Oh I so agree with you on this. They seem to focus to much time on the 'chase' scenes that are in every move (like the pod race) that seem to drag on way too long.

I don't consider this a double dip, just a pointless re-release. Why not just and added push for the existing release if you aren't going to add anything to it? But for the last time, LOTR was NOT a double dip, even in the sense that we were warned about it. It is a 6 disc set that was split into a 2 disc and 4 disc set. I wish people would stop bringing this up as an example of double dips that "don't piss people off."

Biggest problem??? AAHHHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAHAHAHHA. Trying to identify the "biggest problem" with them is the proverbial needle in a haystack.

There's a lot that can be fixed with good editing. While I enjoy the prequels, I do admit they have faults and having an objective editor take a pass at each of them might have done wonders.

Removing the million shots of ships landing or taking off (esp. in Episode III) would be a wonderful step in the right direction.

Keep milking it George.

Seems like many suckers .. errr ... customers are biting.

Keep on threadcrapping. No one gives a shit.

Aren't many of those used as establishing shots? Not that they're particularly needed as such, just asking.

--THX

Agreed! I've always said that the biggest problems with the prequels were the screenwriting and using a great editor. I honestly don't think Lucas' direction was the problem. Screenwriting and editing, especially from Burtt, were the main problems. Perhaps too much bluescreen hampered some of the actors, though McGregor, McDiarmid, Neeson, and Lee didn't seem to have much trouble with it. But I've been down this road a million times before.

I'd say the greatest problem was screenwriting. I can only imagine what a great screenwriter given some freedom could have done with the dialogue and story. That said, Episode III was a big improvement over TPM and AOTC in pretty much all areas.

Yes!

No, the main "flaw" of the prequels is that you were a kid when you saw the old movies and now you're an adult. Anyone who sees a huge drop in quality between the OT and the PT is crazy. If there was a huge drop in quality, it occured between "Empire" & "Jedi", not "Jedi" & "Menace". This is the way I look at it: Lucas made a good movie with "A New Hope", a great movie with "Empire", two crappy movies with "Jedi" and "Menace", another good movie with "Clones" and another great movie with "Sith". All the flaws that people bitch about in the PT are present in the OT, too. Even "Empire" has wooden acting and horrible dialogue. I really wish people could pull an "Eternal Sunshine" and erase the unrealistic standard they developed for "Star Wars" when they were 6-12 years old.

The flaw in that logic is that many of the people who loved the original trilogy where adults when those films first came out and are now still adults and hate the prequels.

Very well said. I have always said expectations are the problem with the prequels. I just watched sith again tonight, and Lucas really did something incredible. He made a great movie despite everyone in the world knowing how it was going end, and trying to live up to the expectations of the fans, and live down all the baggage of the PM haters. Sith is as good as anything in the OT. The writing for the most part was great, and the acting level went way up. Hayden and Natalie , who both took a beating for Clones were great. Natalie really brought some emotion to scenes just by some of her looks. Ewan just became Obiwan, and I don't even need to mention Ian McDiarmid.

Do yourself a favor pick up the Sith DVD next week, have a Star Wars marathon and you might be surprised how well these films come together as a complete story.

They still have 25 years of expectations and in many cases obsession.

I didn't see the original films in their entirety until the '97 rerelease and enjoyed the first two and most of the third. That said, on every conceivable level the prequels blow.

The original Star Wars & The Empire Strikes Back are great films, and every other Star Wars film after that is living by the Star Wars name.

The original has that magic that few films in cinema history have, I can't explain it but it does. Empire took the story and made it darker and edgier. It went in a totally different direction than the original, which no other sequel in history has ever done.

Return of the Jedi, is a good Star Wars movie, but it was a retread of the original (death star, tatooine, dagobah). This was a fitting ending because the other 2 were so great, it was just enough to make the fans happy. But you could see the cracks of the Star Wars films beginning to crumble (Ewoks, Slow Pacing, just a little kiddiness)

The Phantom Menace is the worst Star Wars film. True, it had expectation beyond belief, and for that I don't think it was fair, but the movie is still bad. The characters are dull, the kiddy jokes are at an all-time high, and Jar Jar is so bad, he actually ruins the first hour the movie.

