STAR WARS PREQUELS - a love/hate relationship

[Temis the Vorta]

Funny thing about Padme. I figured she was a 14 year old queen because royalty traditionally has weird stuff like kids running things. But from what I understand, she is an "elected" queen. what kind of stupid people would elect a kid to run things...especially a planet?

The one element from the PT that I actually like more than the OT is the exotic stuff that makes their universe different from our own, run on starkly different rules.

For it to be normal for planet run by a 14 year old elected queen is on par with the Jedi and their inhuman, dysfunctional, asking-for-trouble rules against normal emotional attachments, and the way clones are treated not as sentient beings deserving the same respect as naturally occurring sentients, but something else midway between sentient beings and droids (who themselves are often sentient - and shouldn't be treated as cavalierly as we've seen depicted).

The OT basically took American culture and plopped it into a so-called exotic setting long ago and far away. Han, Luke, Leia and even Chewie were recognizable types you might meet in real life. The core assumptions about society and the rules it should follow were the same as what the audience was used to. It made the OT very accessible but in retrospect maybe less interesting than it could have been.

But what the PT didn't do, was really come to grips with its exotic ideas. Are the Jedi to blame for their own destruction because they refuse to see how they treat the clones, and their own people, as though they're mindless robots with no individual hopes and dreams? That's a reasonable thing to assume about the story, but there was never any attempt to really make that case. (And the clones were never depicted as characters, so no case could have been made on that topic unless there had been a clone as a major character to stand in for the group.)

And given that the Republic is composed of worlds with weird, unfamiliar political arrangements like under-aged elected monarchs, the political analogy Lucas tried to impose on the story couldn't help but fall on its face. Better to just leave the political analogies to Star Trek, where they work so much better, because the political system really is analogous to our own.

And then there's the elephant in the room - the total lack of the most important exotic element, the mystical/mythical dimension to Anakin's story. This story should be mystical, with the politics and personality based plotlines merely tangental. If this is the story of Space Jesus, then make that the damn story!

Star Wars is mystical, not scientific. You can't technobabble your way out of it, like it's Star Trek. It's not about the politics of the Republic or Palp's machinations. It's not about the personality or mental deficiencies of the main character. It's about the mystical hand-waving hooey - that is the story. Everything else should be secondary.

The Clone Wars' Mortis Arc is exactly the kind of thing the PT needed - have the characters (or Anakin at least) go on a journey to some mystical, crazy-ass place that is the Center of the Force or something, where they gain greater insight into what the Force is, what it wants, what it means to be the Chosen One, and what the holy frak is going on!

That journey should be the fulcrum of the trilogy. Before Anakin goes on the journey, he's one way (for instance, he doesn't really believe in the Chosen One blather). Afterwards, he's another way, and on the path to his eventual destruction (he does believe the Chosen One blather, but his interpretation of what it means is off-kilter - he's too aggressive about it, he missed something vital, etc. - Palps never really had anything to do with it, because Anakin was already doomed.)

The lack of something like that is really the single biggest failing of the PT. Without it, it was just a stupid story of a whiny, dumb punk who got what he deserved. Even if he'd been the likable, noble-minded, non-whiny, non-punk he is in The Clone Wars, it still wouldn't have been the story it should have been. The PT had no fulcrum, without which it just spins its wheels and goes nowhere.

 

[Sean Aaron]

(About that...IMHO, the problem isn't who fires first, it's because the retooling of that scene is simply badly edited.)

No kidding, it's so goddamed embarrassing I cannot understand how someone who supposedly did the Special Editions because he loved his work could approve anything that looked like that much ass. I mean the version on the DVD looks like someone moved a Han puppet suddenly. I picture Lucas and the computer guy looking at it and computer guy saying: "Sorry this is the best I could do" and Lucas saying "Perfect! THAT'S MY DEFINITIVE VISION!" and computer guy looking around to see if he's not the only one who thinks Lucas is nuts.

AOTC: Loved most of the movie except the cringeworthy romantic scenes between Anakin and Padme. This could have and should have been handled MUCH MUCH better.

