In retrospect, the biggest problem with the Prequels is they’re told in a way that often ignores their own premise. In theory, the most interesting thing about the Prequel story template should be Anakin and the circumstances behind Alec Guinness’ wistful recollections to Luke in ANH. This is a classic “good guy turns bad” story. The problem is that this type of story is very difficult to write convincingly. This type of story was done in the Godfather Part I and also Breaking Bad - but the latter had 6 seasons of television to pull it off, and the Godfather involved a much less extreme transition from good to bad than is required for Anakin, who has to go from Obi-Wan’s good friend to a mass murdering tyrant in only 3 movies.
This is just a REALLY hard story to write convincingly in only 3 movies. It requires a lot of upfront planning of story structure. Yet bizarrely, it seems that Lucas wasn’t even primarily interested in Anakin’s story and the obvious drama that could be mined from it. Instead he wrote Episode 1, which was a meandering side-story that introduced us to the world of the Prequels, but barely connected with the other movies. It seems clear that Lucas didn’t see the “Tragedy of Anakin Skywalker” as the primary reason for writing the Prequels. Rather, Lucas saw the Prequels as more like a general backstory to the OT that showed how the Republic turned into a dictatorship and the Jedi order was destroyed. That could certainly be interesting as a political/military drama if done correctly, but Star Wars movies are generally simple character driven stories. It seems by the time Revenge of the Sith came around, Lucas suddenly realized this saga was supposed to be more about Anakin and less about Palpatine’s crazy schemes to get elected or mysterious clone conspiracies. But by that time, it was virtually impossible to make up for lost time and write a compelling arc for Anakin in only one movie.
Most of all, it’s eternally baffling to me that so much of the Prequels are framed around MYSTERY plots. Episode 1 is about a mysterious hooded figure who operates in the shadows. Episode 2 is a detective story about a conspiracy involving a mysterious clone army created decades ago for unknown reasons. But none of these mysteries are ever really explicitly resolved because ultimately they’re superfluous to the story. More importantly, why would anyone frame a PREQUEL around mystery plots, when we all know how everything turns out? We know the mysterious hooded guy is the Emperor and that all the Jedi die, so why pretend the story is some kind of deep, compelling mystery or political conspiracy thriller? The only reason the Prequels really should exist is because the story of Anakin and his mentor/friend Obi-Wan had the potential to be an amazing character-driven drama and fantasy/sci-fi adventure story.
Very good points, ones I never thought of specifically before. A much better script for all 3 prequels is needed to tell both the fall on The Republic and the fall of Anakin Skywalker simultaneously.
I really thought the whole plot where Palpatine is basically running both the Separatists and The Republic really strained credibility. At least have the reveal that Dooku was a Sith take place in ROTS - make the audience think he is truly a rogue Jedi fighting against a hopelessly corrupt Republic and that The Separatists were actually the good guys.
Also; remember how evil Tarkin and company were in SW77 when they are all sitting around the conference table on the Death Star? Now remember the similar scene on Geonosis, with all those weird comical looking aliens? Creates a completely different feel. The Separatists seemed like a joke.
I find myself sympathizing with Stardust1138 because I often lack tact in my strong opinions.
But he does have some ideas that bear looking at. If you miss some of the things that George included in the prequels (especially if that led to not liking them and not wanting to watch them again) then your hate of one or more of the prequels might be based on not having really understood the story. There are things I didn’t catch right away (at least not consciously) that have added to my understanding of the story. I’m also not content with just the films, but in learning more about the backstory behind the story. For the prequels there is a lot in the OT, but there is more in other places. George’s original vision of the Emperor was that he was a puppet (ANH novelization). He took that and the powerful Sith lord he created for ROTJ and merged them into the same character by making him duplicitous. So you have the public face of Palpatine. He’s is a nice guy, friendly, amicable. He seems genuinely concerned. A bit of a pushover really. But then you have the real power - the Sith Lord. He is using the force to manipulate votes and get his way. He uses the Trade Federation blockade of Naboo to become Chancellor. He lays the plan for the Clone Wars by picking the source for the clones and having order 66 instilled in them. He plays the victim when he is disfigured. It is a brilliant political move. And it is the reason the separtists are a joke. He intends them to fail. He wants to destabilize the Republic and seize power for himself. He made an enemy of the Trade Federation and this seems in part revenge.
And then there is Anakin’s fall. Something I didn’t consciously catch until recently is that Palpatine uses the force on Anakin to bend him to his will. Anakin was susceptible after he stopped Mace Windu and you can hear the special effect in Palpatine’s voice when he gives Anakin instructions to take then Jedi Temple.