The Attack of the Clones continued the tradition of Star Wars living off its name. It is better than The Phantom Menace, and that is what made it acceptable in 2002, "Well its not as bad as the last one!" Is this how we judge Star Wars films now! The romance was awful, the pacing was still slow, and the characters were still flat.

Revenge of the Sith was the best of the Prequels, but Lucas's flaws still showed in his directing and screeplay. It had great moments in this movie, and actually a few parts of real emotion and drama too, something that the first 2 prequels lacked. But again, not a great movie, just a really good prequel, cause the first two were average.

I disagree that Star Wars was part of our youth and has always been that, and they're all the same movies. I revisited these movies lately after the DVD's came out, and while finally watching all 6 now, The original Star Wars and Empire Strikes hold up well, and to me are still great movies. The characters have chemistry, the drama and tension are great in these movies, and you can see Lucas & Friends were not content on a good movie, they wanted a great movie. After Empire, Lucas knew that Star Wars would sell no matter what he gave us, and you no what, he was right.

Three Prequels did pretty damn good at the box office, and none of them are great. How about that for irony?

The original trilogy is way better than the prequels.

Today's generation of kids is not obsessed with the prequel trilogy because they are not great movies.

My generation of kids (I'm 34 now) was obsessed with the original trilogy because they are great movies.

Adjusted for inflation, the prequel trilogy did not do anywhere nearly as well at the box office as the original trilogy. And there are a lot more kids today than there were back then.

How many cool spaceships, vehicles, etc., can you name from the original trilogy? How many can you name from the prequel trilogy?

How many kids wanted to dress up for Halloween as characters from the original trilogy when it was first released? Now how many kids want to dress up as characters from the prequel trilogy?

The original trilogy is much better in every way.

Agreed, but Burtt didn't really didn't call the shots. Remember in TPM documentary when Lucas asked him to merge the two takes into one shot? Burtt was less than enthused.

But yeah, trim ten minutes from these films (coincidentally bringing them closer in length to the OT) and they'd be stronger.

If you can sit and watch "Return of the Jedi" and say it's better than "Revenge of the Sith" and even "Attack of the Clones", you are officially crazy.

If you just said Revenge of the Sith, I might let that slide, but seriously...Attack of Clones? :lol: I'm sorry, but no.

Are they still releasing this set? I've seen nothing further regarding this release.

Sorry, but that analogy holds no water. No films today do anywhere near the originals when adjusted for inflation. As for whethere there are more kids today, who knows. But I do know that a lot more people went to the theaters in the 70s and 80s than they do today. Far more tickets were sold back then than now. That's really why your comparison doesn't stand up under scrutiny.

Truthfully, if Lucas had just hired a great screenwriter and given him just a little bit of creative freedom, TPM and AOTC would have been a lot better. ROTS, which is very good in my opinion aside from some of the dialogue and uneven performances from Christensen, could have come close to be great. Why Lucas wrote them when even he admits that he's not good at it and doesn't enjoy it, is beyond me.

Yes, "Attack of the Clones" is better than "Return of the Jedi". "Clones" isn't perfect but it has it's moments but "Jedi" is just plain awful. Only "Menace" is worse and not by far. The comlete pussification of Han Solo in "Jedi" is a bigger slap to the face of fans than anything in the prequel trilogy, and the Ewoks are worse than Jar Jar. Add to that the fact that two of the major locations in the film were already used previously (Tattooine and a Death Star) and the one relatively-boring original location (Endor) you have the least-interesting film in the entire saga. The Luke/Vader/Palpatine stuff and the space battle are pretty good (and the only things keeping it above "Menace") but the complete mediorety that surrounds them makes them seem a lot better than they really are. For the record, this is how I'd rank the films:

#1: The Empire Strikes Back
#2: Revenge of the Sith
#3: A New Hope
#4: Attack of the Clones
#5: Return of the Jedi
#6: The Phantom Menace

