Log in

No account? Create an account
21 May 2005 @ 09:29 am
The problem with the prequel trilogy... (no Ep III spoilers)  
After seeing Revenge of the Sith, I had a revelation about why, even though Eps II & III are very good Sci-Fi films in their own right, they simply do not match up to the original trilogy.

It's all about exposition.
The prequel trilogy has a lot of scenes of people just standing around talking: in the Jedi Council, in someone's bedroom, on a ship in transit.
Scenes like this slow the pace, and that's what the original trilogy has in spades: a cracking pace that never lets up.

Whilst there are scenes like this in the original trilogy, they are brief and few, but more importantly, many of the exposition scenes are coupled with some sort of action: Luke practising his lightsaber skills on the floating orb while Obi-Wan explains The Force, Luke carrying Yoda on his back while Yoda explains The Force, Darth Vader crushing some guy's windpipe while he explains The Force...

What I would be interested in doing would be timing the length of exposition scenes in I-III and comparing it to the length of exposition scenes in IV-VI.
It feels as though the exposition scenes in the prequel trilogy are about 5 minutes each or longer, while the original trilogy's would be about 2 minutes each.

Anyway, Revenge of the Sith has a lot of fantastic scenes, and was overall a highly enjoyable film.
However, as I came out of the cinema, I checked the time and realised that the film was not as long as it felt, a sure sign that it dragged on.

I'll definitely see it again, though.
Jessjess2903 on May 21st, 2005 08:23 am (UTC)
I guess that the original films will always be better than the prequel films because they were so revolutionary for their time...now we are used to that kind of special effects and stuff. I didn't find the exposition scenes boring at all, except those between Anakin and Padme, but that's because the dialogue is so shocking. I was bored in Episode II but this one was so action packed all the time, there was like a light sabre fight every few minutes so there wasn't time to be bored. I loved it!
Jacobyak_boy on May 21st, 2005 11:16 pm (UTC)
I guess that the original films will always be better than the prequel films because they were so revolutionary for their time

I couldn't disgree more with that statement. The whole wonder of the original trilogy is that it is so timeless. Whatever amazing sci-fi and action films have been made in the last 28 years (including The Alien Films, The Terminator films, The Matrix films, etcetera...) the original Star Wars trilogy beats them all.

Yes, it was revolutionary for the time, but the real point is that they are still good by today's standards.

there was like a light sabre fight every few minutes

Which, I think, is another problem. The original trilogy had a wide variety of action scenes: blaster fights, x-wing v tie-fighter dogfights, unarmed fights and lightsaber duels. I think there was a little too much emphasis on the lightsaber duels.
Jacobyak_boy on May 21st, 2005 11:17 pm (UTC)
It's too early in the morning...
Mikmareth_redorb on May 22nd, 2005 10:41 pm (UTC)
As someone (I think it might have been vanadamme) pointed out, the thing this film was lacking was a non-jedi character for us to relate to, which was the part played by Han Solo in the original trilogy.

I think possibly Bail Organa (Jimmy Smits) could have filled this role for us more if he'd had more in the first two films.
Robet Éivaayvah on May 21st, 2005 10:30 am (UTC)
Well, I've seen films that have felt like they were a lot longer than they really were, and that was a good thing.

But I suppose that you should know whether or not it's a good thing. :P