Star Wars: The Force Awakens : The prequels were better

Re: The prequels were better

Despite being connected to the original movies they were original and told their own story - which is more than the paperweight mess of Force Awakens can say, but they were also faithful to the story of the Original movies.

FA was so boring. The prequels had real stars attached, Neeson, McGregor, Lee etc - FA ditched Harrison Ford first chance they had (and in the stupidest way) probably to save money - the actors they used were totally uninspiring.

The plot of FA is just the original movie redone badly, the villains were terrible Kylo Ren is like someone with a mental disorder - the big bad is just another hologram in a dark room (ooo where did i see that before), it starts on a desert with a force user learning her way, there is the whole 'i am your father' scene - there is the central use of a death star. The only reason this piece of crap was made was to rake in the cash for Disney (especially merchandise). Even Luke Skywalker's appearance was in your face and crude, trying to evoke mystery but failing.

Abrams ruins everything he touches.

Re: The prequels were better


ooo where did i see that before),


Lol! I can't tell you how many times I said those exact same words while watching TFA! I was starting to sound like a parrot. By the time they get to D'Qar I could only roll my eyes at how copy and pasted the movie was.



"Silly TFA apologists!" = 🙉🙈🙊

Re: The prequels were better

They made Kylo Ren's big cross hilted lightsaber as a merchandise prop - to promote the sale of this item in shops. It was blatant and in your face, it also resembled a cross too which was somewhat offensive - and the lazy in your face nazi symbolism of the villains. Not only was it a film without much of a story and bad characters, a cynically contrived mish mash of what they thought would attract supporters of the Original Series ~ and avoid the media backlash that the prequels got - but it grated for it's political innuendos.

The prequels were badly under rated at the time (except the dialogue which was sometimes atrocious) - this film seems to have been contrived to avoid that - it's not fair because the prequels had more courage in going their own direction and courage should be rewarded.

Re: The prequels were better


and the lazy in your face nazi symbolism of the villains.


Eh, to be honest, I'm glad they at least used actual real life villains as the basis for the First Order this time around (even if it's something as overused as the Nazis instead of something especially daring like, I don't know, Che Guevara-style rebels, or the Soviets, or Vietcong, heck, even some Iranians or North Koreans or even Maoists), because currently, I actually HATED the fact that George Lucas actually modeled the Empire on us Americans and painted us in a bad light, and to add insult to injury, the heroes, the Rebel Alliance, he based on the Vietcong.

But other than that, I definitely agree with you fully. And yes, as bad as the Prequels were, at least they DID attempt to go a new direction (though that being said, it's not too much to ask that they at least try to keep continuity to the original films, especially when some stuff in the Prequel Trilogy made Obi-Wan seem like even MORE of a liar than ROTJ/ESB did.).

Re: The prequels were better

The ballsy thing about Lucas is that he based his prequels' villain on the Bush administration (not America though Bush thought he was America). Taking a shot at Arabs,Iranians,North Koreans etc would be pandering to the dominant view in America - and even more irritating and cliched than using Nazis.

It just shows the lack of originality in the mind of JJ Abrams who appears to be doing too many things on the go and not devoting enough attention to each.

Re: The prequels were better

The weird thing was how prescient he was. Attack of the Clones features Palpatine consolidating power to his office over a war started under questionable circumstances even as W. Bush was lying to the nation about weapons of mass destruction as an excuse to go to war.

Time to make up a new signature.

Re: The prequels were better

Bush did not lie. In case you've forgotten, a lot of other nations claimed that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. Are you going to claim those nation's leaders lied about the WMDs as well? The only thing we can say is that, IF there truly weren't any WMDs, it just means Bush was just as fooled as those other nations. And quite personally, I'm suspicious that the WMDs actually WERE owned by Saddam Hussein, but he either kept them in a place no one found yet, or he had them relocated especially when he saw the writing on the wall. Hussein actually had been reported to use chemical weapons, and in fact, Hussein even claimed he had chemical weapons as well. Had I been a dictator, I had seen that they're going to raid my stockpiles, and I had previously made public I'd had them, I'd make sure to relocate them, even if it means I can't use them.

Re: The prequels were better

Those other nations did so at the behest of the Bush administration. It's pretty thoroughly documented that Bush and his team were cherry picking the intel to fit the hypothesis.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Downing_Street_memo

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/07/06/opinion/what-i-didn-t-find-in-africa.html



Time to make up a new signature.

Re: The prequels were better

Wikipedia and NYTimes were both Left-wing rags. Next time, try a source that actually IS unbiased.

And BTW, one of Saddam's own generals confirmed that Saddam DID indeed have WMDs.

http://archive.frontpagemag.com/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=4255

Even if you argue that it wouldn't have justified removing him, yes, though only if that was the sole reason, which I maintain it wasn't (there's also human rights abuses overall, the fact that he ran things like a petty dictator, among others).

And for the record, since I know someone will mention this eventually, we didn't go to Iraq to steal it's oil. Actually, in terms of oil repositories, Iraq's actually WORTHLESS in terms of oil, having far less than most Arab nations. If we were to use oil to actually justify an invasion, we would have invaded Saudi Arabia.

Re: The prequels were better


Wikipedia and NYTimes were both Left-wing rags. Next time, try a source that actually IS unbiased.


They use something called "facts." As Stephen Colbert observed, facts have a well known liberal bias.

After Operation Desert Storm, inspectors regularly checked for any weapons of mass destruction that Saddam Hussein may have possessed. They destroyed them all in the early 90's and kept tabs to make certain that he did not rebuild his arsenal. George W. Bush wanted to start a war with Iraq, and his first excuse was to say that there was a direct link between Osama Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein. When this was easily discredited, he shifted the motive to say that Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, even though the inspectors never had any evidence of such things and openly said so.

A lot of the general public were already dubious about the legitimacy of the claims, considering his initial statements.

During the war, when it became obvious to the general public that the weapons of mass destruction did not exist, Bush shifted the motive again and said the war was to liberate the Iraqi people.



Time to make up a new signature.

Re: The prequels were better


They use something called "facts." As Stephen Colbert observed, facts have a well known liberal bias.

