User blog comment:KaharZamet/Why the Prequels Are Better Than the Original Trilogy/@comment-26275684-20150830221409

>''CGI - Star Wars has always had CGI that was ahead of its time. ''

Thats true.

>The original trilogy had pretty advanced CGI for its time, but in terms of modern technology the CGI is not that great.

Correct.

>''The prequel trilogy had advanced CGI as well, and I’d still consider it pretty good today. ''

Well thats not really a fair point considering they were both made in different time periods.

>''Hopefully this means that we’ll get some of the best modern CGI in the sequel trilogy and anthology movies as well. ''

kind of irrelevant to your argument but ok

>CGI in the prequels is a controversial topic, as many of them do not like how heavy the CGI was used.

That would imply that people are split on their opinion. Its a pretty popular opinion that the CGI was bad.

'' But the heavy use of CGI was a good thing. It allowed them to bring to life amazing planets far more detailed than that of Tatooine and Hoth. ''

That could've been done without the CGI. There were literally scenes that was nothing but CGI.

''>Interesting creatures were able to be created as well, such as gungans, Grievous, Geonosians, and so many more. The CGI also made Jabba and Yoda look a lot better than when they were puppets. ''

The Jim Henson company has been able to create creatures like that for years using nothing but muppets. Sure CGI could've been used to improve them in the production phase, but making them entirely CGI was unneccessary.

>Acting - The acting in the original trilogy was not good.

thanks for providing details as to why you think this

Even Admiral Ackbar’s lines, while memorable, were not that great.

see above

I watched The Empire Strikes Back again a few weeks ago and facepalmed at how terrible some of the lines were.

The lines all throughout Star Wars were terrible. The difference between the prequel actors and the original actors is that the original actors were able to take the lines and make them sound natural, while the prequel actors hammed it up.

>And sometimes the characters had no emotion.

Just because it isn't as ridiculously blatant like Vader screaming "NOOOOOO" at the end of episode III doesn't mean the characters didn't show any emotions.

>Leia barely reacted when she saw Alderaan get blown up.

Good point, I guess.

>Meanwhile, in the prequels, the acting was great. Sure, there were some bad lines, but there was many great lines with actual emotion put into them.

Once again another statement with nothing to back it up.

>Obi-Wan was bursting into tears as he saw Anakin burn alive on Mustafar and commenting how Anakin was like a brother to him. We never got a moment so emotional in the original trilogy.

Maybe the entire battle on the Death Star between Palpatine, Vader, and Luke? Luke watching Obi-Wan die? Leia saving Luke? Han getting betrayed by Lando?

>Story - I felt like the story was better in the prequels. Original trilogy was a little cliche: we’re being oppressed by bad guys so lets have some characters who are special rise up against them and fight to restore good.

You're forgetting that when A New Hope was released, it was something completely new and fresh. It wasn't "cliche" when it was released.

>In the prequels, we had a richer story about how the largest faction in galactic history fell to the Sith and how the Chosen One fell to the dark side.

I can do that too: In the originals, we had a richer story about how a slowly dying rebellion rose up to defeat an oppressive empire lead by a once great warrior who fall to the dark side.