To not discuss that is like talking about Rome with some stigma on talking about its fall and those pesky Dark Ages.

So, basically, the prequel trilogy is the Byzantine Empire?

You'd think it'd be more popular on AH.com in that case...

 

[Generaloberst]

tell me about it. it's fucking impossible to discuss ANYTHING about them! even BOTH sides of the T-Rex vs. Spino debate COMBINED aren't as venomous as Prequel haters

That's because the facts are on the side of the Tyrannosaurus rex, and it's hard to debate from a disadvantage on the side of actual paleontology.

The Prequels, on the other hand, are viewed subjectively. One person can think they're the best damned creation of cinema since Humphrey Bogart and Ingrid Bergman shared the stage in 1942. Another can think that they are an abomination and should've never been made, and every copy should be destroyed. They're both right and both wrong.

Personally, I think parts of The Phantom Menace (Basically all of Darth Maul's scenes, and the Trade Federation invasion), parts of Attack of the Clones, and the entirety of Revenge of the Sith were pretty good. The hate for the prequels is, frankly, overstated, overdone, and overrated. They weren't the best by far, and admittedly were pretty bad, but nowhere near as bad as some people think.

 

[Emperor Norton I]

So, basically, the prequel trilogy is the Byzantine Empire?

You'd think it'd be more popular on AH.com in that case...

I'd equate it more to Mussolini's totally failed attempt to resurrect the Roman Empire.

The Byzantine Empire was probably the 90s Star Wars franchise. Or Spaceballs.

 

[Sabot Cat]

I'd equate it more to Mussolini totally failed attempt to resurrect the Roman Empire.

Now the prequel trilogy is fascist?

I kid, but honestly these comparisons seem kind of overwrought and don't give enough credit to these films, which are enjoyable for the most part.

 

[oshron]

That's because the facts are on the side of the Tyrannosaurus rex, and it's hard to debate from a disadvantage on the side of actual paleontology.

no no, i don't mean that there's a paleontological debate over T-Rex vs. Spino, it is (or was) another one of those flame wars that came up in the wake of Jurassic Park 3 over the spinosaur killing the tyrannosaur. while i, personally, think it was a decent choice for fiction to prove to non-paleonerds that there were bigger theropods than Tyrannosaurus as well as to give the limelight to something OTHER than T-Rex for once, there really IS no debate concerning which one would win realistically. the "debate" is all just fanboyism amounting to "dis wunz biggr s0 it w1nz" with your choice of obscenities and insults to the other side rather than anything constructive tacked on

The Prequels, on the other hand, are viewed subjectively. One person can think they're the best damned creation of cinema since Humphrey Bogart and Ingrid Bergman shared the stage in 1942. Another can think that they are an abomination and should've never been made, and every copy should be destroyed. They're both right and both wrong.

Personally, I think parts of The Phantom Menace (Basically all of Darth Maul's scenes, and the Trade Federation invasion), parts of Attack of the Clones, and the entirety of Revenge of the Sith were pretty good. The hate for the prequels is, frankly, overstated, overdone, and overrated. They weren't the best by far, and admittedly were pretty bad, but nowhere near as bad as some people think.

this has pretty much always been my opinion, and i've never argued that they're better than the Originals or, in more recent times, even that they're great. they're just average, not terrible like haters have been screaming about at the top of their lungs for fifteen years. even Batman & Robin is treated with more objectivity.

fact of the matter is that, objectively, even Ep1 has gotten a straight-up mixed reception at worst, meaning that--regardless of what haters say--they aren't universally hated. if you went to random people in the street and asked them, you'd probably get as many people saying it's good or okay as ones saying it's bad. it was overhyped and had a completely unpleasable fanbase; so-called fans would have called it the worst thing ever even if it was better than their beloved Empire Strikes Back. frankly, i'll take the opinion of guys like Roger Ebert over a bunch of bickering nerds on the internet for how good or bad the likes of the Prequels ACTUALLY are (speaking as a nerd myself)

for the record, Revenge of the Sith is my favorite of the entire series; in my opinion, Vader's redemption alone makes up for any other faults in the entire movie. as to the Prequels, i think their pros make up for their admittedly numerous cons

 

[ColeMercury]

Because they're abysmal, and everything that discusses them in terms of the franchise and popular culture has to be resolved to the fact they were subpar films with a major negative impact on their franchise, a negative impact on their creator in terms of the view of him, it lead to the schism of the fanbase, etc. That is their legacy. To not discuss that is like talking about Rome with some stigma on talking about its fall and those pesky Dark Ages.

