Star Wars: The Prequel Trilogy - Page 3

Originally Posted by Marlowe's Cat 

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 Backhttp? 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?

Originally Posted by machiav 

I'd say most in Spielberg and Scorsese's late period can be arguably percieved as "damn good", but definitely not iconic classics that will be considered the highlights of their career. Sorry, no. And if you can't objectively understand the diference between Scorsese's left column with his right column, then it will be like me talking with a kid who grew up with the prequels and doesn't see much of a discrepancy between the two trilogies. Or someone who thinks new Woody Allen is up to snuff with old Woody, etc..

Originally Posted by machiav 

The Lucas who concieved the Empire Strikes Back or the one spieling in that Raiders story conference, was just an amazing storytelling mind.

He's just not one anymore.

Originally Posted by Richard Dickson 

The Death Star in Jedi is a remnant from the original three-film story Lucas wrote, when the attack on the space station was to be the finale of the trilogy. When Lucas pared it down to one film, he used that as the climax. Further proof that the trilogy wasn't as intricately planned as it was later claimed to be.

Originally Posted by Richard Dickson 

For me, Jedi is two peaks with a pretty deep valley in between. I like the Jabba's palace stuff, in part because it shows how Luke has matured, as opposed to his reckless rescue attempt on Bespin. Then comes all the tedious setting up of the third act with the speeder bike chase only briefly livening things up*. Rock bottom comes with the Luke/Leia scene, but then we've got that killer Luke/Vader scene, and then the fleet goes into hyperspace and the film is on absolute fucking rails.

*Is it just me, or has that sequence really not aged well? I can still marvel at Hoth and the asteroids and overlook some of the technical shortcomings, but the speeder bike chase shows a lot of seams for me now.

Originally Posted by erik myers 

I know it's not a popular thing to admit, but I love these Star Wars Prequel threads. They're probably the most entertaining discussions to read (personally speaking); and there are often so many great insights that transcend the usual Lucas-bashing.

 

What's so great about the Original Trilogy (in it's unadulterated form -- I choose to watch the laserdic versions only) is what's also inherent in The Lord of the Rings: implied depth of history. The Prequels failed for so many viewers if for no other reason than we'd had a large chunk of our lives to watch the first three films so many times that we'd mentally created our own version of prior events, as suggested by the spoonfulls of backstory offered up to us. The fact that Lucas seems to contradict some of his own mythology in the prequels is only the tip of the iceberg.

 

My two cents on the boring, asexual Jedi Order, and the confused telescoping of events between Revenge of the Sith and Star Wars (sorry, it's never going to be A New Hope to me):

 

When both Han Solo and the Mouth-Twisting Imperial Douche mock the concept of The Force, referring to it and the Jedi order as some laughable relic, it clearly implies that either 1) the Jedi order has been extinct for several centuries (which, based on Luke being around 19, simply isn't possible); or 2) the Jedi were never the public, flesh and blood figureheads we meet in the Prequels. As such, it was always my impression that they were essentially errant space knights, scattered throughout the galaxy and lurking on the borders, watching from the shadows, and appearing (and disappearing) as needed. Knights of the Round Table, constantly moving -- the rangers of Lord of the Rings, for lack of a better comparison. They were living legends spoken of but little-seen. Their council was secret, and removed from the public eye; but for the most part, they kept on the move. In this way, their very existence could remain questionable to all but those In The Know; and prior to the rise of Palpatine, they were probably in decline as it was. Once they were hunted down by Vader, the fact that they ever existed at all could be in dispute.

 

The other Jedi issue I had was with the training process. It always seemed very clear to me that Anakin became Vader because Obi-Wan fucked up -- at seven years old this was pretty cut and dry. The impression I had was that, yes, Yoda was living on Dagobah because it kept him out of sight from the Empire, but also because he'd always been there. It made sense that when a Jedi cowboy, out and about and having exciting, covert adventures, discovered a potential recruit, they sent said recruit alone to Dagobah, just as the shade of Obi-Wan sent Luke. Each would have to enter a dark, gloomy, dangerous environment, have their patience tested by Yoda's crazy imp schtick, confront their inner darkness in the Dark Side Cave, etc. What I always took from Ben's conversation with Luke in Return of the Jedi was that Ben conciously decided not to send Anakin to Dagobah, believing himself capable of doing just a good a job as Yoda, and then fucking up so badly that he could no longer control his young disciple.