After Operation Desert Storm, inspectors regularly checked for any weapons of mass destruction that Saddam Hussein may have possessed. They destroyed them all in the early 90's and kept tabs to make certain that he did not rebuild his arsenal. George W. Bush wanted to start a war with Iraq, and his first excuse was to say that there was a direct link between Osama Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein. When this was easily discredited, he shifted the motive to say that Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, even though the inspectors never had any evidence of such things and openly said so.

A lot of the general public were already dubious about the legitimacy of the claims, considering his initial statements.

During the war, when it became obvious to the general public that the weapons of mass destruction did not exist, Bush shifted the motive again and said the war was to liberate the Iraqi people.


No, if facts have any bias, they aren't facts, period. Facts are supposed to be completely unbiased. Think along the lines of a Jury, or Arithmetic, or clockwork, even.

Also, if the general public was truly as dubious as you claim, why is it that Bush won a second term when they could have easily voted for John Kerry in droves?

And I noticed you completely ignored the link I gave you, because that general in question, Gen. Al-Tikriti, had been formerly Saddam Hussein's southern regional commander, actually verified, via videotape, that he was in fact housing WMDs, and he wouldn't have ANY reason to lie, much less verify George W. Bush was telling the truth. I may not be Bush's biggest fan or think highly of him, but I will tell you that Bush NEVER lied about those things. Maybe I'll post the link again, and this time, make sure it's hyperlinked:

http://archive.frontpagemag.com/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=4255

And for the record, Colbert isn't a conservative, he's a liberal in conservative's clothing. A true conservative would be someone like Adam Baldwin, or Clint Eastwood, or John Wayne, or Rush Limbaugh.

Re: The prequels were better


No, if facts have any bias, they aren't facts, period. Facts are supposed to be completely unbiased.


If an individual or group has a dogmatic, limited worldview, when presented with facts which runs contrary to that worldview, they will dismiss said facts as having a bias against their interests. Climate change and evolution are two examples which have been politicized and disputed in spite of their factual nature.

As an example, consider this news story:

http://www.npr.org/sections/alltechconsidered/2016/11/23/503146770/npr-finds-the-head-of-a-covert-fake-news-operation-in-the-suburbs

Within this story there is this very interesting quote:

Coler says his writers have tried to write fake news for liberals — but they just never take the bait.



Also, if the general public was truly as dubious as you claim, why is it that Bush won a second term when they could have easily voted for John Kerry in droves?


It was a very close race, and the short answer is that people chose to go with the devil they knew. There was also still a lot of homophobia and opposition to gay marriage. http://www.cbsnews.com/news/why-bush-won-02-11-2004/
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/religionandethics/2004/11/05/november-5-2004-election-2004-analysis/13570/


And I noticed you completely ignored the link I gave you, because that general in question, Gen. Al-Tikriti, had been formerly Saddam Hussein's southern regional commander, actually verified, via videotape, that he was in fact housing WMDs, and he wouldn't have ANY reason to lie, much less verify George W. Bush was telling the truth. I may not be Bush's biggest fan or think highly of him, but I will tell you that Bush NEVER lied about those things. Maybe I'll post the link again, and this time, make sure it's hyperlinked:


There are several problems with that article. The first one is that the purported interview with Al-Tikriti is not genuinely confirmed. It is described as "(covered in silhouette and voice modified)" This means it could really be anyone making those assertions.

Did you do any research on Al-Tikriti outside of that article? The information provided is dubious at best.

The WMDs still have not been found.


And for the record, Colbert isn't a conservative, he's a liberal in conservative's clothing.


Stephen Colbert is what's called a "satirist." And yet you didn't know that.


Time to make up a new signature.

Re: The prequels were better


If an individual or group has a dogmatic, limited worldview, when presented with facts which runs contrary to that worldview, they will dismiss said facts as having a bias against their interests. Climate change and evolution are two examples which have been politicized and disputed in spite of their factual nature.

As an example, consider this news story:

http://www.npr.org/sections/alltechconsidered/2016/11/23/503146770/npr-finds-the-head-of-a-covert-fake-news-operation-in-the-suburbs


Climate change has not actually been proven at all, nor has evolution. You want proof? Try an apple falling from a tree proving gravity. Darwin said we'd only need a century to get countless evidence towards Evolution. We have yet to get one solid lead towards Evolution.

Either way, it doesn't change that facts are supposed to lack bias, period, no questions asked. Like how gravity isn't biased.


It was a very close race, and the short answer is that people chose to go with the devil they knew. There was also still a lot of homophobia and opposition to gay marriage. http://www.cbsnews.com/news/why-bush-won-02-11-2004/
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/religionandethics/2004/11/05/november-5-2004-election-2004-analysis/13570/


Not really, from what I gathered, Bush actually won the Electoral College by a considerable amount (35 electoral college votes), and the Electoral College, NOT the Popular Vote, is what matters in an election. And BTW, there is no "homophobia." It's people who are against gay marriage. We have no fear of gays, we just don't approve of their lifestyle.


There are several problems with that article. The first one is that the purported interview with Al-Tikriti is not genuinely confirmed. It is described as "(covered in silhouette and voice modified)" This means it could really be anyone making those assertions.

Did you do any research on Al-Tikriti outside of that article? The information provided is dubious at best.

The WMDs still have not been found.


Yeah, and yet the mainstream media believes an "anonymous source" regarding wiretappings from the NSA?

Besides, you DO realize that if Al-Tikriti openly showed himself, he'd be gunned down in public, right? Of course he'd hide himself. If you wanted to talk to a journalist and feared for your life, would YOU want to expose yourself to the very people who would try to kill you?

Besides, turns out WMDs WERE found in Iraq, and since it came from the New York Times (albeit grudgingly), one of your favorite sources, even you can't deny it: http://www.thepoliticalinsider.com/bombshell-new-york-times-reports-wmds-found-iraq/

There's also this, which covered how the CIA thought they were moved to Syria: http://www.poynter.org/news/mediawire/337041/behind-60-minutes-decision-to-air-video-of-sarin-gas-victims-in-syria/

Heck, even Bill Clinton back in 1998, one of your pet presidents, admitted there were WMDs in Iraq. Are you going to call HIM a liar?