Yeah, there was another huge factor: the lack of home video. Imagine not having the option of owning a movie you loved 4-6 months down the line. You had to see your favorite films theatrically then wait for the possibility that they'd be re-released theatrically or shown on television somewhere down the line. Given the short theatrical-to-video window today, you'd be crazy to see a film more than 2 or 3 times theatrically. To compare the years of 1977-1983 to the years of 1999-2005 really is an "apples and oranges" comparison, AND the entire point is moot considering the fact that you'd be hard-pressed to find someone who's ranking of their favorite "Star Wars" films had an exact correlation with their box-office performance. Practically every "Star Wars" fans would put "Empire" ahead of "Jedi" in their rankings but "Jedi" outgrossed "Empire" at the box office.

My thoughts exactly.

"and the Ewoks are worse than Jar Jar"

One good thing about Jar Jar is that he made me appreciate the Ewoks alot more. Ewoks are WAY less annoying than Jar Jar. Give me a break.

At least there was a one film break before those locales were re-used in JEDI. CLONES immediately reused two planets seen just one film earlier in MENACE. And at least we saw different facets of those original STAR WARS planets in JEDI. CLONES took us right back to many of the exact same locations we were before in the previous film. And I'm sorry but Endor provided a far more exciting backdrop for its action sequences in JEDI than Geonosis or Kamino did for anything in CLONES. What's more exciting? Two of your main characters racing at hundreds of miles an hour through a lush, densely-packed forest? Or a bunch of annonymous clonetroopers fighting against even more annoymous robots across yet another arid desert?

According to Box Office Mojo, the combined domestic and international box office for EMPIRE ($828.9 million) surpasses JEDI ($784.3) The Special Edition theatrical release bumped EMPIRE back above JEDI.

I used to be very disappointed in JEDI, aside from the speeder bike chase, the final battle and the Vader/Luke/Emperor showdown. It was an uninspired follow-up to a truly amazing, breathtaking film. But after the godawful prequels, which have virtually nothing of quality to offer (aside from a few hard-to-screw-up moments in SITH), JEDI is a masterpiece in comparison.

There's one thing JEDI has that none of the prequels have: Consistently likeable characters, no matter what direction the admittedly uneven plot takes them. I'll take that over digital eye candy, lifeless characters and silly storytelling any day.

All subjective, of course, but in my opinion The Phantom Menace is a better film than Attack of the Clones. Liam Neeson carries it. Jar Jar is a favorite object of scorn, but in a series of films plagued with complaints over wooden acting, he's the most animated character (no pun intended).

Clones has phenomenal action, but the romance is cringe-inducing, and C-3PO's barrage of one-liners during the arena battle is embarassing. I left the theater with the feeling that it was much better than Phantom, but after seeing it a few more times at home, I realized how bad it really was. Works as an action film, no question. Worthy of the Star Wars title. But little else.

The original trilogy worked due to the chemistry of the actors. Something the prequels are sorely lacking. Most of them are doing little more than reciting their lines. With little emotion or spirit. Cheesy lines may have existed for the OT actors, but at least they were able to inject life into those lines. I don't know what Lucas was thinking with his direction this time, but what he nailed with great success in 1977, he missed by a long shot in 1999.

Perhaps the beauty of the original film owes itself to the fact that Star Wars was an unknown brand at the time. Pressure is always worst at the starting point. You're presenting an untested, unproven product. It's at that point that your creative energies are working the hardest to pull the rabbit out of the magic hat.

But then Lucas became a god, and he knew he could take every liberty he wanted. And he did. Which was entirely his right, but just because you can do something doesn't mean you should. The quality of his craftsmanship collapsed. While the original trilogy had its share of space battles, most of its plot was dedicated to the evolution and maturation of the characters.

With the prequel trilogy, the focus shifted from characters to everything but. CGI became the story. Those with blood running through their veins became two-dimensional, with dialog and performances to match. A computer told the rest of the story. All spectacle; little substance. Lucas once said, "an effect without a story is just an effect," or something akin to that. When did he lose sight of that?

--THX