I respectfully disagree. I don’t really see George as someone who was trying to max out on profits with the Prequels. I see what he did as giving endless creativity to collectors and recouping his investment in order to stay independent. He had to make his investment back in more ways than just the films. It’s the complete opposite of what Disney did with X-Wings and TIE Fighters. They made everything look like the Original Trilogy as they wanted to make something that they felt was Star Wars. It may look like it to an extent but I don’t think it entirely feels like it.
That’s a fair assessment of it and I can respect that. I do miss the “evolutionary” trajectory of the ships in the PT-OT and I wish it continued in a more substantial way in the ST beyond minor adjustments.
They did carry over a few things but it’s the execution of the ideas that seems to be different. J never saw midi-chlorians as a weakness to the story. I think they add an extra layer. Especially when you consider the Whills angle. I equally don’t mind the political storybeats as Star Wars has always been political.
Indeed, I don’t mind the political aspects of it. Heck, it’s one of the parts of the prequels I enjoy and I wish there had been more of it in the sequels. I respectfully disagree about midi-chlorians and the Whills due to how they “de-mystify” the Force.
Then again, I feel that way about a lot of stuff. I’ve never been keen on Raava-Vaatu in the ATLA series, as I like the idea of the Avatar being completely obscured to even the wisest sages of the four nations. Granted, the Raava-Vaatu conflict gave us all the bits of Korra Books 3 and 4 that I liked, so it’s a wash.
I honestly would’ve been right there with you if the story that George started didn’t feel incomplete.
I’d say I-VI is pretty complete if that’s any consolation. ROTJ is a pretty conclusive ending for me, with those bits of poetic cycles completed. I even like how the film cuts from the heroes of the PT (Shaw or Hayden, take your pick) to the heroes of the OT in the last two shots.
The difference from my estimate and I could be completely wrong is that Gene Roddenberry got to tell his stories before someone else came into the picture to expand his work. I’ve never been the biggest Star Trek fan but I have enjoyed Next Generation in the times I’ve watched it.
It’s more that Roddenberry got kicked out of power when people realized that he wasn’t that good at writing dialogue or developing fallible characters. The “Roddenberry box” was a phenomenon that TNG writers and staff complained about, as Roddenberry told them that fallible people wouldn’t exist in his universe. I might be misrepresenting that, but the point remains. He didn’t really get to tell all of his stories beyond seasons 1-2 of TNG and the first Trek movie. He just got kicked up into a position where other directors and writers would do whatever they wanted and they just ran some basic stuff by him.
It’s all ultimately subjective. No one answer is correct but I do think the original creator no matter who they are should be given the chance to complete their life’s work. Unfortunately life doesn’t always go the way we want it to and this is a case of that.
Well said. I respectfully disagree about the “one creator completing their story” angle (I hate auteur theory and/or “protection from editors”), but I can completely see where you’re coming from. I get why I-VI is more enjoyable than I-IX to you, especially from the storytelling perspective and your interpretation of the series. I wish I could like the prequels as you do, I really do.
I do like that two people can get such different things from the series and that it can provide for respectful, thoughtful debate. I wish my Star Wars debates on other platforms (e.g., reddit and discord servers) went as well as this.