star wars, why are the originals better?

I just got me somethin cool check these out



maybe some of you out there have heard of these movies. they're pretty good I think.


I'm sort of a 'new' fan to star wars-- the first time I ever saw a star wars movie I was almost 18 years old, just in time to catch Revenge of the Sith in theaters later that year. the original trilogy I saw were also all the "special edition" versions with all the extra CG and stuff.


for the longest time I never really understood the "magic" of the originals. the main reason I picked up this box set is the original trilogies have an extra disc on them that have the completely unaltered versions of the movies exactly as they aired back in 1970s and 80s.

I watched the originals and absolutely loved them. what kills me is when I think about it, I cannot think of a single reason why they were better. even without the fancy pants computer effects, the death star trench run scene in A New Hope had me completely sucked in and feeling like I needed to cheer when it blew up. I had similar feelings with Return but mostly they were "holy crap how did they do this in 1984??"


so the question really is-which IS the superior star wars of the 3? the prequels, the ORIGINALS, or the original-special editions?

Original original trilogy

yeah but why are they better is what I'd like to know

Like most movies made before CGI became so prevalent, the special effects of yore have a certain charm and appeal and perhaps realness to them that you can't get from computer effects. At least not yet. The opening scene of Revenge of the Sith is awesome and looks really great, but the huge space battle in Return of the Jedi is no slouch either despite being made 20 years earlier.

Adding CGI effects and alterations that aren't just cleaning up colors and the natural deterioration of film quality in preparation for a DVD transfer just cheapens the original films. Did you know that the "unaltered versions" of the OT you just got aren't even transfers from the original film? They're transfers from the laserdisc releases because George Lucas claims that the original film print no longer exists. Someone who doesn't care enough to preserve his own greatest work shouldn't really be trusted to alter them to the degree he has without tarnishing the movies.

That's why the OT is better than the Special Editions, but as for why the OT is better than the prequels, that's even more subjective. I'm just going to flat out say it: George Lucas is a terrible movie maker by himself. I've read a lot of sources in the past year including an interview with Gary Kurtz, producer of A New Hope and Empire Strikes Back, that detail that Lucas only made good movies because of the people around him. Back in those days, the people who worked with Lucas and even the actors actually said things like "no, that's a dumb idea, George." For the prequels, he surrounded himself with sycophants, and while some of the actors managed to bring out good performances, Lucas didn't really have anyone to criticize his ideas on the set. This made for poor direction and writing and in the end, it's just terrible to think of how the movies could have been so much better if there had been more people involved with creative decisions like in the early days.

I still love Star Wars, though, obviously.

The special edition films are far superior. The prequel trilogy is also better film making, especially episode 1.

Originally Posted by Gunslinger

The prequel trilogy is also better film making, especially episode 1.

while I don' agree that the prequel trilogy was better, I think episode 1 was the strongest out of the bunch since it finally explained what the force is, and jar jar binx was much better comic relief than R2d2 and 3cpo.

Originally Posted by taco_fox

Back in those days, the people who worked with Lucas and even the actors actually said things like "no, that's a dumb idea, George." For the prequels, he surrounded himself with sycophants, and while some of the actors managed to bring out good performances, Lucas didn't really have anyone to criticize his ideas on the set. This made for poor direction and writing and in the end, it's just terrible to think of how the movies could have been so much better if there had been more people involved with creative decisions like in the early days.

I still love Star Wars, though, obviously.

Why all the negativity about Lucas not taking orders from anyone? It's his franchise he should be able to do what he wants. as for criticism, that's what we have movie reviewers for. 2 and 3 were improvements as he got a taste of what film critics and fans wanted with each release.

Oh wow, Star Wars... I'm not a big film buff, in that "oeuvre" technotalk elitist kinda way that seems to be common now... I just know what I like. And I LIKE the original Star Wars, in a way that I could never really like all the prequels.

Star Wars.. Saw the entire trilogy in the theaters, one a year or so.. loooong waits between the movies, and no vcr/dvd's back then to rewatch. I think Laser Discs were new then - and so hideously expensive they were special order only deals. So each movie in the trilogy had to be a 'stand alone', and still tie into what happened before, jogging our fuzzy memories.

What made it so great? The characters and story. That's what movies were before cgi became prevalent - believable stories about believable people. Star Wars wasn't an 'epic saga' the way 2001: SO was (at least the first trilogy wasn't). 2001 was made to impress, and came off pretentious, and in the end unsatisfying. Impressive, but cold. Star Wars, on the other hand, was the story of a kid dead set on finding out what no one would tell him about his parents, his personal journey. The epic saga part was what was happening around him on the way. The Luke character was very realistic, like a lot of people we knew - idealistic, naive, stubborn, irritatingly egocentric, but good hearted... like real people, caught up in his own agenda, and taking most of the 'history' being made around him for granted.

Characters we met in the first movie had grown up, and matured by the 2nd movie, but still were very realistic. The Epic Saga part was beginning to impinge on their personal agendas, make demands on them, force them to make decisions and take stands - to find their place in the overall society around them and the history their lives can't avoid. By the third movie, we see these same characters living out their choices - and want to know how it all works out. The movie delivered.

All the special effects were cool at the time, but not necessary. And even though the movie had holes you could drive a truck through, they didn't detract from the basic story. The tragedy of the Prequels is that they focussed on plugging those plot holes, and special effects. And worse.. the human story we were given was not about good overcoming evil, it was about how to become a supervillian.. Not something anyone wanted to 'get into'... The emphasis on film technique had no overriding story line to make it the 'art' it obviously wanted to be - making them more like 2001 than the Original Star Wars. The Prequels also suffered from linkage. With the advent of vcr's, they no longer had to be standalone with tie-ins - they just picked up where the last one left off, assuming you would buy the vcr to 'refresh your memory' before trotting off to the theater for the next installment.

So which are the best Star Wars? Depends on what you are looking for. If you want the technical bits, definitely the Prequels. If you want a satisfying human story, definitely the Originals. As for me, hands down the human story in the originals.

I myself have some questions about the star wars.