That does not mean it's perfectly OK to ignore the question at hand and instead post Rant #537 explaining in agonising detail exactly why you think the prequels sucked.

 

[deathscompanion1]

Wait, what? I can maybe understand somebody thinking Episode III was one of the best (the writing was terrible, but the action scenes were great), but Episodes I and II were both shit.

I didn't get bored into changing the channel when I was watching them.

Honestly I understand why older people like the original series best but I grew up watching them or their effects given how much popular culture they sucked up and ESB is literally the only one I can enjoy watching over and over again for the great action scenes. The special effects are subpar to someone who's grown up in the nineties and 2000s the acting not particularly amazing and the story while good not exactly ground breaking. Its characters were fun enough to watch and the cast much more talented than the prequels but on the whole Attack of the Clones and Revenge of the Sith were simply to my eyes better. More dynamic, more visually impressive and so much more packed with lightsabre duels and cool battles which is what I want from my Star Wars.

 

[Zheng He]

That's because the facts are on the side of the Tyrannosaurus rex, and it's hard to debate from a disadvantage on the side of actual paleontology.

The Prequels, on the other hand, are viewed subjectively. One person can think they're the best damned creation of cinema since Humphrey Bogart and Ingrid Bergman shared the stage in 1942. Another can think that they are an abomination and should've never been made, and every copy should be destroyed. They're both right and both wrong.

Personally, I think parts of The Phantom Menace (Basically all of Darth Maul's scenes, and the Trade Federation invasion), parts of Attack of the Clones, and the entirety of Revenge of the Sith were pretty good. The hate for the prequels is, frankly, overstated, overdone, and overrated. They weren't the best by far, and admittedly were pretty bad, but nowhere near as bad as some people think.

Uh no, the T-Rex and Spino crowd are both wrong. It's the Giganotosaraus that get top billing...

 

[oshron]

Uh no, the T-Rex and Spino crowd are both wrong. It's the Giganotosaraus that get top billing...

this being the other side of the debate. i've been a member of the Jurassic Park community long enough to see PLENTY of theropod fanboyism, especially how stupid it is

 

[redlightning]

Instead of a prequel trilogy the rise of Darth Vader could have been summarized in a long comic book series or an animated film showcasing this origin story. A television series need not be ruled out either. All that needs to be told is how Anakin Skywalker became Darth Vader from Ben Kenobi's point of view on how he lost his apprentice to the Dark Side.

The origin story of Darth Vader could be done in only a few steps. The duel between Obi-Wan and Anakin is completely unnecessary for him to become scarred during his origin story also. Obi-Wan Kenobi and Anakin fight in the Clone Wars together. Anakin gets shot down in a fiery crash and is scarred and burned all over. Anakin is secretly rescued by the Emperor and made into a cyborg. The Emperor helps him rebuild his Force powers through the Dark Side and get revenge against the Jedi for his injuries. Darth Vader hunts down the Jedi in revenge.

 

[Habbukuk]

So much hate for the PT. All in all (with the exception of Jar Jar and a rushed love story) I thought it was pretty good.

 

[loneranger]

So does anyone else like the idea of a Zahn/Whedon run Star Wars trilogy TV series in the late 1990s/early 2000s?

Or just the whole Prequel TV Series thing in general. I'm just trying to see if it's worth its own thread.

 

[Generaloberst]

no no, i don't mean that there's a paleontological debate over T-Rex vs. Spino, it is (or was) another one of those flame wars that came up in the wake of Jurassic Park 3 over the spinosaur killing the tyrannosaur. while i, personally, think it was a decent choice for fiction to prove to non-paleonerds that there were bigger theropods than Tyrannosaurus as well as to give the limelight to something OTHER than T-Rex for once, there really IS no debate concerning which one would win realistically. the "debate" is all just fanboyism amounting to "dis wunz biggr s0 it w1nz" with your choice of obscenities and insults to the other side rather than anything constructive tacked on

I'm aware. I was saying that any debate nowadays on the subject can be said that the JP3 Spinosaurus would've been absolutely killed by the Tyrannosaurus, because all the paleontological evidence points to the fact that the Spinosaurus would've been no match whatsoever for a Tyrannosaurus.

