'Why the SW prequels are better than the OT' - article inside — Page 2

My first reaction was to quote Gus from Psych when some kid said that the prequels were better than the OT:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Wn6Et4Fu88

Do I really need to say anything else?

Actually, I'm doing an interview with a right-wing newspaper this week, which normally isn't my thing, but they did a piece on this and they made a very good point about the factual inaccuracies. TPM and AOTC were both written and filmed before George Bush was ever in office. Lucas has admitted that any similarities to contemporary politics in those films is coincidental, as the only American politics those films referenced was the Nixon administration, and that was just one source of many (e.g. Julius Caesar, Adolph Hitler, etc.). ROTS tailored itself to the politics of the time, but only a little, as the story was already in place by 2002 and the writing was begun before the war in Iraq existed.

Mrebo said:

zombie84 said:

Actually, I'm doing an interview with a right-wing newspaper this week, which normally isn't my thing, but they did a piece on this and they made a very good point about the factual inaccuracies.

To be fair, I think he was suggesting that the the PT was better because it reflected more modern and complex ideas of good and evil - however unintentionally. I think he used the Bush era as examples of what kinds complexities he has in mind. He is imposing his worldview upon the movie and calling it brilliant on that basis. I think his characterizations of the Bush era and his allusions to the Cold War or WWII are oversimplistic, if not flat out wrong. Lucas is an avowed liberal who certainly knew about complex notions of good and evil in the wake of Vietnam War.

 Totally agreed. As if the 1970s were somehow less morally ambiguous is somewhat silly.

The main thesis of the article seems to be something along the lines of "The PT attempted a more complicated backstory and had less likeable characters, which somehow makes it better than the OT regardless of any other values as an entertainment."

I'll agree Padme and Annie talking about dictatorship in the grass is one of my favorite scenes in the whole PT. But it doesn't make up for "I hate sand" "Yoousa in bad doo doo" "Dont do it Anakin, I have the high ground" "Nooooooooooooooooo" or a slew of other cringe worthy scenes.

EXACTLY.

That's why I never bought that "Jedi=ambiguous/bad guys" angle for a second. They were (attempted to be) portrayed as heroic protectors of democracy who were tragically outsmarted and betrayed by those within their midst, who finally caught on just a few hours too late to avert their own genocide. But they were so stiffly written, so poorly acted, and so nonsensically integrated into the plot, that it actually came across to some people that they were arrogant, complacent, corrupt, and morally questionable.

Although to be fair, Lucas played into this to some degree with ROTS, but never resolved it. "Good is a point of view Anakin. The Jedi and Sith are similar in almost every way." So, is Palpatine the only one being honest, or is he just manipulating Anakin? Lucas never really solves this, but in the end we're on the Jedi's side and it turns out Palpatine was wrong about a lot of things and was tricking Anakin most of the way, which strongly sides it on the Jedi=good angle of TPM and AOTC.

If the Force is can have a powerful influence over the weak minded the, PT Jedi must be the most mentally feeble beings in the cosmos to fall for Palpatine's obvious plan.

The story is weak but AOTC is the sagging middle of the soggy cardboard the PT is built on.

Jango tries to kill Padme to stop her from stopping the bill that unleashes his clones on the Galactic stage and he works as a personal body guard for the former Jedi that runs the Separatist movement that the army is conscripted to fight?

Even a fool can see there is a problem there.

Add supernatural powers to the mix and they are worse than fools.

Bingowings said:

If the Force is can have a powerful influence over the weak minded the, PT Jedi must be the most mentally feeble beings in the cosmos to fall for Palpatine's obvious plan.

The story is weak but AOTC is the sagging middle of the soggy cardboard the PT is built on.

Even a fool can see there is a problem there.

Add supernatural powers to the mix and they are worse than fools.

 While I prefer to call AOTC the hole in the middle of the butt that is the PT, the Jedi aren't the ones who approve the clone army. The Senate does that. They're stupid, but at least they aren't supposed to be all wise and psychic and stuff.

I'd just like to add that Tim's idea that there is "simplistic" morality in the OT is simply false. He must have missed the entire ROTJ climax. The situation is:

If Luke kills the bad guys, he becomes a bad guy.

If Luke does not fight, he will be killed.

