Which is better Star Wars Episode I,II, or III

[{TcF}Dr.Penguin]

@ unit 33: I understand what you mean by faceless, and deaths don't matter but they changed that with the clone wars TV show still showing. If you haven't watched it it brings more personality to the clones and you are actually sad when certain ones die. I was just joking around about the kit fisto part and I think the originals are far better than the prequels, that is not debatable. 

I stopped watching the TV show because there were so many faceless deaths.

[Kit Fisto]

I stopped watching the TV show because there were so many faceless deaths.

They have to have faceless deaths, it's war! But they give more personality to select clones who play big parts in certain episodes.

[Unit 33]

They have to have faceless deaths, it's war!

What?
There are no "faceless" deaths in reality. All soldiers (usually) have families, friends and lives.
By taking away "meaningful" death from war it makes the war itself look idiotic and pointless (which it usually is I suppose).

In response to the duel being amazing....

[Kit Fisto]

I was talking about the Clone Wars tv show, NOT real life war.
The youtube video is pretty funny!

[Darth Gamer]

I didn't know that the battle between Maul, Obi-Wan and his master was so fake...

About war:
Our teacher said:
''When battles were fought with melee weapons, it was very hard to kill someone. The blood was pouring from the enemy's wounds and the enemy was asking for mercy...You had to kill that person.You had to hear his bones breaking as he was screaming, because he was in pain, and finally die because of you. Now war is like a video game. Shoot and you are done. No screams, no mercy, not too much blood...''.

[Unit 33]

You had to kill that person.You had to hear his bones breaking as he was screaming, because he was in pain, and finally die because of you. Now war is like a video game. Shoot and you are done. No screams, no mercy, not too much blood...''.

Quoted for truth.

War shouldn't be presented as so clean, as it is in the prequels.
Although the Originals aren't exactly a blood bath, they don't delude themselves into glamourising war.

(And the original scripts for Episode 6 was much darker...
It was called Revenge of the Jedi (with a much better poster)

In which Han Solo died in the Death Star explosion and Luke became a sort of Lone Ranger character.
The opening crawl even began with "The Rebellion is doomed.")


Anyway enough of this silliness.

I guess as dumb action films they work.
And it's not The prequel's fault. It's just a general mood change that cinema took in the 2000s.

[tirpider]

It's just a general mood change that cinema took in the 2000s.

You hit it, right there.

It's like the writers strike never ended, and everything is written by accountants and producers now.

[Kit Fisto]

Movies that present war as it is are rated R and turn away a huge audience. As with Star Wars, they make it so their younger fan base can watch the movies and not have to have their parents skip every bloody part! You don't see any Gladiator or Last of the Mohicans children toys!

[Unit 33]

Movies that present war as it is are rated R and turn away a huge audience. As with Star Wars, they make it so their younger fan base can watch the movies and not have to have their parents skip every bloody part! You don't see any Gladiator or Last of the Mohicans children toys!

You don't need gore to show the horror of war. (Hey that rhymes!)

For instance, the children's film "Antz" did a brilliant job of presenting war, and stayed family friendly.

[Kit Fisto]

So...
I don't think I can win this argument unless I get my dad aka second einstein in on this so you win Unit! I thought people were going to have a lively debate on the movies! Lol!

[BlackScorpion]

Unit, I'd be interested in hearing the logic behind your essay or whatever else you are willing to share.

So...
I don't think I can win this argument unless I get my dad aka second einstein in on this so you win Unit! I thought people were going to have a lively debate on the movies! Lol!

This is a lively debate.
But... I think I got some cogent points.  But mostly I'm making this up as I go along and I'm pretty tired. 

Warning: a wall of text follows.


I'd like to preface this that I recognize that this just about entirely subjective, and that everyone is entitled to their opinion, and I don't really have a whole ton of horses in this race so if it seems as if the tone is, for a lack of a better word, biting then that's probably a function of (a) it being fairly late and (b) the wandering nature of this post... seriously, it's that bad.  If I were you, I'll just ignore the following.  But I've already written it, posted it, and am now ETA-ing this.  Might as well keep it.

I'll try not to dwell on the subject specifically of war, because that's not, y'know, exactly what this thread is about.  But it's crucial in discussing issues in further depth.

What?
There are no "faceless" deaths in reality. All soldiers (usually) have families, friends and lives.
By taking away "meaningful" death from war it makes the war itself look idiotic and pointless (which it usually is I suppose).