Also, this article: http://www.wnd.com/2006/06/36714/

And while we're at it, here's proof that Saddam and Bin Ladin were working together: http://www.wnd.com/2006/06/36589/


Stephen Colbert is what's called a "satirist." And yet you didn't know that.


Oh, I know what a satirist is, it's a person who pokes fun via exaggeration of a certain group or person. But you quoted him as if he were being serious about facts being biased toward liberals.

Re: The prequels were better


Climate change has not actually been proven at all, nor has evolution.


Both have been.

https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/indicators/

http://www.climate-change-guide.com/evidence-of-climate-change.html

http://climate.nasa.gov/

https://www.epa.gov/climatechange/climate-change-basic-information

http://www.nola.com/science/index.ssf/2016/12/shrinking_mountain_glaciers_cl.html

http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-to-determine-the-scientific-consensus-on-global-warming/

And on evolution:

http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence

http://www.proof-of-evolution.com/evolution-evidence.html

http://www.haydenplanetarium.org/tyson/read/2008/01/04/science-evolution-and-creationism

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2015/01/150125-bill-nye-science-guy-evolution-creation-book-talk-culture/

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/lines_02

http://www.dummies.com/education/science/biology/what-evidence-supports-the-theory-of-evolution/

https://www.britannica.com/science/evolution-scientific-theory


Not really, from what I gathered, Bush actually won the Electoral College by a considerable amount


Bush won 286 electoral votes to Kerry's 251. That wasn't that much. In contrast, in 2008, Obama won 365 to McCain's 173. In 2012, Obama won 332 to Romney's 206. In 1992, Clinton won 370 to Bush's 168, etc. Do you ever do any research?


It's people who are against gay marriage. We have no fear of gays, we just don't approve of their lifestyle.


Is their lifestyle any of your business?


Besides, you DO realize that if Al-Tikriti openly showed himself, he'd be gunned down in public, right?


Why? Salman Rushdie is still around. I met him a few months ago. He gave a lecture.

Valerie Plame is also safe here in the U.S, in spite of her cover as an agent being blown as a matter of political vengeance by the W. Bush administration --
an act which George H.W. Bush explicitly described as "treason."

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-21786506

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/mar/18/panorama-iraq-fresh-wmd-claims


Besides, turns out WMDs WERE found in Iraq, and since it came from the New York Times (albeit grudgingly), one of your favorite sources, even you can't deny it:


They found a cache of very old abandoned chemical weapons from the 1990's Remember, we went to war because of claims that Hussein was working on building brand new nuclear weapons.


Oh, I know what a satirist is, it's a person who pokes fun via exaggeration of a certain group or person. But you quoted him as if he were being serious about facts being biased toward liberals.



As the full content of this post shows, you do not understand irony.

Time to make up a new signature.

Re: The prequels were better


Both have been.

https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/indicators/

http://www.climate-change-guide.com/evidence-of-climate-change.html

http://climate.nasa.gov/

https://www.epa.gov/climatechange/climate-change-basic-information

http://www.nola.com/science/index.ssf/2016/12/shrinking_mountain_glaciers_cl.html

http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-to-determine-the-scientific-consensus-on-global-warming/

And on evolution:

http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence

http://www.proof-of-evolution.com/evolution-evidence.html

http://www.haydenplanetarium.org/tyson/read/2008/01/04/science-evolution-and-creationism

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2015/01/150125-bill-nye-science-guy-evolution-creation-book-talk-culture/

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/lines_02

http://www.dummies.com/education/science/biology/what-evidence-supports-the-theory-of-evolution/

https://www.britannica.com/science/evolution-scientific-theory


No, actually, they have not. Name me one species explicitly confirmed to have changed from one species into another. And as far as climate change, give me one reason it's confirmed. And don't use rising thermometers in city areas, because the heat of the sun combined with the asphalt radiating heat has been proven to mess with the instruments.


Bush won 286 electoral votes to Kerry's 251. That wasn't that much. In contrast, in 2008, Obama won 365 to McCain's 173. In 2012, Obama won 332 to Romney's 206. In 1992, Clinton won 370 to Bush's 168, etc. Do you ever do any research?


Yes, actually, I DO do research. How ELSE was I able to give you those links and quotes?

Besides, Donald Trump blew away Hillary Clinton in this election just by Electoral votes.


Why? Salman Rushdie is still around. I met him a few months ago. He gave a lecture.

Valerie Plame is also safe here in the U.S, in spite of her cover as an agent being blown as a matter of political vengeance by the W. Bush administration --
an act which George H.W. Bush explicitly described as "treason."

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-21786506

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/mar/18/panorama-iraq-fresh-wmd-claims


It just means they're waiting for the perfect opportunity to kill him.

As far as Valerie Plame, first of all, that was Richard Armitage who did that, NOT the W. Bush administration. Second of all, there's little indication that she was in the Identities Act, so it's unclear if she was even CIA at all.

Also, I might as well remind you that Ion Mihai Pacepa is currently in hiding even after his defection as well as Ceausceau's death, and can't even make direct appearances due to threats against his life.


They found a cache of very old abandoned chemical weapons from the 1990's Remember, we went to war because of claims that Hussein was working on building brand new nuclear weapons.


No, he claimed that Hussein was working on WMDs. He NEVER said they were nuclear. In fact, what he was referring to were chemical weapons, which he HAD a history of using. Stop assuming that just because it's a WMD, that must automatically mean an atomic bomb. There's also Sarin Gas, for example. And even if he WERE wrong, that didn't mean he lied. It just means he got faulty intel.

Besides, you should read up here: http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Iraq_War&curid=42960&diff=1294541&oldid=1291265#Weapons_of_Mass_Destruction


As the full content of this post shows, you do not understand irony.


I know what Irony is, it's basically where you deliberately say something the opposite of what you mean in a humorous or sarcastic manner. However, that was NOT irony I read in there. What is irony is saying something like "Like hell I will" regarding doing something.

Re: The prequels were better


No, actually, they have not. Name me one species explicitly confirmed to have changed from one species into another.


