The Star Wars Prequels are better than the Star Wars Original Trilogy
The debate will be divided into 4 issues each side had to prove was better.
Environment=The environment the movie created for the audience.
The story in the prequels is better than the original trilogy, because it feels more real. This statement might want to make a lot of people kill me, but hear me out. The plot is about a young Jedi Anakin who eventually turns into the iconic Darth Vader. This story is about a good person turning into something evil. You don't find this kind of story in movies. In most movies, the villain is born evil, and you have to accept it. Darth Vader in episode 4-6 is portrayed as evil. You could never guess he was a Jedi until he told Luke he was his father in the end of episode 5. This is why this story was more real. It is something that could happen in our world. Anakin turns desperate when he has visions of his wife is dyindg. Anakin also is not even supposed to have a wife, because the Jedi Order forbids marriage which makes it harder for Anakin to cope with his emotions. The emperor(currently chancellor) finds the perfect moment to lure Anakin into the dark side of the force. This is something that can happen in real life which makes Star Wars more believable. It tells a story of good men turning bad. It also has some good political science in it too. The chancellor convinces the Queen of Nebu that the politicians in the republic are corrupt. But, if you really start thinking about it. He is right. The bureaucrats in this world and in our world are corrupt to an extent. Palpatine wants to bring real action into the republic, and runs for chancellor. In episode 3, note he sees good and evil as a point of view. Palpatine could also very well be seeing himself doing the right thing. Also, the Jedi which appear always to be right while the Sith are always evil seem to also do some unethical things. They ask Anakin to spy on the chancellor. Is this something that should happen in the Republic? Is Palpatine right when he says there needs to be more order, and less bickering. I am sure you can argue about how I am terribly wrong, but a good story can make you argue about the plot. A good mythology can create good analogies from our world to their world. Moving on to the original trilogy. I don't see why people like these movies, and I am sure more and more young people(millennials) will agree with me on this. Episode 4-6 are kind of like black and white movies. They were original, but its just that people keep repeating what that original did. Episode 4-6 offered nothing that I was talking about in the prequels. My only problem with the original trilogy is that the plot feels completely unnecessary. Why would you revolt against a billion storm troopers with a lot better equipment than you? It is unrealistic. Luke Skywalker is annoying. I was talking earlier about how people forget the errors because it is their childhood memories. Luke is a brat to his parents. He begs them to get him the droids. He begs for adventure. When he is faced with adventure, he gets scared. Anakin is just acting like Luke. I don't get why audiences hate Anakin, but love Luke whenever he is annoying. It is also extremely clique sometimes. Darth Vader is always evil. He does a good job at it, but he is always evil. So are the other characters. Our main characters have a perfect moral compass. How realistic? They never have faults in their characters. They all want to do the right thing. Harrison Ford is the only person that I find realistic. He actually tells it like it is. I find the movies extremely overrated, while the prequels are underrated. My point is here that both movies are imperfect. They both have their flaws, but I think the prequels do the story much better.
The acting was not good in the prequels. This is what killed the movie. They all sounded robotic. But, we have to give credit where credit is due. These actors to give it their best effort. George Lucas wanted the actors to do it his way which didn't work, but these actors truly shine in revenge of the sith. Ewan Mcgregor was great as Obi Wan. He embodied the young wise man, and he did it perfectly. Hayden Christensen was also good. Now, before you kill me. Hear me out. He was the best choice if he had a better director. Hayden Christensen did not have the benefit of having great movies before he did this movie. People judged him too soon, and I think his work really starts to come out in revenge of the sith. His bad dialogue was director's fault, but if you look at his poses, and his stares. He does a young Darth Vader pretty well. He also played the young innocent emotion driven guy pretty well, but it didn't work when it came to the love relationship. The chancellor/emperor palpatine I think was also very good. You could tell this actor loved doing what he was doing. He embodied the charming villain you could like. He had a unique ability to charm people while he was saying very controversial things. Palpatine was great. Samuel L. Jackson did appear robotic sometimes, but did a good job in representing when a good guy can make a decision that would be poor. Qui Gon as Laim Neson was also very good. He acted very well as the mentor. I think this is the part where people will heavily disagree, and I can understand why.
