Thank you. Sums up most of my thoughts. There's definitely some big flaws in the special editions and later films, but people exaggerate the quality differences between the two trilogies.
AHC: Save Star Wars
- Thread starter Emperor Norton I
- Start date
Thank you. Sums up most of my thoughts. There's definitely some big flaws in the special editions and later films, but people exaggerate the quality differences between the two trilogies.
Again, you're invoking all the stuff I've mentioned before out of what the Star Wars prequels, and all too many films of that millenial era were, being a cultural trauma. "It's must be good. Something must be wrong with me", "It just seems like they're bad because of nostalgia", "It seems bad because I had my own ideas of what happened before the trilogy", etc, etc, etc. I don't stay quiet for that anymore, because it's people putting themselves down and making excuses because they want so badly for their feelings to not have merit, because if they do then it means something attached to something they care about stinks. That should pretty well show the fact that people are not going *hurumph**hurumph* wanting these films to be bad, and that's why they think they're bad. Everyone wants to hold this very wide eyed optimism. Had the films been good, the fact of the matter is that people would have accepted them without a peep, George Lucas would continue to be a hero, and nothing would be an issue. You may have a bit of criticism depending, but no more so than you did of "Return of the Jedi" or "The Last Crusade"; a different sized fish in a different sized pond.
The fact is, the prequel films were not at all good films. Red Letter Media thoroughly skewered them and explained in detail the exact reasons for their failures in quality. They just were not good films. The reason they made ungodly amounts of money is, in order: "It's finally coming and it has to be great because it's Star Wars", "It has to be better than Phantom Menace and that first film must have just been a fluke and just had to set stuff up, and it'll be great from here on out, and it's Star Wars", "I've heard it doesn't suck like the first two and is actually good, and it's Star Wars". And fanboys without merit of the kind under attack by statements such as yours are not the ones critiquing the prequels: they're the ones who went to them gleefully and thinking they're great achievements.
And this topic is not just about the prequels, but about the whole of the Star Wars intellectual property, George Lucas in relation to it, and everyone else in relation to it since about 1997. You saw things start to collapse. Before then, it was this thing people just loved and which was praised, with George Lucas revered and with a number of popular and well done books and comics and so forth. Then the "Special Editions" started to come out, and everyone thought that was cool. But then George Lucas made it known that those were now the official editions and that the theatrical cuts would no longer be released on video, and he essentially disowned them. That was the first problem. And then "Phantom Menace" came out and was significantly not a good film. And then everyone waited around for "Episode II", shrugging off the first prequel as bad just because they had to set everything up. And "Episode II" stunk. And then everyone waited around for "Episode III" and settled on that being good enough. And over the course of all that, you had that perfect community of support schism, you had George Lucas lose his reputation, you had Lucas tell his audience to get a life (though they gave him his) and that he preferred the way things were and that it was for kids (even though he fired people off the set of the original trilogy when they said that) and alienate his audience with his behavior and attitude towards them, and things got a whole lot more complicated. The prequels are just part of a larger thing; it's also his reaction to the criticism and ways of shirking it off, and his treatment of the original trilogy.
What George Lucas has done in reengineering the original film trilogy is unprecedented. You have had directors reedit their work, notably Francis Ford Coppola with "Apocalypse Now Redux", but you have never seen them do that and then not allow the release of the original, theatrical version of their film anymore, disown it, penalize even people who own original film reels, keep their theatrical cut from the National Archives for preservation, instead trying to submit the reengineered version of their work, vow not to release the original version, etc. Had George Lucas done a reengineered edition (I keep saying that word, btw, because it's more complicated that just reedit or reimaginged) and release it alongside official releases of the theatrical versions of his film, there would be absolute no issue whatsoever. Those "Special Editions" would still be open to criticism, but it wouldn't be such a head-to-wall fury of wondering why we cannot receive the films as originally done and in the form which affected the culture, and are being forced with that as the only option. There is no overstating how upset that has made people with George Lucas because he gave people this thing so many people came to really like and care about, and he took it away very selfishly. And it comes across like he's just purposefully being mean.
