What exactly was stopping George from "handing off" the prequels??? — Page 2

nightstalkerpoet said:

With TPM... so much was jam-packed into it, and it had such a different feel from the OT, that a lot of people had to see it two or three times just to wrap their heads around it. A lot of reviews these days contain "I saw The Phantom Menace like 5 times in theaters". I don't think that was the case with AotC. Some people didn't like TPM, and didn't come back. Some people came back hoping AotC was better, and decided it wasn't. Most people saw it once, shrugged their shoulders, and waited for RotS to figure out where the hell this was all heading. A small minority loved the film and followed the SW trend of multiple viewings.

Generally though, it succeeded because it was a Star Wars movie. 

I think this is a pretty fair assessment. The unfortunate thing about Episode I for me was that I don't think the marketing did a good job of preparing people for the type of film they were going to see. The trailer for Episode I is still the best thing to ever come out of the prequels, I wanted to see that film! I still do! It was the spirit and feel of Star Wars, but also fresh and original. The film that we got was decidedly different; I still feel like it's not the film previewed in the trailer. And keep in mind, I actually did like Episode I when it came out, and still do to a large degree. I don't think it's a very good Star Wars prequel, but I derive enjoyment from it. But it's not what I wanted or expected, and I mean that in a neutral way. The film was always destined to get bad reviews because even though I say I enjoy it, I also realize it's not a particularly great film, but I don't think audiences were prepared for this silly, whimsical children's fantasy film, they were expecting something a bit darker and a bit more grown up.

That's the reason Episode II got good reviews at first, but now is often regarded as the worst of the series. I loved AOTC when I first saw it, mainly because it was the Episode I that I was (sort of) expecting, and the basis of most positive reviews were that it wasn't Phantom Menace, it was daker and more "Adult"...but while I saw Episode I four or five times in theaters, I only went back to Episode II once, and every time I watched it I liked it less and less. The reason being, once the excitment of having a serious, darker film that actually set up the events of the OT wore off, I realized it was one of the worst acted, written and directed movies I have ever paid money to see. The film simply sucks. But after Episode I, it seemed like a breath of fresh air. Phantom Menace had so much backlash that anything would have seemed better, but in retrospect I feel like at least George Lucas was genuinely trying with Episode I, while Episode II really just feels like he had no idea what to do with the film and just sort of threw it out there. I get the feeling of absolutely no confidence or enthusiasm went into that film, and maybe it's because the backlash of Episode I was such a sucker punch for Lucas that it took away his confidence and joy in making a follow-up, but he was now obligated to even if he didn't want to. I mean, there is no way he could have predicted the negativity people had for him and Episode I, I am sure he was genuinely shocked and felt like shit for a few months. I mean, he was a god before Episode I, it was shocking to us, and he seemed to be really excited about making Episode I, so I get the impression that the backlash was as unpredicted for him as it was to us. People accuse Lucas of sometimes loathing his fans, and I tend to agree sometimes, but I think part of the reason is that he felt kicked to the curb by them, not that he is correct--he's not, and we still made him rich anyway so he laughed all the way to the bank--but I think there is a lot that Lucas either denies feeling or doesn't open up about.

It's not that it wasn't dark. It's that it was so very childish, and again I mean that in a neutral way, it's a film meant to appeal to ten year olds, while the other films were the sort of films that adults make for themselves that also appeal to ten year olds; Spielberg was the king of that genre too, and I feel Pixar and Peter Jackson have been doing decent jobs of it too. If it was darker it would have helped it's rep, and I also think it's silly to say its dumb to expect the film to be dark, there was every reason to excpect it to be darker than it was, it's almost silly to have expected it to be as light and kid-friendly as it was, but that's not the root of the problem. The backlash came from the fact that Episode I wasn't a great film, it was always going to get mediocre reviews, but the fact that it was child-friendly by Return of the Jedi standards made things twice as bad and amplified the negativity that was already there. Really, Episode I isn't terrible, it just wasn't all that good, and people hadn't waited 16 years for something that was "meh." So, viewers were guilty of exaggerating things, but the film was guilty of being a bit lousy as well. Put those together and you have the cinematic disappointment of a lifetime--sort of unfairly earned, but also unable to really defend itself because it's sorta poor in the first place.