You really don't understand what evolution is, do you? Click the links and get an education. Go to a museum of Natural History. Ask why there needs to be a different flu vaccine every year.


And as far as climate change, give me one reason it's confirmed.


I gave you 7 links. Click on a few. Rising average global temperatures are extremely well documented. 2016 is currently the hottest year on record, which beat out 2015, which beat out 2014. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instrumental_temperature_record

16 of the 17 hottest years on record have occurred in this century.


How ELSE was I able to give you those links and quotes?


And so much inaccuracy.


Donald Trump blew away Hillary Clinton in this election just by Electoral votes.


Not really. And he lost the popular vote by almost 3 million. To win the electoral vote without the popular vote has only happened four times prior to this year. In all of those cases the popular vote discrepancy was in the thousands.

Hillary won the popular vote by almost 3 million.


No, he claimed that Hussein was working on WMDs. He NEVER said they were nuclear.


Actually, he did. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9leNE7nXUEUhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niger_uranium_forgeries


I know what Irony is, it's basically where you deliberately say something the opposite of what you mean in a humorous or sarcastic manner.


And you do not know how to apply it to your own situation.





Time to make up a new signature.

Re: The prequels were better


You really don't understand what evolution is, do you? Click the links and get an education. Go to a museum of Natural History. Ask why there needs to be a different flu vaccine every year.


I know what evolution is. Evolution is where one species changes into another species entirely, and no, there IS no proven method of evolution (The flu doesn't count).


I gave you 7 links. Click on a few. Rising average global temperatures are extremely well documented. 2016 is currently the hottest year on record, which beat out 2015, which beat out 2014. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instrumental_temperature_record

16 of the 17 hottest years on record have occurred in this century.


Yeah, well, I don't recall seeing any polar ice caps melting or Polar Bears going extinct, which is what the climate change folks have been pushing since at least the 70s. And BTW, the hottest year on record in actuality was 1934.

And BTW, the earth has been warming up since the 1800s, and it's gone through cooling and warming for millions of years. There's absolutely no reason why that's confirmed as climate change.


And so much inaccuracy.


Not really, a lot of the documents made pretty clear that there were indeed WMDs and all of that, and even one of Hussein's generals confirmed it.



Not really. And he lost the popular vote by almost 3 million. To win the electoral vote without the popular vote has only happened four times prior to this year. In all of those cases the popular vote discrepancy was in the thousands.

Hillary won the popular vote by almost 3 million.


Actually, Hillary lost the popular vote, and if anything, there is ties to voter fraud on her part in the supposed win in the popular vote. Case in point: http://www.minyanville.com/business-news/markets/articles/2523election-2523trump-2523clinton-2523recount-2523ballots/12/14/2016/id/59000


And you do not know how to apply it to your own situation.


More like you are trying to find a way out of admitting you were wrong and acting like Steven Colbert was a conservative and acting like facts are biased towards liberals when facts have no bias.

Re: The prequels were better


Evolution is where one species changes into another species entirely, and no, there IS no proven method of evolution


Wrong.

Definition of evolution
1
: one of a set of prescribed movements
2
a : a process of change in a certain direction : unfolding
b : the action or an instance of forming and giving something off : emission
c (1) : a process of continuous change from a lower, simpler, or worse to a higher, more complex, or better state : growth (2) : a process of gradual and relatively peaceful social, political, and economic advance
d : something evolved
3
: the process of working out or developing
4
a : the historical development of a biological group (as a race or species) : phylogeny
b : a theory that the various types of animals and plants have their origin in other preexisting types and that the distinguishable differences are due to modifications in successive generations; also : the process described by this theory
5
: the extraction of a mathematical root
6
: a process in which the whole universe is a progression of interrelated phenomena



Yeah, well, I don't recall seeing any polar ice caps melting or Polar Bears going extinct


Then you haven't been paying attention. The ice caps are melting.
https://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/thick-melt.html

The numbers of polar bears are dwindling. http://www.worldwildlife.org/species/polar-bear


the hottest year on record in actuality was 1934.

In the U.S. This is global. And this one anomaly for one area did not impact the global measurement averages. If you clicked the links provided you would have read that.


and it's gone through cooling and warming for millions of years.


The amount of temperature change we've seen over the past century is wildly accelerated. Under normal interactions, we are about a thousand years ahead of schedule.


Not really, a lot of the documents made pretty clear that there were indeed WMDs and all of that, and even one of Hussein's generals confirmed it.


George W. Bush admitted he didn't. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=soohikNdbWs


Hillary lost the popular vote


Wrong. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/133Eb4qQmOxNvtesw2hdVns073R68EZx4SfCnP4IGQf8/htmlview?sle=true#gid=19

That article is also incorrect in its conclusions. http://www.theepochtimes.com/n3/2197761-election-recount-michigan-will-audit-detroit-vote/


More like you are trying to find a way out of admitting you were wrong and acting like Steven Colbert was a conservative and acting like facts are biased towards liberals when facts have no bias.


You have a dizzying intellect.

The point has been explained, you just lack the wit to comprehend it.

Time to make up a new signature.

Re: The prequels were better


Wikipedia and NYTimes were both Left-wing rags. Next time, try a source that actually IS unbiased.

And BTW, one of Saddam's own generals confirmed that Saddam DID indeed have WMDs.

http://archive.frontpagemag.com/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=4255
FrontPage Magazine has a right-wing bias.

"Have to say, Jimmy - you turned into a real impressive fighter. If I was ol' Mengsk, I'd be runnin' scared from you, too."
"You really mean that, Tychus?"
"Nah. I was just kiddin'."

Re: The prequels were better

First of all, Lucas's main ire was at Nixon, NOT Bush. Bush was secondary at most. He even made this clear during the 2005 Cannes Film Festival. Probably the only thing that can directly be tied to Bush was the moronic "If you're not with me, then you are my enemy" statement by Vader and Obi-Wan's equally moronic response that if anything painted the latter as a nihilist.