You don't get to do that. Once you release something, that belongs to everyone else. You can do another version of it, but you can't take away the version you released. If Da Vinci came back somehow, he would have no right to take the Mona Lisa to paint over it. He would have a right to do another painting of that idea, as Munch did with "The Scream", but he would have no right to do that with the original work once it's released to civilization, and especially once it becomes something in the core of culture. Lucas could have done what was done with "Apocalypse Now Redux" or "Superman II: The Richard Donner Cut", releasing a director's edition of Star Wars along side the theatrical edition. But he has not, and that is a major issue. And the original prints are very likely crumbling to dust with age, if not directly cut permanently for the "Special Editions", and he refuses to do anything about it, and he refuses to allow the National Archives to preserve the original trilogy in it's actual form. That is very disheartening from the man who once railed against colorization for damaging the original films to appeal to shallow modern sensibilities, and who obviously loves film. I would say it comes from a sensibility people have where what came before their time is like holy writ, permanently existing and to be untouched since it's always been the final product in their mind, and whatever came after their time is just superfluous BS that can be changed since they saw it come into being, and since they saw it created then it must be malleable as when it was being created. That's what I would ascribe Lucas' treatment of the original trilogy to. And it's frankly childish. In reality, those things before Lucas' time and it his younger days, in the 50s and 40s and 30s, have just as much merit as what came in the 70s and 80s and 90s and onward. They are just as much a final product, and just as much a malleable product. If the films of the 50s, 40s, and 30s should be left alone as seems to be Lucas' opinion, then just as much should the films of the 70s, 80s, etc be left alone. And if you plan to do something about it to reengineer it, then you cannot make that the only version that exists.
Last edited:
I would definetly agree with that. Ep. I was EASILY the most hyped movie of the 1990s, and possibly the most hyped movie ever made. The reason for the PT's extremely high anticipation was the result of 17 years of Star Wars fans watching and re-watching the OT, over and over and over. The OT is probably the heavily scrutinized and dissected trilogy in the geek film canon. This intense scrutiny has led George Lucas to joke that there's only one kind of Star Wars fan, an obsessed one. Given the extremely high regard with which the sci-fi community holds the OT, it's totally natural that anticipation surround the PT would be through the roof.
I very much disagree with the sentiment, however, that that expectation was the reason the film received the response of negativity it continues to. Had it been a good film to a great film, which did not live up to expectations, it would have been greeted with a response of "it was good, I liked it" in an average tone to a tone of varying exuberance.
Erm, according to this reasoning Transformers Dark of the Moon is a masterpiece because it is number 6 in terms of box office. Revenges of the Fallen is number 34. Is it also a misunderstood masterpiece.
The Star Wars prequels are bad films taken on their own. I'm not a particular fan of the Original Trilogy, but it is by no means bad. The prequels suffered from wooden acting, a badly written story, unlikeable characters, an overuse of bad CG, etc.
These problems exist regardless of whether the OT is considered or not.
Remember that only two or three years before the prequals were released the Shadows of the Empire project( http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Star_Wars:_Shadows_of_the_Empire ) happened.
This might be a horrible idea but they could simply try to make it a film instead of a multimedia project. Yes, there is the small matter of the actors being a bit old though.
Or just have it be written earlier in the 1980's.
This might be a horrible idea but they could simply try to make it a film instead of a multimedia project. Yes, there is the small matter of the actors being a bit old though.
Or just have it be written earlier in the 1980's.
That would be completely unworkable, since SOTE is set between Ep. V and Ep. VI.
I have my own idea, apologies if this sounds stupid: in the middle of developing what would become the "Special Editions", have Lucas get drunk the night he started, wake up hung over the next day, realize what he's done, and have him scrap the idea entirely as (pardon my French) crap.
As for the prequels, I think his decision to make the "Special Editions" correlates into those considering how they're more geared towards kids. Remove the "Special Editions", and there's a chance he's go about making The Phantom Menace in a more intelligent way: no Jar-Jar, make Anakin more likeable, no midichlorians nonsense, and so on.
He'll set about in making the prequels like he's creating the Original Trilogy for the new millennium.