Easterhay said:

I don't believe Peter Jackson makes films for kids, though. From a child's point of view (if I may dare to be so bold) he makes films that are long and boring with quite a few frightening moments. King Kong? Dull as ditchwater until they land on the island. Then it's scary scenes with the natives (not at all child-friendly) and sub-par CGI dinosaurs. Lord Of The Rings? Again, for any kid (and even some adults) it has incredibly long sections where not much of interest really happens (a lot of talking and walking) and then scenes with Orcs that, as with the natives in King Kong, are terrifying for kids.

Fair enough. Maybe Harry Potter is a better example, especially the latter installments. I didn't see the early HP films in theaters, but when I went to the last three or four it was prettty much an equal balance of kids, teens and adults (not parents, people like me who went to see it because they wanted to see it).

I always just have a very vivid memory of a 14 year old girl crying with emotion in the seat in front of me during the end of Return of the King--genuinely being moved by the story and characters TO TEARS--can you imagine that? That's something people sometimes talk about but never actually witness, and she was actually crying with emotion. By contrast, I have a very vivid memory of an an entire movie theater laughing their asses off when Darth Vader went "NOOOOooo" in Episode III. I'm not making any of this up, and people laughed at a lot of dialogue they weren't supposed to be laughing at elsewhere in the movie. Even though I feel like I am one of the few people here that actually really like Episode III that to me was a perfect example of why LOTR won armfulls of Oscars for being really good and the prequels won armfuls of Razzie's for being really bad.

Easterhay said:

I actually think the latter instalments of Harry Potter are the very films you wouldn't show to kids, to be honest. My two have yet to see the final one, for example.

 

Depending on the age. I mean, when we say "kids" it's a big difference between 7 and 12. I might think twice before showing the final three films to a seven year old (although I probably would anyway...when I was 7 I watched Terminator and Robocop and Aliens, and they all scared me to death and I loved them for that, so I'm of the mentality that it's okay to be scared of movies).

I've heard a lot of people found the end of ROTK moving (that line "You bow to no-one" gets a lot of plaudits), I just remember feeling "When is this going to end?". A whole cinema laughing at one line in ROTS, though? Well, that's a new one on me, I must say. Maybe the acoustics made it sound like it was more people than it truly was. I saw the movie twice at the cinema and not a titter did I hear at that scene. Just goes to show you, eh?

 

I agree about ROTK. I love that film, and I remember being really annoyed by the 5 endings. I still think the ending with Sam is a mistake. But nonetheless, it was a very moving cinematic experience for the majority of the audience. And with ROTS: Yeah, people laughed at "younglings", even when it was a very serious scene involving murdered children, and they laughed at the romantic dialogue too.

I wouldn't attach too much importance to the Oscars, you know, zombie. A lot of that voting is purely political. I'm not saying LOTR didn't deserve its awards - it probably did - but I think to ignore the technical achievements of the SW prequels was petty and undeserved. These are the same people who showered Titanic with awards, remember.

Sure, who cares about technicalities. The prequels got technical awards. But when you get awards for stuff like acting and directing--you may not agree with it completely, because everyone has an opinion. But I think there is some sense of consensus that you've made a decent film if that happens. No one is giving Spice World a best picture Oscar. And no one is giving Return of the King a Worst Picture Razzie. But the fact that ROTK got a best picture nod and ROTS a worst picture nod--that indicates the general reputation a film has. And when it's that extreme--the best and the worst--it tends to count a lot. People aren't idiots. If everyone is saying a film is great, it's probably worth watching at least (some exceptions given, but that's besides the point), and if people say a film is awful it probably is not all that amazing. So these are useful indicators and why I bring them up. Obviously there is no accounting for taste, but I think it's kind of cheap to say "I'M NOT CRAZY, THE REST OF YOU ARE CRAZY!". I think Temple of Doom and Kingdom of the Crystal Skull are the best Indy films, but I do recognize that everyone else thinks they are the worst, and not without good reason.