Just awful, and you know it really wouldn't have been hard to fix. Like, don't have Anakin be a whiny creepy stalker type when he first meets Padme after 10 years - seriously this is the beginning of a whirlwind romance? - and don't have her write him off as some kid (course he does act like it). I never found their relationship believeable and the dialogue was cringeworthy. Empire achieved a lot more with only a couple of scenes and less dialogue.

I don't hate them, I just think they suck.

What's the diff?

The amount of time you waste on it.

Pretty much. I was raised to regard "hate" as a serious word only to be used if you wished a person dead or something wiped from the face of the earth.

Now whilst I might not mind if all copies of the prequel trilogy were eradicated and their memory erased from human consciousness, it's not one of my stated goals. They just suck and I don't want to sit through them again.

 

[Whofan]

There was a lot of political discussion and analogy in the original Star Wars. Everybody seems to forget that.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

Who's "everyone"? You mean everyone who wasn't alive in 1977?

 

[InklingStar]

AOTC: Loved most of the movie except the cringeworthy romantic scenes between Anakin and Padme. This could have and should have been handled MUCH MUCH better.

Just awful, and you know it really wouldn't have been hard to fix. Like, don't have Anakin be a whiny creepy stalker type when he first meets Padme after 10 years - seriously this is the beginning of a whirlwind romance? - and don't have her write him off as some kid (course he does act like it). I never found their relationship believeable and the dialogue was cringeworthy. Empire achieved a lot more with only a couple of scenes and less dialogue.

I believe the romance in AotC is defensible, but I know I am definitely the minority here. The difference between Anakin/Padme and Han/Leia is one of maturity. In TESB, Han is an experience smuggler who has been around the block a few times. Leia had a fairly normal childhood, though like her mother she was pushed into politics at a young age. They meet each other as adults, both able to hold their own in the relationship.

Anakin and Padme, meanwhile, are completely different. Anakin was first a slave then a padawan, completely isolated from normal human interaction. Padme was in politics seemingly when she was still in diapers, a monarch at 14 and a senator shortly thereafter. She too was isolated from normal social interaction. When they meet, Anakin is just a child and Padme, though not much older, takes a nurturing role. They are in each others' lives for all of a few days before being separated for ten years.

Over those ten years Anakin grows obsessed with her, which makes the "whiny creepy stalker" mentality make complete sense. Padme has to struggle with the contradiction between her memories of "Little Ani" and the intensity of his feelings for her now. The awkwardness of their conversations on Naboo comes across as believable to me. These are teenagers working through their first serious attraction, not Joss Whedon characters with sharp wits.

When Anakin confesses his massacre, Padme is obviously horrified but like so many young women she thinks that she can save this wayward bad boy. With her uncertain feelings seared through a shared near-death experience, she rationalizes her attraction and gives in to what Anakin wants. Unlike Han and Leia, this is definitely not a relationship of equally mature adults.

 

[JaxsBrokenHeart]

I can't say I outright hate the prequels, I'm just disappointed because the little hints we got regarding them prior to 1999 just seem far more interesting that what we got. The sheer number of hypotheticals just get me thinking about what might have been.

I mean I think personally the two key elements are Obi-Wan and Anakin. Its really their story, and in an odd way serve as the eventual respective "parents" of sorts to Luke. (This also helps to indicate how odd Anakin's wife is in the story concept given that she's an entirely self contained character in the prequels, but that's another matter entirely.) Serving to how they ended up the way they did, and the falls of the two men (yes both) are what would make the story such a great tragedy.

Again going back to the various novelizations of the films, they do serve to have some interesting gems as far as character and plot points, especially with Kenobi in ROTJ. Indeed, having read them, I'm thinking there could be great potential in making Kenobi the one who's too sure of himself, too confident, too convinced he's the best possible teacher of Anakin. Obi-Wan himself is a generally good person, and too dedicated to his morals and ideals to turn, but his own massive character flaw does help to doom his student.

I mean, we see in the original trilogy, an all knowing, well traveled mentor, who seems to possess wisdom beyond anything we could imagine. That sort of character, to me, feels like it means so much more if that wisdom came at a costly price. Truly understanding that much of Kenobi's actions in the original trilogy are to make up for the arrogance he had and resulting failure in him being a mentor and teacher to his student makes those scenes with Luke mean all the more. We see why he is a better teacher now, than he was then.