As for the prequels, I think his decision to make the "Special Editions" correlates into those considering how they're more geared towards kids. Remove the "Special Editions", and there's a chance he's go about making The Phantom Menace in a more intelligent way: no Jar-Jar, make Anakin more likeable, no midichlorians nonsense, and so on.
He'll set about in making the prequels like he's creating the Original Trilogy for the new millennium.
deathscompanion1
Banned
See Jar-Jar is annoying but I liked him as kid and he kind of grew on me again later on.
Anakin definitely could use some work but it didn't ruin the movie form me.
Midichlorians seem a bit pointless in hindsight but I didn't find them to be a problem.
I think this is a generational thing, those of us who grew up with the prequels as what Star Wars was for us, tend to have a lot fewer problems with it than older people. Even after seeing the original trilogy I liked the prequels better.
Anybody who doesn't think that the prequels suck, and that it's just fanboy bullshit, needs to watch the Red Letter Media reviews of the prequels (commonly known as the Plinkett Reviews), the Phantom Menace one especially is simply phenomenal.
They break down, from a totally impartial point-of-view, why the prequels are awful. It has nothing to do with "ruining characters" or any such nonsense; the scatological tone conceals the incredibly academic nature of the criticism. It's straight-up film school analysis. Roger Ebert himself went on record praising the reviews. You will never in your life see a more surgical takedown of a film (or a more entertaining one. Seriously, it's fucking hilarious).
The prequels are legitimately bad films, from an impartial critical perspective. Period.
They break down, from a totally impartial point-of-view, why the prequels are awful. It has nothing to do with "ruining characters" or any such nonsense; the scatological tone conceals the incredibly academic nature of the criticism. It's straight-up film school analysis. Roger Ebert himself went on record praising the reviews. You will never in your life see a more surgical takedown of a film (or a more entertaining one. Seriously, it's fucking hilarious).
The prequels are legitimately bad films, from an impartial critical perspective. Period.
It's not haters. Everyone who dislikes the prequels went in with the highest hopes and an unabashed praise of George Lucas.
"Return of the Jedi" did get some criticism, but that was a much different time and much different comparatively speaking. Complaining about "Jedi" was closer to complaining that your fancy wine is dated 1902 and not 1888. Complaining about the prequels is like complaining that someone is trying to serve you blended up grapes mixed with bottled water.
The biggest issue with "Return of the Jedi" was that it signified what reached critical mass later with the post-1997 things we talked about. It wasn't as good as the other films, and Lucas purposefully put the kibosh on ideas that would have made it very, very good such as Han Solo being killed off, thus giving dramatic strength since then anyone could die and you knew this was serious, as well as Luke falling to the dark side temporarily. You also had Lucas go for Ewoks rather than Wookies, and there was ungodly and unashamed amounts of merchandising. I think "Jedi" was the start of when Lucas had enough of it and started not to care as much, and made Star Wars into much more of merchandising generator even more so than it was previous. There's nothing wrong with the latter, but it seems to have sapped the soul somewhere along the way.
Archibald
Banned
Bingo.
No Lucas divorce may help (although there would also be huge butterflies, because of Pixar and Steve Jobs)
(I highly recommend the lecture of that article)
It seems that Marcia was the driving force behind the first trilogy coolness. She was much more talented than her husband, somewhat filling a lot of George Lucas gaps.
TheOtherSasquatch
Banned
Perhaps an unconventional way of going about this would be for Lucas to get complete creative control earlier, in time for RoTJ. Lucas's changes affect the film for the worse, and while it is still financially successful it clearly is not a success on the scale of the other two films. 1990s roll around and Lucas is forced to give up some creative control to get the financing he needs to make the prequel trilogy.
Ok, i'm going to give what a very different opinion than you guys. I watched the original trilogy when i was already a teenager, not really all that young. And i didn't watch it on 1979, but on the 90s, when they showed it up in my regional TV (awesome dubbing, mostly because they were new at dubbing -the regional TV was new, too-, and they didn't polish the translation too much, allowing dubbers to use their own local accents, rather than the lifeless official Galician, but i digress). Not only that, they only showed The Empire Strikes Back first, and then The Return of the Jedi. I really loved TESB, it was enthralling, and ROTJ was very good and enjoyable, but not as good.