It is all about what you noticed and how that impacted your opinion of the films. I had a bad first viewing of TFA and I don’t think I will ever truly like that film because of it. So really get that once your opinion is formed it is hard to change. But hey, this is Star Wars. Isn’t it worth digging deeper and seeing if you missed something that might change your mind and giving each film at least a second chance? I think it is. I keep giving AOTC and TFA more chances. Basically without an edit both of them are doomed as far as I’m concerned. But the rest of them can stand in their theatrical forms and I can appreciate them.
The other big thing that I think colors our opinions of films is expectations. If you expect too much or something too different from what we got, that can ruin a film. I try to avoid having any story expectations. I still get them. I felt sure that Rey was a real Skywalker after TFA. Or a Kenobi at least. The whole nobody and then Palpatine could have thrown me but I didn’t go into the film expecting that. I went in and let the story flow. I was totally unsurprised that Han died in TFA or that Luke died in TLJ. From how Lucas and Hamill talked, I knew Luke was going to die to pass the torch. I expected that Harrison would want Han to die. He got one of the most awesome death scenes as far as I’m concerned. The look, touching Kylo’s cheeck, everything was so perfect.
But we can’t all of us have the same opinion. Just remember how divided the fans were over TESB and ROTJ. We have some members here who all these decades later still don’t like TESB or ROTJ. And I bet there are many who would like to change their minds - for them to give it another chance. If they only saw it this other way. Well, that obviously is not happening at this stage. I think every Star Wars film deserves a second chance, but if your issue isn’t going to go away, then that might not do it. Though there have been some that have given these films a second chance and have revised their opinion of them.
So some opinions are never going to change. They are set and some of us don’t understand it, but there is nothing to do about it. Everyone has a right to their own opinion and tastes. It doesn’t mean the rest of us are wrong, we just aren’t on the same page. But likely there are a few films we do agree on.
Thank you for your words, yotsuya. That’s really exactly what I was trying to express and say but I didn’t say it as elegantly and beautifully as you did. I think it’s really important to note what you’ve said. I think sometimes our notions on Star Wars are informed by what we viewed first. I know for me I don’t really like the Sequels all that much as some do because I feel personally they fundamentally misunderstand the story George was telling when you view them I-VI. That said I can view all but The Force Awakens in isolation and get some enjoyment. It’s just important I make the distinction between George Lucas Star Wars and Disney Star Wars. There’s a lot of problems I find when viewing them as continuing his story as so many rules, lore, and contexts are forgotten in favour I feel of more following what the filmmakers feel Star Wars is instead of what George Lucas felt it is. That’s not a bad thing per say as we all have a personal view. They’re not bad films necessarily under that gaze. I just don’t know if they’re good Star Wars films as conclusions to his particular story. I do mostly enjoy them though in an escapism sort of way. So I can appreciate them for that. The Last Jedi for its more philosophical commentary and having some mindless fun with The Rise of Skywalker. Like you I can’t get there with The Force Awakens. I liked it initially for the characters but in retrospect it’s near or is the worse in the series for me. They’re not perfect but no film truly is. Different things will work for everyone. The way I truly try to view Star Wars with George Lucas is I-VI instead of working backwards IV-VI, I-III. I think it truly makes all the difference in understanding his story and why he did things the way he did them. Plot holes I don’t find are plot holes. Sure there’s a few things that can be a little jarring like Palpatine calling Luke’s lightsaber a Jedi’s weapon if you don’t know the Sith were founded by a rogue Jedi but overall it becomes a more rewarding experience trying to understand his way of seeing the films instead of strictly speaking the way we personally feel attached to them. I know I can’t speak for everyone and I was wrong in how I did go a little far in how I tried to convey really tools to understand them and what you said much better. It’s good we can’t all like the same things but I feel strongly in the belief of having personal viewpoint and author’s intentions. You can have personal tastes with a film but also try watching it from the other side. You might be surprised with just how much reveals itself. George’s Star Wars stories are the perfect example of this as they’re the other side of the story. They’re meant to mirror and juxtaposition off of each other to form one long epic akin to War and Peace.
Thank you again and thank you for your prospective on the Sequels and Star Wars. I always appreciate your outlook on it. I may not always agree with you but it’s good to view things from a different prospective. It’s good to have something to think about.