Which of course, brings us to Anakin, arguably the real lynch pin of the entire prequel films. Something that I always wanted to witness in the first three films, is not simply how Skywalker turned, but how he turned into the exact kind of cold hearted merciless Sith he was the original trilogy. Evil can have many personalities, and the Vader of ROTS seems to resemble the one from the originals only cosmetically. He's an evil guy in a suit, and that seemed to be as far as they went with it.

Its why I believe its critical to see exactly what character traits of Anakin's that either through being twisted or exaggerated, still existed within Vader. With that in mind, Anakin would have been better off as, well, being genuinely tragic. Somebody who starts out much like his son does; an eager and optimistic young man out to take on the world. Yet that while conflict and problems allowed Luke to grow into a mature, but still visionary member of the Rebel Alliance, his father grows into an increasingly shell shocked and bitter man.

Indeed, both Luke and Anakin start off very similar (with perhaps the former at bit more inclined towards seeking adventure). The key split is that Luke never lost his idealism. With the support of his friends, the guidance of Yoda/Kenobi and the unfortunate example of his father set, Luke avoided it.

Perhaps in the prequels Anakin wasn't so lucky. The sense of patience and discipline that defines him early on start to disappear (with him slowly getting less and less forgiving of mistakes and failures of those under his command) as the battles take a toll on him. Skywalker, a young man who started out on the "damn fool idealistic crusade to make the galaxy free, just, and peaceful becomes a desperate individual tired of the death and destruction of the Clone Wars, and is eventually just looking for peace in the galaxy at any cost.

Enter Palpatine who's able to offer him just that. The dark side being quicker and easier simply is far more appealing and turns into what ultimately drives him to trust Palpatine's judgement. Skywalker seeing the Emperor's rule as a fair price to pay to potentially save millions of lives from the war becomes the major moral compromise that ultimately dooms him. More importantly though, it helps to explain the specific facets of Vader in the original films. Its why he's so unforgiving of his own officers, why he's so personally determined to crush the rebellion, and why he made the offer to Luke in ESB.

That desire for the galaxy to be safe, the thing that made Anakin into a Jedi, is what serves to damn him so badly, because after that one compromise with Palapatine, everything became easy to justify. Imperial officers ruining impeding his plans, the Rebel Alliance causing war, his son possibly opposing him; they're all hindrances to peace, all the things preventing him from indeed "bring(ing) order to the galaxy".

It takes seeing the real compassion of Luke, seeing that son still has idealism and faith in his father that finally gets to him. Luke suffers in his life like Anakin does, but in the end, he holds on, even risking the Emperor's wrath rather than striking his father down. Witnessing that, Anakin realizes that the dark side is not stronger, and the he himself still has a choice.

Like I said, I just think they could have been so much more.

 

[InklingStar]

The one part of RotJ that I think is brilliant is the throne room confrontation between Palpatine, Vader, and Luke. One thing I never understood though is why Vader thought that he could turn Luke to the Dark Side by threatening his friends.

The turning point in RotS is the confrontation on Coruscant between Mace, Palpatine, and Anakin. This scene is a mirror for the aforementioned RotJ scene. (Imagine if George Lucas had gone ahead with his original idea for RotJ and had Vader bring Luke to the Emperor on Coruscant. It might have been the very same room!) In both instances, Anakin is the outsider watching a duel of wills between two people who were close to him. In both cases he chooses to save the one who is seemingly defenseless.

The reason he saves Palpatine and dismembers Mace, however, is because he is convinced that Palpatine's knowledge of the dark side is the only thing that can save his wife. He has seen visions of Padme's death just as he once foresaw Schmi's death, and he is determined to save her. Palpatine has promised him that the dark side has the ability to prevent people from dying. Anakin cannot let Palpatine die, to him, doing so means sentencing Padme to death.