Very good point!  However, at the same time, I would argue that there never was " 'meaningful' " because war inherently dehumanizes combatants, as portrayed in Eric Maria Reymarque's All Quiet on The Western Front (off-topic, I know).

Similarly, the differences between wars that occur in the real world and the wars that are depicted in the Star Wars films are that in real life, soldiers are adapted to war whereas in Star Wars, both the armies of the C.I.S. battle droids and of the clones were erected for the sole purpose of waging war.  I submit that these forces are not very "likeable," but I don't think that matters within the scope of the Star Wars films (see below).  I'd like to take this opportunity to shore up a flaw in my argument regarding a potential inability for the audience can relate to the armies in Star Wars: (this is a remark meant to be applied to total wars, as well as wars for which there is active conscription--I'm an American, so we don't have a draft [just compulsory registration] but if a war were to occur in the real world on the massive scale that occurs in the Star Wars films, it seems silly to argue that the draft would not be reinstated) Governments don't care whether it's you or it's me that's shooting the rifle; all the Governments care about is that it's the opposition who is meeting the bullet.  Cynical?  Perhaps.  But... "what use is it to [any given soldier] now [upon suffering a fatal injury] that [that soldier] was such a good mathematician in school?"

Movies that present war as it is are rated R and turn away a huge audience. As with Star Wars, they make it so their younger fan base can watch the movies and not have to have their parents skip every bloody part! You don't see any Gladiator or Last of the Mohicans children toys!

For what it's worth, The Hurt Locker won several Academy Awards.     But we're not talking about The Hurt Locker, we're talking about reality.  Wait, why are we talking about reality?  Why is whether or not the battles are between large, faceless legions something that matters?  I propose that the plot of the Star Wars films pertains to the classic struggle between two opposing forces colloquially termed "good" and "evil": between light and dark.  A battle fought by two behemoths who will go on until they destroy the other.  But there is a caveat: neither force is capable of destroying the other--they are both too powerful.  And so the process of instilling Dynamic Equilibrium (i.e., balance) begins, a process brought on under the watchful eye of the Jedi, a group devoted to the preservation of ideals such as law, justice, and order.  Good and evil are rarely quantifiable terms; instead, they seem to be that which, to borrow from the departed Justice Potter Stewart, one will be able to categorize when they see it.

These are, of course, philosophical ideals that we are discussing, ideals that do not have faces, instead possessing constituent representatives (e.g., *suppose the term "evil" can be analyzed objectively and Emperor Palpatine is deemed to be objectively "evil"* Emperor Palpatine is "evil,"but he is not the force of evil, because that is a force that exists in the hearts of individuals, a force to which Emperor Palpatine has succumed).  What I'm trying to say, and have probably failed to do so, is that the sequel films possess extraordinary allegorical value for good vs. evil: that battle is, certainly, not limited to the battle waged between David and Goliath.

TL;DR: I'm not really sure.  All I know is that, between starting and writing this wall of text, the day changed.

[SleepKiller]

Speaking as a person who likes the prequels better than the originals I will have to go with Episode III.  It is by far the most strongest out of the three in all aspects. There are some epic moments in it that the other movies just don't have. Order 66 being executed, Yoda facing Darth Siduis  and Obi One and Anakin duelling. The only other part in the saga that comes close to any of those parts is the Duel Of the Fates in Episode I.

Overall I am not such a fan of Star Wars any more as I once was a few years ago. Compared to the Lord Of Rings Star Wars just doesn't come close, the books are masterfully written.

[Led]

I think tirpider said it best (in some post on this forum):  the acting in the prequels was atrocious.  Both Anikans, and Padme are so bad, it borders on funny.  And its not that the acting in the originals was that great, either

As far as the protagonist of the movie, Lucas has often said that the story is told from the POV of the C3PO and R2D2.  I don't know how the scenes that they are not in become known to them, but that's what George said

I thought what is know now as Episode IV and V were pretty fun movies, and I've seen them many times.  The Episode VI, bleh.  Despite my comments about Anikan, Episodes II and III looks great on my 55 inch TV.

About the war stuff--meh, it is called Star Wars 

[SleepKiller]

Yes, the acting is awful with those two. Another reason why Lord Of The Rings is better...

[Snake]

I like them all but I think III was the coolest because it really hooked everything together and gave you that "Ohhh..!" feeling.

They should make a Clone Wars version of Band Of Brothers!