[deleted]
[deleted]
Yes but wouldn't everybody be asking for the other episodes, expecting them to be just as good as the trilogy?
shareThey did right up until, oh...about 1999. For some reason it became less interesting at that point...
shareI know but it's easy to speak afterwards.
In 1998 people still expected more magic like the trilogy.
In an alternate universe Lucas pulled off 6 more classic and never sold off.
When The Phantom Menace came out in '99, though, I think people knew that something was rotten in the state of a Galaxy Far Far Away...
But, yeah, there was probably still a lot of optimism and hope there.
And I agree with you 100% insofar as it's easy to be a Monday morning quarterback. Of course throughout the years betwixt Return of the Jedi and Phantom Menace I, like most other Star Wars fans, fantasized about the other six movies.
Looking back, I do remember even being a little sad that the new films (the upcoming prequels), when they were announced, would (obviously) not have Luke, Han, and Leia in them.
But you're absolutely right: hindsight is 20/20. That's why, as years go by, I rip on Lucas less. He tried the impossible: to recreate the magic of the originals. He did his best, I think. He should certainly have hired a second scriptwriter and surrounded himself with producers who could say, "...you want to do *what*, George???" but he still tried.
Absolutely! The prequels are much better than most give them credit. The story Lucas was telling is solid but he needed a dialogue writer like Lawrence and a more talented director that could capture the scenes in a more interesting way. Why is the ESB better than SW? Because it has drama, comedy, and interesting dialogue. Kasden is a much better dialogue writer than Lucas and Irving a better director/cinematographer. Honestly SW was a huge hit thanks to Lucas's imagination and the music/special effects used. The dialogue isn't great and the direction was saved in editing.
However, during the mid 90's Lucas's head was so big that he thought all the success was his own. He himself admits that he couldn't work well with others stating he wasn't interested in hiring directors because he'd just be watching over their shoulder telling them what to do the whole time. Shoot he pretty much ghost directed ROTJ, the only reason ESB had freedom was because Lucas was too busy with family and running several different upstart companies.
I think Lucas saw some of his mistakes during the prequels. Whether the fans were mean to Lucas or not it was constructive criticism. While prepping for episode 9 he hired Micheal to write a script based on his story outline. That was at-least a move in the correct direction. Would love to have seen what the sequels would have been if Lucas had produced and storied and hired the same directors/Writers.
People blame Abrams and Johnson but I think the source of the problem is Kennedy?Disney. They are the ones forcing the social politics and Marvel humor into star wars not Abrams or Johnson.
Personally, I feel star wars has a special place in Lucas' heart and he felt responsible to protect his vision. He has no problems letting other direct and write his other productions such as Indiana Jones and Willow.
I want to clarify: I do not like the prequels really at all. I respect Lucas, and I recognise that he set himself an impossible task: replicate the magic of the original films and carry on in such a way that will satisfy fans. But I'm not saying the prequels were good.
The idea of a good warrior falling to evil is a compelling premise, but it's not enough. The idea of a democracy eroding from within is great, but it's not enough. Lucas' execution was terrible. He didn't hit the story beats of the character properly to create a compelling arc for Anakin, and he didn't get into the subtlety and political machinations deep enough to create a great political thriller/tragedy.
I don't think he told a good story at all. Forget dialogue and direction, the basic plot of the prequels are bad. Only the premise is okay, but a premise is nothing.
I also prefer Star Wars to Empire Strikes Back. I think the plotting is tighter (so Lucas can do it...), even if the dialogue isn't as sharp and the production/direction as slick. This is a marginal victory, too - believe me: I'm not slagging The Empire Strikes Back at all.
I blame Abrams a little. He set up mystery boxes (bad idea) and didn't think through anything in the 20-30 year gap between Return of the Jedi and The Force Awakens. He directed a great action movie, but set up everything so poorly that the foundation was basically rotten by the time the second and third films were being written.