Flash forward to RotJ. Anakin is trying to convert his son in the same manner that he was converted. He thinks that Luke is in the same place that he himself was in back in the apartment duel. He uses the same lines on Luke that Palpatine used on him. But he really does not understand his son. Luke is not there to find a way to save Han and Leia, rather he is there to save Anakin himself. In the end, the role of Anakin in the scene is played by Anakin. He kills his master to save the person he cares about most.

 

[lurok]

AOTC: Loved most of the movie except the cringeworthy romantic scenes between Anakin and Padme. This could have and should have been handled MUCH MUCH better.

Just awful, and you know it really wouldn't have been hard to fix. Like, don't have Anakin be a whiny creepy stalker type when he first meets Padme after 10 years - seriously this is the beginning of a whirlwind romance? - and don't have her write him off as some kid (course he does act like it). I never found their relationship believeable and the dialogue was cringeworthy. Empire achieved a lot more with only a couple of scenes and less dialogue.

I believe the romance in AotC is defensible, but I know I am definitely the minority here. The difference between Anakin/Padme and Han/Leia is one of maturity.

Good and valid points, but TESB's characters/relationships are also just better written by talented award-winning screenwriters. I gave Lucas all his due - including hiring better people to write and direct original sequels - but I wish he'd let someone else have a pass at the prequel scripts...

...and I'm with you on great RoTJ end scene and mirrors to prequels...

 

[JarodRussell]

Just awful, and you know it really wouldn't have been hard to fix. Like, don't have Anakin be a whiny creepy stalker type when he first meets Padme after 10 years - seriously this is the beginning of a whirlwind romance? - and don't have her write him off as some kid (course he does act like it). I never found their relationship believeable and the dialogue was cringeworthy. Empire achieved a lot more with only a couple of scenes and less dialogue.

I believe the romance in AotC is defensible, but I know I am definitely the minority here. The difference between Anakin/Padme and Han/Leia is one of maturity.

Good and valid points, but TESB's characters/relationships are also just better written by talented award-winning screenwriters. I gave Lucas all his due - including hiring better people to write and direct original sequels - but I wish he'd let someone else have a pass at the prequel scripts...

...and I'm with you on great RoTJ end scene and mirrors to prequels...

TESB was Lawrence Kasdan's first script.

And whatever happened to Leigh Brackett. IMDb says he wrote the script, but also notes he died in 1978.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

She.

 

[Caliburn24]

I have yet to see a truly spirited defense of the PT that addresses and refutes those arguments instead of just attacking the haters.

It was put out there by Jim Raynor, and promptly ignored by the haters. End of story.

I had never heard of Jim Raynor, but I googled him after you mentioned him. His 108 page rebuttal of the RLM Phantom Menace review is interesting reading. Is he planning on writing similar pieces for the RLM AOTC and ROTS reviews?

Raynor succeeds in showing how Stoklasa distorts and twists stuff, but the problem is that a lot of Raynor's counter-arguments rationalize things and twist things just like Stoklasa does. Basically Stoklasa nitpicked Phantom Menace and then Raynor nitpicked Stoklasa's nitpicking, which works to some degree, but often misses or ignores the larger criticisms.

Did Stoklasa ever reply to Raynor's rebuttal? There are several obvious openings that would have made for an interesting response.

And getting back to the main point of this particular thread, while Raynor is the most articulate PT defender I have ever seen, it is strongly implied that he thinks the OT are better films.

 

[JarodRussell]

I have yet to see a truly spirited defense of the PT that addresses and refutes those arguments instead of just attacking the haters.

Why bother, it's not a lawsuit. If you don't like it, you don't like it, and nothing will change that. I have never seen anyone who suddenly went "Oh my God, you're right, the scene actually meant this and not that! Now I LOOOVE it!"




I dislike the prequels myself. They are some of the worst stuff I've seen (even though I liked them the first time in the cinemas). But I really don't get why people would waste they time on hating them, ganging up on other people who like them, and other shit. Just stop it.

 

[Caliburn24]

Making personal attacks or hating people for holding this or that opinion is stupid in general, and lowers the level of discourse. And I am glad that it is discouraged strongly on these boards.

But arguing and debating various merits and defects of popular entertainment is fun. Sure, almost no one actually changes their mind on things, so from that perspective it can be a waste of time. But by that logic message boards like this one should cease to exist since all the posting and debating we do are unlikely to change any minds.