Second of all, currently, the dominant view in America, at least as painted by Hollywood, the education system, and news media, is that Che Guevara is a great guy, as was Mao, America stinks, and that we should live like in Cuba. And quite frankly, showcasing the Arabs, Iranians, North Koreans, and the like as villains actually WOULD be unique especially when we've already got people trying to paint Iranians, Arabs, heck, even North Koreans as being good or at least misunderstood people, cramming it in our Hollywood films and Classrooms. I'd know because I had to sit through such crap myself. And honestly, the Vietcong being good guys was a cliché from the 1960s/1970s, and was quite frankly wrong (don't forget, it was largely thanks to Ho Chi Minh that the Boat People existed, not to mention the Khmer Rouge, which were originally an offshoot of the NVA/Vietminh/Vietcong among other things.). You want actual balls? Try painting either Mao Zedong or Che Guevara as bad guys and not laudable people.

Re: The prequels were better

you lack any and all independent thought. in your mind every liberal thought is wrong and every conservative thought is correct. my how blissful your ignorance must be. then again you aren't one for critical thinking. you do believe in a sky fairy for absolutely no reason at all. and that is the base of all your stupidity and incuriosity. so sad.

Re: The prequels were better

Given your pathetic taste in films - I'm not surprised you feel that way.

Re: The prequels were better


The prequels were better



No. They weren't. At all. Ever.



No shirt, no shoes, no SEXY.

Re: The prequels were better

Yes, they will be, forever. At least the prequels tried to be original, unlike The Force Awakens

Re: The prequels were better

Very well said. I would have just went with 'Very Unoriginal' and 'pandered' to Star Wars FanBoys base.

Re: The prequels were better

Originality isn't everything, especially when it's accompanied with terrible writing, atrocious direction, and awful acting. Whatever the faults of TFA at least if feels like a more organic film experience than those ill-conceived prequels.

Re: The prequels were better

the only people who like this film are feminists and brain dead hype train zombies. easily the worst star wars movie and definitely the prequels were way better. At least they were original and true to the universe

Re: The prequels were better


Con's;
*beep* story
MarReySue (for those that don't it's a play on words. A Mary Sue is a character that is so perfect at everything she does.) (I did not create the word MarReySue, saw it in another comment on here)


The Prequels had a literal Jedi Jesus.

Re: The prequels were better


The Prequels had a literal Jedi Jesus.


Who kept fouling up. He didn't save his mother, he and the woman he was assigned to protect got captured when they went to rescue Obi Wan, he went to the Dark Side to save his wife, but ended up killing her in a fit of rage, instead. This more closely resembles Herakles than Jesus.

Time to make up a new signature.

Re: The prequels were better

That all happend later, same with Luke by the way.
In their first movies they were just the chosen ones, they can do anything.
Fighting through a battle Station full of Stormtroopers?
No Problem for a Farmboy.
Destroying a Commandoship?
No Problem for a nine year old.

It was in the later movies were some flaws in Luke and Anakin are introduced, during their Jedi education.
Rey only had her first movie and unlike Luke or Anakin was actually captured.
Her Jedi Training with Luke comes in Episode VIII.

Re: The prequels were better


Fighting through a battle Station full of Stormtroopers?
No Problem for a Farmboy.


Luke was primarily disguised as a stormtrooper, and he didn't use the Jedi Mind Trick until Return of the Jedi (Unlike Rey, he saw Obi Wan use that trick and it would have come in handy when rescuing Leia. All he'd have to do is instead of saying that Chewbacca was a prisoner transfer, was instead use the trick to instruct the troopers to release Leia into their custody.)


Destroying a Commandoship?
No Problem for a nine year old.


Done with Anakin using skills the movie established he already possessed.

Rey can instantly use the Jedi Mind Trick and is similarly instantly skilled in dueling with a lightsaber. As is Finn, surprisingly enough. Why that stormtrooper whipped out that baton to fight him with instead of just shooting him is anyone's guess.


Her Jedi Training with Luke comes in Episode VIII.


She seems to be already fairly proficient in her Jedi skills, just by saying "The Force." No further training required.

Time to make up a new signature.

Re: The prequels were better

At one point Luke and Leia were trapped when Luke destroyed the bridge controll and Stormtroopers fired from both sides.
He didnt even break a sweat.

Anakin was a Podracer, Race Driver and fighter pilot are not the same.
Reys previously showed combat skills that came much closer to what she did in her fight with Kylo.
And where did Finn show any Lightsaber skills other than stabbing some Stormtrooper?

Force sensitives can use the Force even without training, the oh so much better Prequels showed that Anakin could use Precognition long before his training began.

Re: The prequels were better


At one point Luke and Leia were trapped when Luke destroyed the bridge controll and Stormtroopers fired from both sides.
He didnt even break a sweat.


So? Leia shot at stormtroopers while Luke managed to throw a grappling line onto some pipes and they were able to swing across. While the implication may be that he used The Force, it wasn't established as a particularly tricky move. Indiana Jones did similar stuff.


Anakin was a Podracer, Race Driver and fighter pilot are not the same.


Apparently not in the Star Wars universe. Apparently, the controls are standard enough that if you know how to pilot one, you can figure out how to pilot another. This is implied in the original Star Wars and discussed and shown in Phantom Menace.


Reys previously showed combat skills that came much closer to what she did in her fight with Kylo.


A staff is different from a sword. But besides that, Ren, logically, would have had more formal training and established practice rooms for himself (at least) so he could maintain skills. Rey shouldn't have been able to beat him.


And where did Finn show any Lightsaber skills other than stabbing some Stormtrooper?


Why would Finn in essence bring a knife to a gunfight? The logical result of him going out into battle with a lightsaber, considering he had never held that weapon before, should have looked like this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=anEuw8F8cpE


Force sensitives can use the Force even without training, the oh so much better Prequels showed that Anakin could use Precognition long before his training began.


The earlier films shows that some skills are instinctive, but, like real world innate skills, can be expanded and honed with practice, while other aspects (such as Jedi Mind Trick and lightsaber dueling) requires specific training.

Time to make up a new signature.

Re: The prequels were better


So? Leia shot at stormtroopers while Luke managed to throw a grappling line onto some pipes and they were able to swing across. While the implication may be that he used The Force, it wasn't established as a particularly tricky move. Indiana Jones did similar stuff.