So, Luke can't win by fighting, but he also can't avoid the fight! That's a very precise moral dilemma (which the PT, btw, ruins), and one that, in my opinion, separates SW from just about all other popculture movies of this general genre. In those, it's rather all about vigilante style justice. In SW, it's your actions that define you as good or evil, not which badge or uniform you happen to wear.

As for the rest, it's simply the same old PT-fan line: the PT had cool themes, ergo it's good. As if execution didn't matter.

Edit: Oh, and I can add that the notion of "flawed Jedi" is true, the jedi in the PT are supposed to be flawed, that is an integral part of the PT thematic framework....but the ground work for that thematic framework is actually laid down by the OT. The Jedi HAVE to be flawed, because the Emperor MUST win - if he doesn't, the two trilogies won't connect. So, way to ignore how the groundwork laid by the OT dictates the premises of the PT...

I personally think the big mistake was having the OT characters that were alive in the PT era as the main focus of the PT.

If Anakin, Obi-Wan, Palpatine, Owen, Beru etc were background figures you could set the story at an angle where the events still played out but you were emotionally invested in characters that OT fans wouldn't yet know the fates of.

You could even have had more than one potential candidate for the role of mother to Luke and Leia.

The droids could be together and play the same sort of role as they do in the OT because they are droids, the universe doesn't really notice them.

That way you could have obscured Vader's identity, never showed Yoda and have genuine tension by caring for a group of characters that may or may not survive the last movie of the PT.

So played in either as PT>OT or OT>PT the narrative would still work.

Making the Jedi the focus of the PT was a huge mistake because we already know they all dead bar two in the OT.

It then becomes a case of rubbernecking the sinking Titanic.

xhonzi said:

Bingowings said:

Making the Jedi the focus of the PT was a huge mistake because we already know they all dead bar two in the OT.

It then becomes a case of rubbernecking the sinking Titanic.

 THERE IS MORE TO DRAMA THAN WHO DIES AT THE END!*

True there is more to it than that but it's more than a major factor, I also believe I was talking in relation to tension not drama.

Drama on it's own can be very boring.

If that was not the case Drama Queens would be the most fascinating people in the universe.

Tension is exciting because it plugs into those primal emotions.

Ultimately we and everyone we care about dies but our emotional wiring is tuned to optimising survival not just of ourselves but also our extended community.

Fictional characters that we are designed to care about become part of our tribe for the duration of the drama.

The thrill comes from the author playing with the notion of threatening them with death, injury or some other horrible situation, sometimes to the point of losing one character so we can shift our emotional investment onto another.

If you walk into the castle keep knowing which characters will come out with you there is no tension, just the possible spectacle of watching how the tower collapses which is limited.

xhonzi said:

danaan said:

So, Luke can't win by fighting, but he also can't avoid the fight! That's a very precise moral dilemma (which the PT, btw, ruins),

I'm sure I won't disagree with you, but please elaborate on this point.  What in the PT influences this moment in RotJ?

xhonzi said:

Does the duel at the end of ESB not have any tension now that Return of the Jedi is out there?

The first time I saw ESB was a much more intense sensation than the second time.

Most of the thrill of re-watching it later came from remembering not knowing who would survive.

Then came the appreciation of the construction of the piece.

Then there was the pleasure of catechism, the enjoyment of the ritual of repetition, repeating the lines, recognising the design features but without the need of appreciation (and possibly the empathic reliving of the initial uncertainty by watching the film with a first time audience member).

So no, for me there is no longer any tension in watching the duel in ESB but there is the remembrance of the initial tension and the appreciation of the artistry that created it.

This is the main reason I want the original unaltered trilogy restored and available to buy.

If Lucas really wanted to be daring he would create branching alternative actions so every time I watched ESB:SE the events would have different but equally well made outcomes and then I could get some more tension out of re-watching the film.

I have to admit I have no idea what "turning to the dark side" even means now. I guess it doesn't happen until you change your name or something.

As for the article fawning over the supposed political/moral intricacy introduced by the prequels, that's too funny. Aren't there about 37 James Bond movies where the bad guy manipulates the naive superpowers for ULTIMATE POWER! Big deal. You could write that article about HUDSON HAWK.