 

In the Prequels, what we ended up with were Jedi Knights who sat around and did nothing. They were the chief generals in the Clone Wars (don't get me started on that -- I don't think any of us expected what we saw in Attack of the Good Guys), and therefore war heroes -- how could their existence be in doubt? How could Darth Vader's ghost reveal an 80 year-old man when Anakin would be in his 40s in Jedi? Why does Obi-Wan chastise himself for failing to train Anakin as well as Yoda (with the clear implication that he did so without permission) when Yoda does in fact grant permission to do so...? The timeline and the details are so incredibly off that the Original Trilogy begins to have the appearance of structural issues simply by their association with the latter-day trilogy.

 

I think, as has been stated elsewhere, Lucas gave all of this very little thought, and essentially shot first or second draft scripts. His heart was clearly in the tech, and those damn pesky scripts were little more than a means to an end.

 

 

Originally Posted by erik myers 

I know it's not a popular thing to admit, but I love these Star Wars Prequel threads. They're probably the most entertaining discussions to read (personally speaking); and there are often so many great insights that transcend the usual Lucas-bashing.

 

What's so great about the Original Trilogy (in it's unadulterated form -- I choose to watch the laserdic versions only) is what's also inherent in The Lord of the Rings: implied depth of history. The Prequels failed for so many viewers if for no other reason than we'd had a large chunk of our lives to watch the first three films so many times that we'd mentally created our own version of prior events, as suggested by the spoonfulls of backstory offered up to us. The fact that Lucas seems to contradict some of his own mythology in the prequels is only the tip of the iceberg.

 

My two cents on the boring, asexual Jedi Order, and the confused telescoping of events between Revenge of the Sith and Star Wars (sorry, it's never going to be A New Hope to me):

 

When both Han Solo and the Mouth-Twisting Imperial Douche mock the concept of The Force, referring to it and the Jedi order as some laughable relic, it clearly implies that either 1) the Jedi order has been extinct for several centuries (which, based on Luke being around 19, simply isn't possible); or 2) the Jedi were never the public, flesh and blood figureheads we meet in the Prequels. As such, it was always my impression that they were essentially errant space knights, scattered throughout the galaxy and lurking on the borders, watching from the shadows, and appearing (and disappearing) as needed. Knights of the Round Table, constantly moving -- the rangers of Lord of the Rings, for lack of a better comparison. They were living legends spoken of but little-seen. Their council was secret, and removed from the public eye; but for the most part, they kept on the move. In this way, their very existence could remain questionable to all but those In The Know; and prior to the rise of Palpatine, they were probably in decline as it was. Once they were hunted down by Vader, the fact that they ever existed at all could be in dispute.

 

The other Jedi issue I had was with the training process. It always seemed very clear to me that Anakin became Vader because Obi-Wan fucked up -- at seven years old this was pretty cut and dry. The impression I had was that, yes, Yoda was living on Dagobah because it kept him out of sight from the Empire, but also because he'd always been there. It made sense that when a Jedi cowboy, out and about and having exciting, covert adventures, discovered a potential recruit, they sent said recruit alone to Dagobah, just as the shade of Obi-Wan sent Luke. Each would have to enter a dark, gloomy, dangerous environment, have their patience tested by Yoda's crazy imp schtick, confront their inner darkness in the Dark Side Cave, etc. What I always took from Ben's conversation with Luke in Return of the Jedi was that Ben conciously decided not to send Anakin to Dagobah, believing himself capable of doing just a good a job as Yoda, and then fucking up so badly that he could no longer control his young disciple.

 

In the Prequels, what we ended up with were Jedi Knights who sat around and did nothing. They were the chief generals in the Clone Wars (don't get me started on that -- I don't think any of us expected what we saw in Attack of the Good Guys), and therefore war heroes -- how could their existence be in doubt? How could Darth Vader's ghost reveal an 80 year-old man when Anakin would be in his 40s in Jedi? Why does Obi-Wan chastise himself for failing to train Anakin as well as Yoda (with the clear implication that he did so without permission) when Yoda does in fact grant permission to do so...? The timeline and the details are so incredibly off that the Original Trilogy begins to have the appearance of structural issues simply by their association with the latter-day trilogy.

 

I think, as has been stated elsewhere, Lucas gave all of this very little thought, and essentially shot first or second draft scripts. His heart was clearly in the tech, and those damn pesky scripts were little more than a means to an end.