And, really, even before that, I don't know why one would think it would be. The Spinosaurus was traditionally still known as a water-animal hunter, and the Tyrannosaurus was a predator specifically evolved to hunt and kill other dinosaurs. Its jaws alone would've snapped the neck of any Spinosaurus, and its skin would've been impenetrable by the teeth of a Spinosaurus, because its teeth were made for killing fish and other water beasts, and probably carrion, while the Tyrannosaur was expected to be able to withstand hits from animals like the Triceratops.

Uh no, the T-Rex and Spino crowd are both wrong. It's the Giganotosaraus that get top billing...

You misspelled the Carcharodontosaurus.

 

[Emperor Norton I]

In terms of popular culture, the prequels were part of a millenial era sometime between 2000 and maybe 2008-ish of a lot of lackluster entertainment. I don't know if it was CGI and an infancy in terms of the industry of understanding how to utilize it while maintaining narrative quality (art comes from adversity, and there was no longer that adversity), or what it was, but it really was there in terms of established franchises. Not just the Star Wars prequels, but Star Trek (on television and in film), the Matrix sequels, Superman Returns, etc.

I would argue what that spurred on was film examination and criticism in a very deep way. Prior to that, the things we loved were just good and there wasn't much of a reason to explore them. At worst, you had a Temple of Doom or a Return of the Jedi, which did have criticism but it was like complaining that your $1000 steak was slightly undercooked in terms of the criticism that can be leveled at the reboots of those series later on. What films like the Star Wars Prequels did was lead people to feel that its bad, but not exactly know what was wrong with it and not be able to express it because they never really had to explore something like that before, and it lead a lot of people to seriously look into narrative structure and character development and all sorts of things. So I would argue that a lot of internet film criticism, and I point back to Red Letter Media, was born out of the Star Wars prequels.

And I think that's a good thing, and I would point to that examination of film that was born out of "why do I feel these movies are bad" as the reason for a lot of good films in more recent years. Although there is admittedly still "Transformers 7: Spielberg Needs a New Jacuzzi" out there. In the long term, I think it will be a positive thing in entertainment.

So that's something I think the world would be poorer for if those films had been avoided. You'd still likely have stuff like Star Trek going down the tubes, but I would argue it took something as massive and ubiquitous as Star Wars to make people examine why they liked the things they liked and not just take it for granted that they'd like them.

That does not mean it's perfectly OK to ignore the question at hand and instead post Rant #537 explaining in agonising detail exactly why you think the prequels sucked.

The problem is, say, I post just plain old "The prequels had the negative effect on the franchise, did this that and this" without going at length on that they were bad and why they were bad, and the response from someone will be "What are you talking about? Those films were great". Hence why I just explain that they were bad and here is the reason they were bad, and here's what they did in terms of history and culture. I'm addressing that response that would come if I posted without first covering the critique of their quality. My discussion is going to be in terms of how they were bad and how they related to other things by being bad; it's going to come up.

 

[ColeMercury]

Anyways, I agree wholeheartedly. Get Zahn involved, do some tweaking and you could have Thrawn as the main villain of a prequel TV series in the 1990s/2000s. Thrawn wouldn't be that hard to do (just use blue paint) and he's such a good villain that he could carry the prequel trilogy tv series much better than say Maul/Dooku/Grevious. I wonder who his main fighter would be?

[...]

Yeah, I really like this idea. What studio would conceivably pick up Star Wars. I definitely like the idea of Zahn having part of the writing, hell maybe bring Joss Whedon aboard (depending on when this takes place it could be post-Firefly.

There's a couple of problems with this idea. For one thing, the Thrawn Trilogy written by Timothy Zahn was published in the years 1991-1993. George Lucas didn't start working on the Star Wars prequels at all until shortly after that, around 1994 or 1995. So whatever form the ATL prequel story takes (TV series or novel series), Thrawn's not going to be in it. And for another thing, Timothy Zahn doesn't even write for TV at all. He's a novelist.

 

[Zheng He]

So does anyone else like the idea of a Zahn/Whedon run Star Wars trilogy TV series in the late 1990s/early 2000s?

Or just the whole Prequel TV Series thing in general. I'm just trying to see if it's worth its own thread.

I would love to see Zahn's original trilogy get made into something. I started casting them once:

Grand Admiral Thrawn - Anthony Hopkins
Talon Karrde - Timothy Dalton
Mara Jade - Michelle Yeoh