I like arguing points, it is one of the major draws of message boards. I like to see other people construct arguments(particularly ones I disagree with). I like to see the back and forth of a lively debate, and when people get really articulate and unpack ideas more fully it gets even more interesting.

I think people who consider the PT as good movies are wrong. But I like seeing how they defend that position. And they are free to hold whatever opinion they want.

 

[Set Harth]

while Raynor is the most articulate PT defender I have ever seen, it is strongly implied that he thinks the OT are better films.

So what? The two are not contradictory. The problem is that the hyperbole directed at the PT exceeds the reality.

Basically Stoklasa nitpicked Phantom Menace and then Raynor nitpicked Stoklasa's nitpicking, which works to some degree, but often misses or ignores the larger criticisms.

On the contrary, Raynor shows that most of what Stoklasa says about TPM is factually inaccurate, thematically inconsistent with the values of the OT, internally inconsistent with itself, or not really a criticism ( of the variety "the Clone Wars weren't about fighting alien clones" as seen earlier ).

And given that the Republic is composed of worlds with weird, unfamiliar political arrangements like under-aged elected monarchs

If this is the story of Space Jesus, then make that the damn story!

No one ever said this was the story of Space Jesus. Children were being fathered by the gods a long time before Jesus. Anakin doesn't die for the forgiveness of sin ( other than his own, perhaps ).

Star Wars is mystical, not scientific.

Star Wars is both. The mystical occurs in a technological universe with familiar physical properties. They are not mutually exclusive.

It's not about the politics of the Republic or Palp's machinations.

We've known since 1976-77 that these things did indeed have a lot to do with it. That has been part of the canonical plotline since before the first film was released, so it's no PT-era invention.

The Clone Wars' Mortis Arc is exactly the kind of thing the PT needed - have the characters (or Anakin at least) go on a journey to some mystical, crazy-ass place that is the Center of the Force or something, where they gain greater insight into what the Force is, what it wants, what it means to be the Chosen One, and what the holy frak is going on!

All of which we already knew. Mortis is nothing more than eye candy.

 

[JediKnightButler]

ETA: This response was for Hal but can be for lurok as well: Not arguing about the quality of Lucas as a director, but that didn't stop Carrie Fisher from turning in a fine performance as Princess Leia. Natalie Portman did such a poor job that I begin to wonder if all her other successes are due only to the director's skill and not her own.

Did you see Return of the Jedi?

There was no evolution of Vader as a character, and quite frankly I found it hard to accept that Vader at the end of Sith was the former Anakin Skywalker. He just came across as Vader from A new Hope.

Although not a movie and AFAIK not even technically considered Canon, James Luceno's "Dark Lord" novel helps show the transformation from Anakin to the fearsome Sith Lord and Jedi hunter that we see in the OT. It's a good read and also deals a little bit with some Jedi survivors (newly created characters) from Order 66 and how they adapt to the loss of the Order. Matthew Stover's novelization of ROTS also helps flesh out some of the reasoning for Anakin's ultimate betrayal of the Jedi Order and fall to the dark side better than what we see in the movie.

I have not read either yet, but Amazon is having a sale on what they call the Dark Lord Trilogy - http://www.amazon.com/Star-Wars-Tri...5386/ref=sr_1_5?ie=UTF8&qid=1306003980&sr=8-5

That trilogy includes "Labyrinth of Evil" (which takes place just before and leads directly into ROTS) by James Luceno, the novelization of ROTS by Matthew Stover, and "Dark Lord:Rise of Darth Vader" (set slightly before, during, and a few weeks after ROTS) also by James Luceno. Together, they all make for an excellent reading experience. "Labyrinth of Evil" is a good read and has the Jedi stumbling onto clues that lead them to intensify their search for Darth Sidious and also fills in some blanks from AOTC.

 

[Set Harth]

Technically, nothing in Dark Lord occurs before ROTS; it's just that some of it occurs right before Order 66, during the ROTS timeframe.

