Originally posted by: sunday256
I agree that he's not totally isolating the movie to just a child's demographic. It's not like it's an ABC-Seasame Street kind of movie. There are adult situations, but it's done in a way that a child can enjoy it. And I think you hit the mark when you say 12 year old. That's an age that's older than a toddler but young enough to still be considered a child and not a teenager. Granted, there's merit in calling a teen a child also.
I'll agree to some extent that ROTJ and TPM are a bit soft and gooey when it comes to pandering, for the simple reason that Jar Jar and Ewoks have this way of grating an adults nerves, but I don't find that with AOTC or ROTS. Now, there may be some really pathetic dialogue in both of those movies, but that's no different than any of the other movies...even the actors will agree.
I agree that he's not totally isolating the movie to just a child's demographic. It's not like it's an ABC-Seasame Street kind of movie. There are adult situations, but it's done in a way that a child can enjoy it. And I think you hit the mark when you say 12 year old. That's an age that's older than a toddler but young enough to still be considered a child and not a teenager. Granted, there's merit in calling a teen a child also.
I'll agree to some extent that ROTJ and TPM are a bit soft and gooey when it comes to pandering, for the simple reason that Jar Jar and Ewoks have this way of grating an adults nerves, but I don't find that with AOTC or ROTS. Now, there may be some really pathetic dialogue in both of those movies, but that's no different than any of the other movies...even the actors will agree.
As far as pandering goes though, to me the PT in general, even AOTC and to a lesser extent ROTS, still panders to kids--not because it has fart jokes and stuff like that but because it is made in a form that only kids can really appreciate. They are extremely fast-paced films without much nuance or emotional subtext--everything is rush, rush, rush, without stopping to really absorb the characters or hint at some kind of interior motivation, and the dwelling on the whole "serial" thing overpowers the films oftens; ANH referenced the serials, but it wasn't actually made as one, unlike AOTC for example. ANH was quickly paced but you at least had that nuance--i mean you look at Obi Wan's death or Luke discovering the burning homestead, it is presented very simply and brushed away quite quickly, but there is still that little thing there in the performance and we are at least stopped for a moment to dwell upon it. Its that type of thing that makes adults appreciate the films, but theres no reason why kids can't either--and they do, which is why these type of films are always more loved, and its for these same reasons that kids instinctively gravitated towards LOTR as a series of true power as that series went on--i remember seeing 12 year old crying during ROTK because they were touched by it. I think Lucas tried to do a bit of this emotional subtext in AOTC with Anakin crying about killing the Tusken Raiders and wanting to turn the ship around to save Padme but it didn't really come off the same. With ROTS i felt that he finally found some of that emotional subtext however, and theres a reason why this is the only film that is even tolerated by audiences--characters have motivation finally, there is an emotional throughline, and you can see in the performances that for once there is actually more going on that the dialog is saying. It's still rushed through however and not given enough breathing time--and of course Lucas let the whole "the films are serials" get the better of him. I mean Darth Vader saying "noooo"? Imagine if Luke discovers the burning homestead, John Williams music is swelling, the audience is being moved, we get the wonderful John Ford wideshot with the smoke billowing out....and then Luke drops to his knees and screams "NOOOooooo" before the scene irises out. Yeah. Thats the key difference between Star Wars and the PT. Analyse it for whatever factors you may find let to this type of stylistic difference but whatever they are, one of the films is touching and sweeping and the other is plagued with cheese and awkwardness that prevents it from truely being successful.