So, I'm stuck in the hospital on Christmas Eve watching the Prequel trilogy on Spike and I thought I'd start up a good-natured discussion about 'em. I know there are a couple Star Wars-related threads ("I still do like Star Wars," etc), but I didn't see one that specifically focused on the prequels. Now eleven years removed from The Phantom Menace and five years from Revenge of the Sith, I was really curious what people thought of the films now -- especially since we have some distance from the hype/disappointment of their initial releases. I know we have RedLetterMedia/Mr. Plinkett's lengthy enumerations of "what went wrong," but I thought it'd be cool to hear what everyone's two cents on these films are. I also fully encourage "fan casting/I woulda done it like THIS" digressions as well. Heck, maybe you love 'em.
Personally, I never had anything approaching a "George Lucas Raped My Childhood" response. I remember being massively entertained by The Phantom Menace when I watched it the first time, and then being surprised at my boredom at the second screening of it up until the final Darth Maul duel. Attack of the Clones was marred by a lackluster romance, while Revenge of the Sith turned out to be the best of the prequels (talk about damning with faint praise!). I don't hate them, but I don't love them. I've rewatched the Original Trilogy and can totally see their faults, but I've shown those movies to newbies and the OT still works exceedingly well (your mileage will vary about which ones, of course).
In response to the inevitable question "If you were in charge of the prequels, what would you do?" I guess one could quip "Never make them" or pitch some prequel trilogy you imagined as a kid (I didn't really have one; just hoped to see some Mandalorian Supercommandos. Color me disappointed), but I really think Lucas had all the material there, but for some reason, he just didn't develop his ideas as well as he did with the Original Trilogy.
Here's my two cents. Aside from the last one, I won't pretend they're all that original.
1. The Creative Process (a reasonable suggestion)
First of all, I was lucky enough to receive the expensive-ass Making of The Empire Strike Back book for an early Christmas gift and also have been watching the making of featurettes on the Clone Wars, and it's clear that while George Lucas is a hugely imaginative person, he hates writing and he needs other talented people around him to not only bring his ideas to life, but challenge him as well. It's clear that nobody but George would direct TPM, but I'm wondering what the prequels would have been like with other directors at the helm. Of course, I don't know how many directors nowadays feel comfortable executing someone else's vision (I remember Ron Howard expressing some discomfort with the process in reference to Willow), but I have a feeling it would have at the very least helped the performances (I mean, Natalie Portman sucks in these movies, and she's great in almost everything she's done). Still, I suppose some of that burden falls on the actor. I mean, you all know how Harrison Ford "improvised" the line "I know" in Empire Strikes Back? Well, the Making of ESB book shows that he and Kershner had a very thorough discussion about both the line and the staging of the scene prior to even showing up on the set. Ford says he's not just there to do what the director wants. It's a really fascinating read. Anyway, I don't know that having different directors and a strong screenwriter for Lucas to collaborate with would've made a huge difference; I'm just speculating. I mean, Jar Jar Binks -- a comic relief character meant for children to like -- isn't a bad idea per se. After all ,the Jedi are so goddamn humorless that such a stock comic character is practically required; it's just the execution that's off.
2. The Time Frame (slightly geekier suggestion)
To my surprise, I'm really liking The Clone Wars cartoon. Although the feature film was a mess and there are definitely some lackluster episodes this season (pretty much anything to do with the Senate), the show basically does a lot of the things that the prequels couldn't by skipping the majority of the Clone Wars -- showing Anakin's friendship/rivalry with Obi-Wan, demonstrating why Anakin could conceivably be the best fighter pilot in the galaxy, and giving us a nonwhiny Anakin you'd actually root for. I'm wondering what would have happened if Lucas would have begun The Phantom Menace with a teenaged Luke and then have the war commence at the end of that movie, thus making the second film a full-on Clone Wars movie. Just moving the ages and the time frame a bit could've helped. Although I suppose it's a moot point, because I don't think Lucas ever intended to start with anything other than Anakin as a kid.
3. What if you replaced Qui Gon Jinn with Count Dooku? (full-on geek suggestion)
By all rights, Qui Gon Jinn shouldn't exist at all, as Obi Wan refers to Yoda training him, but I understand why Lucas would create such a character -- it would be difficult to have Yoda serving the role that Neeson's character does and it'd be more interesting to have a character in the first prequel whom we don't know and whose fate is a mystery. However, in hindsight, it might've been interesting to have someone like Dooku be Obi-Wan's master. After all, Qui Gon was supposed to be a far less traditional Jedi, so collapsing these two characters into one could have been narratively beneficial. For one, to have Qui Gon/Dooku go bad at the end of The Phantom Menace would necessitate Obi Wan finishing his training under Yoda (off-screen, of course) and thus explain why he didn't mention any other master than Yoda in the OT. In addition, it would not only create an interesting pattern of Jedi training: Yoda (good), Dooku (bad), Obi-Wan (good) and Anakin (bad), but also give the prequels a villainous character who not only appears in all three films a la Vader in the OT, but one to whom Obi-Wan would have some personal investment in when he faced off with him (he could be tempted by his old master, but -- unlike Anakin -- he'd resist). It's the stuff of fan-fic, I know, but it was just a thought I had as I see these movies playing out in front of me.