They took a couple of years to show ANH in my regional TV. I was hyped about it... and when i actually saw it, i was disappointed. It was enjoyable, but had too many slow part that lasted too long. The dialogues weren't a polished as in the later movies... etc. I sincerely only cared about the characters because TESB had done such a good job portrying them.
I'm not going to tell you that TPM is a great movie. It could be much better, i'm not going to discover here what the Plinkett reviews already said... but it was enjoyable, and kind of fun. Kind of. Definitely better than ANH. Yes, better than ANH where i was really bored halfway. TAOTC created a more coherent story, raising the level, and while ROTS still had many many weaknesses, at moments it was nearly as good as ROTJ.
Anyway, yes, the prequel trilogy could have been much better, could have been better, in fact, than the original trilogy, had their many weaknesses been solved. But i don't see the solution Hades proposed, with Ridley Scott... Star Wars is a product for kids and teenagers, something bright and with hope. I don't think that director could have done it satisfactorily without making the movies much more mature. Although maybe that could have resonated with the original fans, who would be almost adults by then and would like a more mature cinematographic experience.
They took a couple of years to show ANH in my regional TV. I was hyped about it... and when i actually saw it, i was disappointed. It was enjoyable, but had too many slow part that lasted too long. The dialogues weren't a polished as in the later movies... etc. I sincerely only cared about the characters because TESB had done such a good job portrying them.
I'm not going to tell you that TPM is a great movie. It could be much better, i'm not going to discover here what the Plinkett reviews already said... but it was enjoyable, and kind of fun. Kind of. Definitely better than ANH. Yes, better than ANH where i was really bored halfway. TAOTC created a more coherent story, raising the level, and while ROTS still had many many weaknesses, at moments it was nearly as good as ROTJ.
Anyway, yes, the prequel trilogy could have been much better, could have been better, in fact, than the original trilogy, had their many weaknesses been solved. But i don't see the solution Hades proposed, with Ridley Scott... Star Wars is a product for kids and teenagers, something bright and with hope. I don't think that director could have done it satisfactorily without making the movies much more mature. Although maybe that could have resonated with the original fans, who would be almost adults by then and would like a more mature cinematographic experience.
Last edited:
While I agree with this view, who say's it's "objectively" bad? It's status on IMDB and Rotten Tomatoes, while quite damning, does not point to it being objectively bad. If someone dosen't want to agree it's their worldview. Plus I remember that Ebert only hated AOTC, thought the rest of the prequels were decent films, and praised the RLM reviews simply because they were good reviews from a prespective--it's like having an opposing view to your enemy in a debate, but praising his style or mannerisms in presenting his views. Also note that many of the people in the media that propped them up were anti-PT in the first place.
I myself don't think much of the PT, but I understand if someone wishes to be an apologist for these movies, fine. There is nothing preventing him or her from doing so.
Hell, I wrote an essay on how the hate towards motherfucking Joffrey in Game of Thrones was somewhat unjustified simply because he was a fictional character and I have seen people praise the content of the essay but still disagreed with the thesis. There? Got it?
Last edited:
I'm not sure that that is a fair example. You are suppsoed to hate Joffrey, as he's clearly written as a sadistic little shit.
I'm not saying it's wrong to like the prequels. Some of my favourite movies of all time are completely fucking awful (The Room, for example). However, it is wrong to say that the prequels are good. They have major failings in terms of both content, structure, tone, just about anything you can name, they get wrong. But that doesn't mean you can't like them. I'll admit that I enjoy the Transformers movies, awful as they may be.
Taste is subjective. Quality is not. To confuse the two is to be the guy who everybody hates because his opinions have to be the final word on everything.
EDIT: To make something completely crystal clear, I'm not some fanboy hater. The Phantom Menace came out when I was 6; the only reason why I was exposed to the original trilogy first is because I have an uncle who is an old-school Star Wars fanboy, and he liked the prequels. And for that matter, so did I, because I was fucking 13 years old when RotS came out.
It's just me pointing out how people could understand the debate, but still disagree with it. Because IMO Ebert understood the points there, but did not agree or disagree with it.