As good or bad as episodes I-III are, they’re still Star Wars, and there’s still plenty good to be said about them. Phantom Menace has probably the best lightsaber fight of any episode. Darth Maul’s sheer rage is the epitome of guttural sith combat, while Qui-Gon’s reflective style shows the serenity of years and years of Jedi training, and Kenobi’s constant impatience & succumbing foreshadows his shortcomings as a padawan trainer. All of Kenobi’s story is encompassed within that fight. And it doesn’t hurt that it’s well choreographed and insanely well done.
Agreed. Phantom Menace isn’t a great movie, but it’s got some fun action, even if pod racing lost its luster surprisingly fast. Clones isn’t perfect, but it’s a solid movie with lots of that space opera we all love so much, and Sith is just a fantastic movie in its own right. I put it right after Empire and next to New Hope.
Woof.
Phantom is just horrible (sorry, but can’t get past it.)
Clones is good enough. That’s actually the only one of the prequels we own.
Sith is … Well, let’s leave well enough alone.
Professionals on a closed track. Do not try this yourselves. YMMV.
Yeah, same here. My son is only three and a half now, but already points out all things Star Wars. I can’t wait to experience them on the big screen with him!
Ah, I love disagreements like this. It brings a genuine smile to my face.
Woah. That blew my mind as a point I hadn’t considered seeing it in the theatre with my 4 year-old daughter and future son.
Do I expose them to the horrifyingly bad misfire that the first three are? My answer is probably. I have my very passionate opinions about those poorly constructed and terribly executed on EVERY CONCEIVABLE LEVEL waste of space that the first three movies are, but I read something a little while ago I wish I could cite:
Bassically a guy who was eight years old when Phatom came out commented thusly, “Of course I loved Phantom when I was eight. I was eight. Now that I am 19 I recognize 4 through 6 are the superior films but I will always have a soft spot for the first three even tho I know they are fundamentally flawed”
So will I see them with my kids? Yes, yes I will. I will also bite my tongue after watching them and let them enjoy the fantasy of it. The burden of being a parent.
Think of it this way: show them the first three. They’ll like them because they’ve still got lightsaber fights and space battles. Then they’ll REALLY fall in love when they see that it gets better!
Yes. But only after the first three.
And while pointing out all the myriad ways they fail.
And also hitting them with a stick to make sure the lesson isn’t forgotten.
Cant wait star wars was made for cinema. 3D added bonus!
Seriously? 2 is the only one of the prequels I don’t really like. I love the music, and a couple of the scenes taken as individual scenes, but the movie itself kind of leaves me cold even though I have such great memories of seeing it at midnight. It’s the one I’ve seen the fewest, and the one I have the easiest time changing the channel or going to run errands during if it’s on.
3, on the other hand, jockeys with TESB for my favorite movie depending on what day it is. Especially when I think about seeing it for the third time and hearing the little kid in the row behind me, who had been talking all through the movie, asking his dad questions and who had been very quiet for several minutes, suddenly ask in a teary voice, “Why did Obi-Wan set Anakin on fire?” Tears of laughter every time.
I’m a terrible person.
I’m with you. 1 was bleah. 'Nuf said. 2 was “ok”. It got better towards the end with the action (especially lightsaber Yoda, but not the C-3PO skits). I have trouble with Padme falling for/comforting Anakin after he admitted to killing women and children after his mom died. 3 was my favorite of the prequels, but I think the end fight dragged a bit long.
Nothing wrong with other ppl having a different prequel movie as their favorite though. Different strokes for different folks… Gawd, and I aging myself by using that?
Bwahahahahaha! That is a memory for a LIFETIME right there.
And so on and so on and scooby dooby dooby…
For what it’s worth, my husband thinks I’m insane for liking TPM better than AOTC.
Also, “Padme, I picked sunflowers!” is one of the easiest ways to make me double over laughing 
I love the Robot Chicken guys so much.
Regardless of your thoughts on the 3D re-release:
My name is frakkintalos and I endorse this message.
Here is a interview with John Knoll who is supervising the 3-D conversion of the Saga. Especially if you’re into the technics of this technology it might be interesting for you.
http://www.awn.com/articles/people/john-knoll-talks-star-wars-3-d/page/1%2C1
One of the things that Jim did throughout Avatar is a relatively fixed rule: for the most part, camera converges on subject. So that makes whoever you’re focused on, whoever’s speaking, whatever the subject of the shot is converged at the screen plane. And so if that person walks forward in the shot, we actually rack convergence with them so that they stay at the screen. And that worked pretty well for Jim; it’s a convention that served him well. That’s not the convention that, for example, DreamWorks and Pixar are doing on their stereo projects. What they tend to do is define a good use of volume for a given shot – a lot of the DreamWorks seems to be about one-third forward, two-thirds back – and that’s fixed for the shot. So even for the character that’s walking forward, we don’t rack convergence with them. And we’re going a little bit more toward that style than Jim’s style.
BD: So, what’s your plan?
JK: What we’re doing that one-third forward, two-thirds back use of depth. We’ll be using floating windows to maximize good, usable, depth dynamic range. And then, stylistically, I go fairly realistic with the stereo. I don’t like hyper stereo and there are a lot of shots in the Star Wars pictures that are meant to be big vista spectacle. It’s a big wide view of a city or a space battle, and there’s nothing particularly close to camera.
Sorry for the long quote, but I didn’t see HtTYD in 3D, but I did see Avatar in 3D. Can ppl (or just someone) describe in laypersons terms the differences those movies had in 3D?
From my memory, Avatar in 3D put you within the environment. It’s the only recently made movie I’ve seen in 3D.
BD: Any plans to do tweaking?
JK: No, there are no plans to revisit shots or do any new work. This is just doing a stereo conversion of what we’ve got. This is a long process if done right and I have no intention of doing something that damages the brand. I think we’re going to set a new precedent for what conversion can look like?
rachel snort