 

[Flying Spaghetti Monster]

I asked Stoklasa about it during a brief internet chat and he won't bother responding to the rebuttal. This is not an "official" response. But there it is.

The rebuttal in an entertaining, nerdy-geek fest, but in the end it fails to respond to the MAJOR point that Stoklasa was making.. the failure to have any of the individi\ual scenes, characters, drama, or adventure CONNECT with the audience in a meaningful way. There are a lot of things technically wrong with a New Hope (why didn't the Death Star blow up the gas giant, that would have screwed the moon up) but the story, the characters, and the adventure are done so well, and they are not mis-handled, so it is easy to overlook the plot holes, and the ones that are not overlooked are easy to forgive. All the rebuttal does is argue the little points, making excuses for scenes and characters that are poorly though-out rather than addressing the experience as a whole, which Stoklasa does in spades.

 

[JediKnightButler]

[/QUOTE]Funny thing about Padme. I figured she was a 14 year old queen because royalty traditionally has weird stuff like kids running things. But from what I understand, she is an "elected" queen. what kind of stupid people would elect a kid to run things...especially a planet?[/QUOTE]

Of all the things that bothered me the most about the PT was the fact that in TPM we're expected to believe that a planet would ever ELECT a 14-year old Queen. I could buy that she was made Queen as a matter of having been born of royalty (which I also thought would explain how Leia became a "Princess") but it's hard to believe that voters would send a 14-year old to serve as Executive of an entire planet no matter how mature she supposedly was. Why would they call their leader a "Queen" anyway?
I also have a hard time believing that they would send a 24-year old to the Galactic Senate as well (though it's slightly easier to buy). I had a hard time believing that Alderaan might have sent a 19-year old (or younger) to the Imperial Senate (Leia)- though, I guess by that time, the Imperial Senate was pretty much irrelevant and probably only existed as a "debating society" of sorts. It's kind of a wonder that it continued to exist at all for 19 years following the establishment of Palpatine's Empire.

 

[InklingStar]

I asked Stoklasa about it during a brief internet chat and he won't bother responding to the rebuttal. This is not an "official" response. But there it is.

The rebuttal in an entertaining, nerdy-geek fest, but in the end it fails to respond to the MAJOR point that Stoklasa was making.. the failure to have any of the individi\ual scenes, characters, drama, or adventure CONNECT with the audience in a meaningful way. There are a lot of things technically wrong with a New Hope (why didn't the Death Star blow up the gas giant, that would have screwed the moon up) but the story, the characters, and the adventure are done so well, and they are not mis-handled, so it is easy to overlook the plot holes, and the ones that are not overlooked are easy to forgive. All the rebuttal does is argue the little points, making excuses for scenes and characters that are poorly though-out rather than addressing the experience as a whole, which Stoklasa does in spades.

Translation: I like the original Star Wars so I will overlook the flaws. On the other hand I dislike the prequels so I will not give them any benefit of the doubt.

It really comes down to a matter of taste. I think the prequels connected with the audience just fine.

 

[JediKnightButler]

There was no evolution of Vader as a character, and quite frankly I found it hard to accept that Vader at the end of Sith was the former Anakin Skywalker. He just came across as Vader from A new Hope.

Although not a movie and AFAIK not even technically considered Canon, James Luceno's "Dark Lord" novel helps show the transformation from Anakin to the fearsome Sith Lord and Jedi hunter that we see in the OT. It's a good read and also deals a little bit with some Jedi survivors (newly created characters) from Order 66 and how they adapt to the loss of the Order. Matthew Stover's novelization of ROTS also helps flesh out some of the reasoning for Anakin's ultimate betrayal of the Jedi Order and fall to the dark side better than what we see in the movie.

Figures. As always, the book is always better than the movie I'm afraid.

I need to read the book someday. Maybe it will soften my opinion of the movies by filling in the blanks. Still, a movie should stand on its own merits, and if Lucas failed to relay the essential subtleties in the book, then it's his fault for all the criticism concerning the prequels.

Thanks for that bit of info.

Yeah, I agree. The books help "rehabilitate" the movies somewhat but there are certainly ways in which Lucas could've got some of those subtleties incorporated into the movies without making us have to rely on additional materials.