Ugh...I wrote too damn much. What an incredible smell I've discovered! I now reek of geek. Please folks, help me out! Any thoughts on the Prequels?
Personally, I never had anything approaching a "George Lucas Raped My Childhood" response. I remember being massively entertained by The Phantom Menace when I watched it the first time, and then being surprised at my boredom at the second screening of it up until the final Darth Maul duel. Attack of the Clones was marred by a lackluster romance, while Revenge of the Sith turned out to be the best of the prequels (talk about damning with faint praise!). I don't hate them, but I don't love them. I've rewatched the Original Trilogy and can totally see their faults, but I've shown those movies to newbies and the OT still works exceedingly well (your mileage will vary about which ones, of course).
In response to the inevitable question "If you were in charge of the prequels, what would you do?" I guess one could quip "Never make them" or pitch some prequel trilogy you imagined as a kid (I didn't really have one; just hoped to see some Mandalorian Supercommandos. Color me disappointed), but I really think Lucas had all the material there, but for some reason, he just didn't develop his ideas as well as he did with the Original Trilogy.
Here's my two cents. Aside from the last one, I won't pretend they're all that original.
1. The Creative Process (a reasonable suggestion)
First of all, I was lucky enough to receive the expensive-ass Making of The Empire Strike Back book for an early Christmas gift and also have been watching the making of featurettes on the Clone Wars, and it's clear that while George Lucas is a hugely imaginative person, he hates writing and he needs other talented people around him to not only bring his ideas to life, but challenge him as well. It's clear that nobody but George would direct TPM, but I'm wondering what the prequels would have been like with other directors at the helm. Of course, I don't know how many directors nowadays feel comfortable executing someone else's vision (I remember Ron Howard expressing some discomfort with the process in reference to Willow), but I have a feeling it would have at the very least helped the performances (I mean, Natalie Portman sucks in these movies, and she's great in almost everything she's done). Still, I suppose some of that burden falls on the actor. I mean, you all know how Harrison Ford "improvised" the line "I know" in Empire Strikes Back? Well, the Making of ESB book shows that he and Kershner had a very thorough discussion about both the line and the staging of the scene prior to even showing up on the set. Ford says he's not just there to do what the director wants. It's a really fascinating read. Anyway, I don't know that having different directors and a strong screenwriter for Lucas to collaborate with would've made a huge difference; I'm just speculating. I mean, Jar Jar Binks -- a comic relief character meant for children to like -- isn't a bad idea per se. After all ,the Jedi are so goddamn humorless that such a stock comic character is practically required; it's just the execution that's off.
2. The Time Frame (slightly geekier suggestion)
To my surprise, I'm really liking The Clone Wars cartoon. Although the feature film was a mess and there are definitely some lackluster episodes this season (pretty much anything to do with the Senate), the show basically does a lot of the things that the prequels couldn't by skipping the majority of the Clone Wars -- showing Anakin's friendship/rivalry with Obi-Wan, demonstrating why Anakin could conceivably be the best fighter pilot in the galaxy, and giving us a nonwhiny Anakin you'd actually root for. I'm wondering what would have happened if Lucas would have begun The Phantom Menace with a teenaged Luke and then have the war commence at the end of that movie, thus making the second film a full-on Clone Wars movie. Just moving the ages and the time frame a bit could've helped. Although I suppose it's a moot point, because I don't think Lucas ever intended to start with anything other than Anakin as a kid.
3. What if you replaced Qui Gon Jinn with Count Dooku? (full-on geek suggestion)
By all rights, Qui Gon Jinn shouldn't exist at all, as Obi Wan refers to Yoda training him, but I understand why Lucas would create such a character -- it would be difficult to have Yoda serving the role that Neeson's character does and it'd be more interesting to have a character in the first prequel whom we don't know and whose fate is a mystery. However, in hindsight, it might've been interesting to have someone like Dooku be Obi-Wan's master. After all, Qui Gon was supposed to be a far less traditional Jedi, so collapsing these two characters into one could have been narratively beneficial. For one, to have Qui Gon/Dooku go bad at the end of The Phantom Menace would necessitate Obi Wan finishing his training under Yoda (off-screen, of course) and thus explain why he didn't mention any other master than Yoda in the OT. In addition, it would not only create an interesting pattern of Jedi training: Yoda (good), Dooku (bad), Obi-Wan (good) and Anakin (bad), but also give the prequels a villainous character who not only appears in all three films a la Vader in the OT, but one to whom Obi-Wan would have some personal investment in when he faced off with him (he could be tempted by his old master, but -- unlike Anakin -- he'd resist). It's the stuff of fan-fic, I know, but it was just a thought I had as I see these movies playing out in front of me.
Ugh...I wrote too damn much. What an incredible smell I've discovered! I now reek of geek. Please folks, help me out! Any thoughts on the Prequels?
)