So if a simple Farmboy just becomes Indiana Jones is not a Gary Stu?



Apparently not in the Star Wars universe. Apparently, the controls are standard enough that if you know how to pilot one, you can figure out how to pilot another. This is implied in the original Star Wars and discussed and shown in Phantom Menace.



Pod Racers only move foreward, a Fighter has to move within all three Dimensions, not to forget that he has to fire at his opponents.


Why would Finn in essence bring a knife to a gunfight? The logical result of him going out into battle with a lightsaber, considering he had never held that weapon before, should have looked like this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=anEuw8F8cpE


Because thats the only Weapon he got.
Why didn´t the Stormtrooper just shoot him?
Maybe didn´t want him to die to quickly.
And in the End, Finn lost that fight so its not like he was a super awesome Lightsaber fighter.


The earlier films shows that some skills are instinctive, but, like real world innate skills, can be expanded and honed with practice, while other aspects (such as Jedi Mind Trick and lightsaber dueling) requires specific training.



No they didn´t.
They showed that some Force Sensitives already know some Force Powers, but they never establish which ones.
Anakin hat Precognition and Leia had Telepathy but Luke showed none before Obi-Wan started some Training.
Lightsaber Duelling is not really a force technique but rather a combination of physical combat and Force Powers.
There was never established that Mind Controlling cant´t be a instinctive Power, in Fact nobody ever teaches Luke the mind controll in the movies.


Re: The prequels were better


So if a simple Farmboy just becomes Indiana Jones is not a Gary Stu?


You should really give farmboys more credit. Luke undoubtedly has experience around heavy machinery and, like many farmboys, would undoubtedly be prone to mischief which could very well at times include swinging from rafters. Also, he used the grappling hook for its specific purpose.


Pod Racers only move foreward, a Fighter has to move within all three Dimensions, not to forget that he has to fire at his opponents.


Except, as shown in Phantom Menace, Anakin does know how to manipulate his podracer up ramps and control thrusts to bring in for a smooth landing. As far as firing at his opponents goes, the movie shows him pushing buttons to figure out the triggers and gets several wrong tries.


Because thats the only Weapon he got.


Not much of a weapon without training and skills. Pure luck (or bad writing) that he wasn't shot.


Maybe didn´t want him to die to quickly.


Why? What would be the motive, in the middle of a battle, to suddenly let things get that personal? It would have made more sense for the trooper to say "Traiter!" and shoot him rather than suddenly pull out some new staff-like weapon that lightsabers, for some reason, can't cut through.


They showed that some Force Sensitives already know some Force Powers, but they never establish which ones.
Anakin hat Precognition and Leia had Telepathy but Luke showed none before Obi-Wan started some Training.
Lightsaber Duelling is not really a force technique but rather a combination of physical combat and Force Powers.
There was never established that Mind Controlling cant´t be a instinctive Power, in Fact nobody ever teaches Luke the mind controll in the movies.


It showed that Anakin had some precognition. It showed that Leia could instinctively have some Force visions prior to her awareness of her heritage. In Empire, she reacted to Luke specifically calling out to her. One can presume, considering the dialog, that Luke has the same skills as Anakin. And while it doesn't show Yoda specifically teaching Luke the Jedi Mind Trick, it does show Luke getting trained and learning various skills. There is nothing to indicate that he wouldn't have been taught the trick off-screen.

The implication in the first six movies, is that training is required.


Time to make up a new signature.

Re: The prequels were better


You should really give farmboys more credit. Luke undoubtedly has experience around heavy machinery and, like many farmboys, would undoubtedly be prone to mischief which could very well at times include swinging from rafters. Also, he used the grappling hook for its specific purpose.



Maybe the Empire should hire Farmboys. Its not just the swinging, he killed a trained Soldier while they kept missing them. And during all that he stayed absolutely cool. At this point he was already a action hero.


Except, as shown in Phantom Menace, Anakin does know how to manipulate his podracer up ramps and control thrusts to bring in for a smooth landing. As far as firing at his opponents goes, the movie shows him pushing buttons to figure out the triggers and gets several wrong tries.


Thats nice but has nothing to do with the controls of a fighter.
In a Pod-Race there are no opponents above or beneath you.


Not much of a weapon without training and skills. Pure luck (or bad writing) that he wasn't shot.



He killed the Trooper by suprise and not just dumb luck and right after that "Traitor" appeared. And the alternative would be fighting with his bare hands.


Why? What would be the motive, in the middle of a battle, to suddenly let things get that personal? It would have made more sense for the trooper to say "Traiter!" and shoot him rather than suddenly pull out some new staff-like weapon that lightsabers, for some reason, can't cut through.



Because he hates his guts to much to kill him fast?
And he was good enough with this thing to kick Finns Ass.
Sure its a bit of a 80s thing but its not the first time opponents rather used their fists instead of guns.


One can presume, considering the dialog, that Luke has the same skills as Anakin.



Where was a Dialogue that Luke has those Skills, Luke said that he is a talented Pilot but so is Han who is no Force sensitive.


And while it doesn't show Yoda specifically teaching Luke the Jedi Mind Trick, it does show Luke getting trained and learning various skills. There is nothing to indicate that he wouldn't have been taught the trick off-screen.


If Yoda trained Luke in Telepathy, the only way could be that he uses it on him.
And the same happened to Rey when Kylo scanned her.

Re: The prequels were better


Maybe the Empire should hire Farmboys. Its not just the swinging, he killed a trained Soldier while they kept missing them.


As was indicated, he was already a good shot. Lucas allowed for dramatic license. The troopers could hit everyone except the heroes. This was intentional and hearkened back to the old B movies and chapter serials which inspired Star Wars.


Thats nice but has nothing to do with the controls of a fighter.
In a Pod-Race there are no opponents above or beneath you.


When you watch the pod race, he does "fly" over his opponents in several scenes.


Because he hates his guts to much to kill him fast?
And he was good enough with this thing to kick Finns Ass.
Sure its a bit of a 80s thing but its not the first time opponents rather used their fists instead of guns.