Action is better in the prequels. The sword fights were extensively updated. Every sword fight has good music behind it capturing a really good scene. Darth Vader vs Obi Wan in episode 4 was miserable. In episode 5, it got annoying. It was slow. In episode 6, they were close. In the prequels, you can see the leads doing jumps, kicks, and aggressive in your face sword combat. Anakin vs Obi Wan was very good.
The environment for the prequels are heavily CGI based. A lot of people have problems with this. But, face it we now live in a CGI world. George Lucas was one of the first directors to use CGI to replace sets, You could actually see different worlds. It also created an orderly society, but also hinted at a downfall. In episode 4-6, they don't really show the different worlds. They just want you to assume that this is it.
Alright, I know a lot of people want to kill me, but people must know the truth.
Thank you for that round. I will provide an analysis from my side of the debate.
As for the villains, the two main villains, Darth Vader and the Emperor, were perfect. They developed over three movies as opposed to being killed off after three minutes of screen time. You were able to see the internal struggle of Darth Vader having Luke as his son, and you see how that conflict leads to overthrowing the Emperor.
Episode 3 was okay. The other two were awful as far as the plot went. Anakin's storyline was entirely character driven, and like stated above, Anakin's character was a great idea that never even became a good character. His scenes came across as the wrong kind of creepy, unrealistically emotional, and very loosely tied from one point to the next.
That's true even in episode 3, but at least the overall events in episode 3 sort of distracted from that. However, episode 1, the plot is sort of just to stop an invasion that no one really talks about unless they're in the senate or it's happening. Episode 2 was way too long to introduce the idea that the Jedi are fighting now. Even the fight scenes in these two weren't really exciting, but I'll explain later.
Episode 3 had an actual plot, but that doesn't make up for the first two movies.
The original trilogy had a solid story based off of real world events carrying across three episodes. In case you never caught it, the Empire was based off of Nazi Germany. Hitler had storm troopers. The Emperor had storm troopers. The Empire was attempting to take control of the whole galaxy with its literal war machines. Hitler did the same thing to Earth.
This constant plot allowed for the main characters to go into side stories, because there wasn't too much happening. That's why the characters could develop, and the whole thing made sense througout the story.
I agree that George Lucas was the main thing that screwed up the overall performance in the prequels. Most of those actors are at least somewhat good actors. However, performance in the prequels from pretty much everyone but Ewan Mcgregor and Ian MicDiarmid (Obi Wan and Palpatine).
However, in the original trilogy you get oustanding performances from Mark Hamill, Harrison Ford, Carrie Fisher, James Earl Jones, David Prowse, Clive Revil, and Billy Dee Williams. All of these guys were great, and they did a perfect job portraying the characters. Star Wars would've never gotten as big as it did without their involvement.
I will concede that the fights in episode 3 were the best by far; however, the fights in episodes 1 and 2 were basically awful. In episode 1 the fights were either silly or nonlethal. If you look at the fight scene against Darth Maul, you can tell they're just trying to hit each other's lightsabers, not actually kill each other until the very end.
In episode 2, the fights were either extremely dry or you can tell that the actors were actually actors. For example, when Anakin gets his hand cut off, he just sort of sits there with his arms spread for a few seconds before Dooku cuts it off. This guy is supposed to be great, and he literlly sucks.
Aside from that, you can tell what's CGI in all of these, and it takes away from the feeling of death in the fights.
In the original trilogy, most of the good fights were the group fights, especially in space or between armies. These fights were choreographed very well, and it's easy to believe them. The fight between Luke and Vader in 5 may have been long, but it was still better than 1 and 2.
The prequels looked fake. The CGI was not good back then. It was okay, but it wasn't believable. So the sets were grossly unrealistic.
The original trilogy looked real becaue it all was real. The design was more beautiful because of that, especially in space scenes or inside ships. It looked like you could actually go there.
Ariesx forfeited this round.
Ariesx forfeited this round.