I watched TPM for the first time in over a decade a couple of years ago. I was truly astonished at how bad the dialogue was and/or how badly delivered it was. As I have aged it gets worse and I cannot ever see myself watching TPM ever again.
Without hyperbole I feel that 95% of the dialogue is terrible or terribly delivered. Qui-gon and Obi-wan were obviously given direction to play the Jedi as calm…but they come off like robots, Jar Jar is Jar Jar, Jake Lloyd is Jake Lloyd, and Portman seems to think her character is a Jedi - the way she plays it so robotically. God!
I can understand how this can be percieved as a weakness but I think it’s due to the setting in a lot of ways. The Jedi are meant to be portrayed as religious type figures. They tend to have a reserved and collective tone versus a more expressive lively personality as opposed to a more common doer like we see in young Anakin and Jar Jar. Padme is royalty. Just like Queen Elizabeth II, she’ll I think naturally come off as more emotions in check and reserved. I think that’s a very realistic portrayal given the time the story takes place. As well as I think it’s equally important to note that George designed the dialogue like that of a the Saturday Matinee Serial and 30’s/40’s cinema. Attack of the Clones is align with that of a melodrama from the era. I noticed George’s style a lot when I watched The Red Shoes and Flash Gordon. The style of acting is very deliberate in being more like a silent film. It’s more what is expressed visually than what is said. I feel Star Wars has always been portrayed this way from the very beginning in George’s films as one can argue A New Hope is a silent film with a music underpinning holding it together. It’s meant to be told through the music and visuals. The dialogue is just a jumping off point for understanding the story more so but that’s not what George feels is the most important ingredient. He’s more of a visual filmmaker (pure cinema like Andrei Tarkovsky and Canyon Cinema) with an emotional weight versus that of a literacy filmmaker (Martin Scorsese or David Lean) like you see more commonly. Film has been used less and less as a visual medium but that’s where we are these days. George’s style and other filmmakers like him I find aren’t for everyone but that’s their style and how they try to view things I think.
These fairly short videos are a good starting off point:
I really thought the whole plot where Palpatine is basically running both the Separatists and The Republic really strained credibility. At least have the reveal that Dooku was a Sith take place in ROTS - make the audience think he is truly a rogue Jedi fighting against a hopelessly corrupt Republic and that The Separatists were actually the good guys.
Yeah - and as a morality tale it’s a bit hollow because it’s so far removed from how these things play out in real life. Real life dictators aren’t far-seeing puppet masters that expertly pull off elaborate conspiracies to seize power. They just take advantage of existing weaknesses in the political system. Caesar marched his army into Rome because he gambled that after years of war, his legion would be more loyal to him than the Senate. Hitler took advantage of a politically divided and economically depressed Germany.
I’d argue though that’s really what we see in the Prequels. The senate is very ineffective and has a lot of petty fighting in The Phantom Menace. Palpatine creates a crisis to put himself in a position to gain power as he knows the senate isn’t functioning. He created the Clone Army in secret because he knew that the senate would never approve the usage of an army as alluded to by Bail Organa. It’s only through emergency powers it comes to pass. This of course lead to the Empire. It was carefully planned mechanics to make up a greater whole. He equally did things in the shadows as he had to get rid of the Jedi first and turn the Republic against them. He would be powerless if he did everything with the Jedi in the foreground as they’re negotiators and peacekeepers as much as they are a religious order. It’s just by the time of the Prequels they like the Republic had grown complacent and forgot how to function. Palpatine took advantage of a lot of people for his own personal gain. Horrifically so that very much can happen in real life.
Also…didn’t Lucas decided to do the PT when he saw Jurassic Park and knew CGI had reached an acceptable level of realism (no it hadn’t, but I digress…)? That should tell us all we need to know about his headspace when working on these films.
Technically yes but he was also exploring the possibility before Jurassic Park came out when doing Young Indy as discussed in the book I have called The Cinema of George Lucas. He was looking for a way to do them cost effectively as he was self financing himself and Young Indy was expensive to make. The technology made it more affordable and only freed his imagination to realise the story he wanted to tell. It’s only because of him and the work of ILM that CGI has advanced to where it is now. If anything I think The Phantom Menace (and all of the Prequels) should be commended for what it pushed forward and ushered in for filmmakers. In a Star Wars context you can’t have The Force Awakens without The Phantom Menace pushing boundaries. Courtesy to what J.J. would have it believed The Phantom Menace had more practical effects than The Force Awakens. Surprisingly to some as well the three Prequels had more practical effects than the entire Original Trilogy combined.