It was a contrived scene in a movie which was filled to overflowing with contrived scenes.


Where was a Dialogue that Luke has those Skills, Luke said that he is a talented Pilot but so is Han who is no Force sensitive.


The movie shows Luke as having an interest in mechanics. ("I was going in Tosche Station to pick up some power converters.") Obi Wan's line "I understand you've become quite a good pilot, yourself."


If Yoda trained Luke in Telepathy, the only way could be that he uses it on him.
And the same happened to Rey when Kylo scanned her.


The subject isn't telepathy, but the Jedi Mind Trick. Yoda undoubtedly coached Luke in that technique verbally and with meditation.



Time to make up a new signature.

Re: The prequels were better


As was indicated, he was already a good shot. Lucas allowed for dramatic license. The troopers could hit everyone except the heroes. This was intentional and hearkened back to the old B movies and chapter serials which inspired Star Wars.



It was a contrived scene in a movie which was filled to overflowing with contrived scenes.


So if one movie makes it its okay but in the other not?


The movie shows Luke as having an interest in mechanics. ("I was going in Tosche Station to pick up some power converters.") Obi Wan's line "I understand you've become quite a good pilot, yourself."



Same with Rey who had a little obsession with Ships and collects the parts as her job.


The subject isn't telepathy, but the Jedi Mind Trick. Yoda undoubtedly coached Luke in that technique verbally and with meditation.


Thats just speculation. We barely see any force Training, for the most part its physical education.
There is no indication that reaching the mind of another beeing can be teached by meditation.


When you watch the pod race, he does "fly" over his opponents in several scenes.


Thats not the same, all Pod Racers race in the same direction.
Sometimes they jump or come from left or right but thats it.
There is no bunch of Pod Racers that come towards you, there are no pod Racers come from over and under you while aiming at you.
A Fighter has free movement in three dimensions, a pod Racer is more limited.
A Podracer cant make a 90 Degree turn up and fly upwards for a mile or so, it can jump a bit but thats it.
It is even more a difference than between a Car and a Plane.

Re: The prequels were better


So if one movie makes it its okay but in the other not?


There is a difference between a narrative conceit to establish a certain style (heroes don't get shot) and a contrivance for an action sequence which is ultimately meaningless (hero, with no training, runs out and gets into a swordfight against an opponent who would more logically just shoot him.) It would have made more sense if Finn had run out there with a blaster which jammed and led to his being captured.


Same with Rey who had a little obsession with Ships and collects the parts as her job.


It shows her collecting the parts. It doesn't establish her as an expert or a pilot until the plot suddenly requires her to possess these talents. When she does, she pilots the Millennium Falcon with more skill than Han Solo (flying it singlehandedly and perfectly lining up a shot for Finn). The movie states that it was her first time piloting that ship.


Thats just speculation. We barely see any force Training, for the most part its physical education.
There is no indication that reaching the mind of another beeing can be teached by meditation.


Except for the scenes where we see Yoda coaching Luke on meditation, which included detecting the Dark Side in the cave and seeing the future. ("Through the Force, things you will see. Other places. The future. The past. Old friends long gone.")


Thats not the same, all Pod Racers race in the same direction.
Sometimes they jump or come from left or right but thats it.
There is no bunch of Pod Racers that come towards you, there are no pod Racers come from over and under you while aiming at you.
A Fighter has free movement in three dimensions, a pod Racer is more limited.
A Podracer cant make a 90 Degree turn up and fly upwards for a mile or so, it can jump a bit but thats it.


It shows all of the racers going in the same direction. But it also shows many of them crashing and Anakin having to dodge the debris. Also, when he jumps, he has to be aware of what's underneath him, of who is coming up behind him, if anyone might be trying to "leapfrog" over him, etc.

Beyond that, the speeds are apparently so immense that Anakin is the only human who can do it. In contrast, many humans are able to pilot the space fighters, indicating slower speeds and the ability to survive even if they respond with somewhat slower reflexes.

Time to make up a new signature.

Re: The prequels were better


There is a difference between a narrative conceit to establish a certain style (heroes don't get shot) and a contrivance for an action sequence which is ultimately meaningless (hero, with no training, runs out and gets into a swordfight against an opponent who would more logically just shoot him.) It would have made more sense if Finn had run out there with a blaster which jammed and led to his being captured.


Enemies who duel in a honorable way instead of easy killing each other is just as much a style than the young heroe that succeeds where Soldiers fail.
Why do Action Heroes like Martin Riggs challenge the villains in a fistfight in Leathal Weapon, why didn´t Karl just shoot McClane in Die Hard, why don´t Jedi just throw heavy stuff at each other intead of fighting with Lightsabers?
Finn btw. has no real combat experience but as a Stormptrooper at least basic training.


It shows her collecting the parts. It doesn't establish her as an expert or a pilot until the plot suddenly requires her to possess these talents. When she does, she pilots the Millennium Falcon with more skill than Han Solo (flying it singlehandedly and perfectly lining up a shot for Finn). The movie states that it was her first time piloting that ship.


That was more of a luck shot and her interests in Ships was at least shown and not just stated.
Obi-Wan just mentioned that he heared that Luke was quite a good pilot thats no explanaition for military style pilot skills above the skills of the trained pilots that guarded the Empires newest Battle Station.


Except for the scenes where we see Yoda coaching Luke on meditation, which included detecting the Dark Side in the cave and seeing the future. ("Through the Force, things you will see. Other places. The future. The past. Old friends long gone.")


Not the same, because these Force skills are no manipulations of other persons.
He learned Telekinesis by moving objects and not through meditation.


It shows all of the racers going in the same direction. But it also shows many of them crashing and Anakin having to dodge the debris. Also, when he jumps, he has to be aware of what's underneath him, of who is coming up behind him, if anyone might be trying to "leapfrog" over him, etc.


Thats when he jumps but in Space, enemies can attack from every direction any time.
Come on its Space, it has absolute freedom in every direction. Its not the same as Racing on the Ground.


Beyond that, the speeds are apparently so immense that Anakin is the only human who can do it. In contrast, many humans are able to pilot the space fighters, indicating slower speeds and the ability to survive even if they respond with somewhat slower reflexes.


