I don’t think it’s a gotcha at all, it’s basically going to my point! You gotta let Star Wars grow visually, and Star Wars is often the best possible vehicle to introduce new/more interesting ways to make movies in general. I often think the biggest positive the Prequels have going for them is that they were so groundbreaking in terms of how movies got made for the next 20 years, much in the same ways the Originals were.
Basically, some of the best movies of the last 20 years probably wouldn’t even have gotten MADE if it werent for the way the Prequels changed the production models in the industry. Attack of the Clones is a flat-out bad movie, and it’s not made very well on top of that - but a lot of what that movie did right became the basis for a TON of productions going forward, and those productions realized the promise of that movie and its production.
And to Ray’s question: Of course these are the right tools. Why wouldn’t they be? I can’t really see an argument that suggests Star Wars can’t avail itself of new tools, new ways of looking at things (especially since the series has a history of not only doing JUST that, but inventing more than a few along the way) simply because your favorite Star Wars was made in a time when those tools didn’t exist. The argument tends to become a binary disagreement over whether one tool is better than another and one tool should be used AT THE EXPENSE of the other, but I don’t like those arguments. Any POV that says ANY of those tools need to be taken out of a filmmaker’s toolbox is one I just disagree with. Let these people use what’s available to tell the story the best way it can be told. And if that means modern visual elements are being applied, I’m more than fine with that. If they’re blending them, that’s fine too. But that’s more a conversation about design and practical vs. cgi, and this conversation was at least initially more about filmmaking techniques. Cinematography, blocking, camera movements, that sort of stuff.
I think the big problem (and Creox is kind of getting at it) has more to do with people artificially limiting what Star Wars can be based on a sense of “tradition” where it doesn’t really exist. If anything, the most reliable “tradition” when it comes to Star Wars’ visuals is that it traditionally pushes the envelope when it can and it’s makers do what it needs to to stay relevant to the audiences they’re trying to reach.
Granted, you can use tools poorly, and I wouldn’t disagree that The Rise of Skywalker did so. It’s a very, VERY poorly edited movie. But I don’t think that movie’s problems are primarily with the fact the camera moves more, and the framing is often pretty dynamic (extreme low and high angles) in a way that wasn’t really seen in 77 or 80.
The phrase “typical blockbuster” is also sort of… styrofoam, to me. Some of the biggest blockbusters of the last few years don’t have a lot in common, visually or stylistically. They’re doing different things, and the variety of eyes behind the camera lead to very interesting, and rewarding, results. I think arguing Star Wars shouldn’t be a part of that simply because other very successful and very entertaining movies are already doing it is kind of a weirdly defeatist argument, and one that again relies on this weird notion that Star Wars is “precious” and needs to be treated as such.
It’s not precious. Not anymore. Hasn’t been since the late '90s, honestly, and it often feels like Star Wars fandom’s most pressing, constant source of friction comes from its members refusing to deal with that simple fact. Once you accept that other movies can do what Star Wars did, and ARE doing it, and HAVE been doing it for AWHILE now, it becomes EASIER to accept that Star Wars can (and should) shift with the times it finds itself occupying.