As for Johnson...I kinda give him the same credit I give Lucas: premise is okay, story is bad, and I admire the attempt. Lucas wanted to plunge deep into Lore and history and just...bogged it. Johnson tried to spin Star Wars' mythology on its head and colour all the shades of grey that the series wasn't filling in. He just...did it poorly.
Kennedy and Disney should get more of the blame, yes. Disney is just trying to make money. It's a corporation. It doesn't care about art at all.
I love Willow, too.
1. Ah man give them another shot. I know several people who hated them then re-watched recently and actually had more respect for them. They are not in the same game as the OT but still better than 95% of other large scale movies released. 6-8/10
2. I thought the story and premise of the PT is fantastic. Name some other movies that are that grand in scale and have provoked the same world building. You could dive deep on the PT universe just you can the OT. Lucas created almost a whole new universe with the PT.
3. Here's video that gives a little more light to Anakin shown in the PT. Again, I'm not saying they did a good job of creating his ark but it's there none the less.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bL_PDgczHJc
4. If the plot is tighter on SW then it's by mistake. Several deleted scenes and massive overhaul in the editing room during it's post production. So bad that Lucas had minor heart attack from the stress. Personally its the character building and the interesting dialogue that makes for better movie which the ESB has 10 fold over SW.
5. Disagree about Abrams. I think his mystery was what gave SW it's spark and interest again. There were whole utube channels set up discussing the possibilities and new directions. For the most part fans were stoked to see TLJ. All due to Abrams creating these questions we wanted answered. It's what followed that killed SW. Johnson made the mistake of trying to hard to go in a direction that nobody expected. Instead he went a way nobody wanted.
6. Johnson's TLJ is terrible, terribly terrible. I could go on for hours on it's problems. However, I think he had some sprinkles of genius mixed in the pot of sh&t. As much as Johnson is to blame, TLJ went way to heavy into social politics a full bore on it's Marvel style humor. These things are also present in TFA but they not as visible until you go back to watch after TLJ and ROSW.
7. Truth about today's Disney. Which is sad since Disney HS was so different
1. I think of them as kin to the Matrix sequels: forgettable action movies made more disappointing by claiming a vaunted peerage beyond them.
2. The premise has promise, but the story I don't like. By story here, I'm talking about the plot points of the movies themselves, many of which are nonsensical (the Jedi council's response to finding a Sith is, "Meh. Let these two do it."), half-baked ("There's a council. It...votes."), or obnoxious (hello, Jar-Jar). As for world-building, I don't like it. The world-building done by the prequels, in my opinion, was junk. I didn't like the way the Jedi were basically a political body, Yoda was a general, the Clone Wars were underwhelming and murky, and a lot of the locations and ideas were kinda, "Look: Wookie planet..." No sense of culture of civilization or history. I shake my head when I think of the treatment of Yoda. I would contrast this with Lord of the Rings, which I consider primo worldbuilding where I always get a sense of the vastness of the world, the history, the mythology and lore, all supporting and swirling around the central narrative.
3. I'll watch the video.
4. The tightness of the plotting wasn't Lucas alone. But it wasn't an accident. It was brilliant editors, and his script was tight.
5. I'll clarify: mystery is wonderful and sparks great stories (The Third Man!), but I'm not a fan of Abrams' "mystery box" writing. I've heard that he writes the mystery and then figures out the end later. I believe his use of this technique in TFA led to Johnson's story spiraling into bad ideas, and ultimately gave us the return of Palpatine. Mystery = good, not thinking it through first = bad. I also think he handled the "gap years" poorly, giving us a deadbeat dad Han and a "resistance", and other elements which inexplicably backtrack on the ending of RotJ. It was hand-wavy and felt cheap.
6. The execution was terrible, I liked the ideas. Bitter Luke is interesting, but done poorly, for instance.
[deleted]
I think the point of the prequels was to be very different from the original trilogy.
share