According to Wookiepedia the Max atmospheric Speed of a X-Wing is 1,050 km/h
A Pod Racer ca. 800 km/h. The Pod Racer Speed differs of course but the X-Wing Pilots are all human non Force Sensitives.

Re: The prequels were better


Enemies who duel in a honorable way instead of easy killing each other is just as much a style than the young heroe that succeeds where Soldiers fail.


Except that he was a stormtrooper. Unless there was something to specifically set him apart as a character, one could presume that he didn't have much in the way of honor when it comes to dueling, considering how they had no trouble shooting unarmed villagers at the start of the movie. There was nothing.


Why do Action Heroes like Martin Riggs challenge the villains in a fistfight in Leathal Weapon, why didn´t Karl just shoot McClane in Die Hard


I never did like the climax of Lethal Weapon. With Die Hard, the characters and their motivations were much more clearly established.


That was more of a luck shot and her interests in Ships was at least shown and not just stated.


Actually, the movie shows her scrounging around the ships and selling the parts for food. It doesn't show her using them beyond that purpose. And her piloting of the Falcon first time out still demonstrated skills which went beyond Han Solo's talents after he had possession of the craft for years.


Obi-Wan just mentioned that he heared that Luke was quite a good pilot thats no explanaition for military style pilot skills above the skills of the trained pilots that guarded the Empires newest Battle Station.


Luke's piloting wasn't exemplary. He almost crashes because of his own clumsiness and has to be rescued several times by other pilots.


Not the same, because these Force skills are no manipulations of other persons.
He learned Telekinesis by moving objects and not through meditation.


The point being that Yoda did give him instructions on meditation. One can just as easily presume that Luke spent several weeks with Yoda and that the movie did not bother with showing us all aspects of his training.


Thats when he jumps but in Space, enemies can attack from every direction any time.
Come on its Space, it has absolute freedom in every direction. Its not the same as Racing on the Ground.


And as shown in the film, when Pod Racing, danger also comes from every direction.


According to Wookiepedia the Max atmospheric Speed of a X-Wing is 1,050 km/h
A Pod Racer ca. 800 km/h. The Pod Racer Speed differs of course but the X-Wing Pilots are all human non Force Sensitives.


Dialogue in the movie:

Anakin: "I'm the only human who can do it."

Qui Gon: "You must have Jedi reflexes if you can race pods."

As you observed, X-Wing and Naboo Starfighters have primarily human pilots, no special Jedi skills required. (Unlike Pod racers)

Therefore, Naboo Starfighters and X-Wing fighters must be easier to pilot than Pod Racers.

Time to make up a new signature.

Re: The prequels were better


I never did like the climax of Lethal Weapon. With Die Hard, the characters and their motivations were much more clearly established.


When the Terrorists had McClane on the Roof, Karl wanted to shoot him from behind.
When he finally got him he chose the Fistfight instead of killing him.


And as shown in the film, when Pod Racing, danger also comes from every direction.


How can a opponent aproach from under him? And I say from under him and not him jumping over an opponent.


Actually, the movie shows her scrounging around the ships and selling the parts for food. It doesn't show her using them beyond that purpose. And her piloting of the Falcon first time out still demonstrated skills which went beyond Han Solo's talents after he had possession of the craft for years.


It also shows that she at least knows about ships, and Han handled much more troublesome Situations in the OT than her.


The point being that Yoda did give him instructions on meditation. One can just as easily presume that Luke spent several weeks with Yoda and that the movie did not bother with showing us all aspects of his training.


The Point is that the nature of Force Training is for the most part pure speculation. The Theme of his Lessons were, "do or do not, there is no try".


Dialogue in the movie:

Anakin: "I'm the only human who can do it."

Qui Gon: "You must have Jedi reflexes if you can race pods."

As you observed, X-Wing and Naboo Starfighters have primarily human pilots, no special Jedi skills required. (Unlike Pod racers)

Therefore, Naboo Starfighters and X-Wing fighters must be easier to pilot than Pod Racers.


Or that Lucas told us BS and forgott about all the human fighter Pilots.
And lets not forget that Stormtroopers use Speeder Bikes in a Forrest Area with way more obstacles than on the Pod Race.

Re: The prequels were better

Dude are you joking the prequels werent more true to the originals at all they destroyed the concept of the force the prequels were more original yes but everything they added all most all sucked force awakens played it more safe but the fights an the script were still much better then the prequels the acting in the prequels is some of the worst ever on screen

Post deleted

This message has been deleted.

Re: The prequels were better

I think Revenge of the Sith is a fantastic film.

Re: The prequels were better

I think Revenge of the Sith is a fantastic film.

Re: The prequels were better


I honestly believe this


I believe you because I also agree 100 percent! The only good thing about TFA is the effects. They are fantastic. But everything else was frankly garbage. For example, The Storm Troopers are now slaves who were forced into servitude? And only one, lone guy out of them all decided to turn on the empire? Run away? What would drive a man to kill innocent people if he now has the guns/tools to just kill those who are "imprisioning" them? Especially when its a young, whiny lil *beep* like Kilo Ren??

This film did NOTHING to elevate the franchise. In fact, it made things worse. Maybe they can somehow salvage the overall storyline going forward, but this one doesn't wet my appetite for more like The Phantom Menace did. Lucas knows how to entertain and he also knows how to craft a fun, yet epic film. I don't have fun with TFA and it didn't even feel at all Epic. It felt like it was going through the motions to just "get it done" so they could move on to the next one.

I feel the connection between the prequels and the Original trilogy but TFA doesn't feel connected at all to me. Throwing in the same characters isn't enough to make it Episode 7. They needed to carry over the same vibe, the same sense of wonder and amazement of the vast world we are being thrown into. It just feels hollow...and its a shame. I'm a huge Star Wars fan and I just can't get into TFA.

Who's strangling the cat?

Re: The prequels were better

hear hear!👏

Re: The prequels were better



Time to make up a new signature.

Re: The prequels were better

And, with all the flaws, the prequels are more rewatchable than this junk

even equiped with a shovel and you couldn't dig this
Top