Stardust1138

BedeHistory731 said:

So, mea culpa. I got Rick Worley confused with So Uncivilized (as in, I thought Rick Worley was SU’s real name). My mistake. I’ve seen some of So Uncivilized’s work and would compare it to a more pretentious “Every Frame a Painting.”

I am curious about Worley’s attempts to explain the ending to The Sopranos

Welp, haha, I enjoy So Uncivilized personally but that’s mainly because I find him looking at things from the lenses of an artist like Rick does. He’s a professional editor. However he just as often has his own opinions on certain things but I find he has the right intentions of trying to get to the roots of asking why with something. The balance of personal tastes and artist’s intentions really come across well in his Jar Jar video.

I’ve not watched The Sopranos so I had to stop myself from reading all of your post. It looks like a great show. I’ll probably watch it at some point.

thebluefrog said:

How can someone not be a film critic? It’s not like there’s any sort of laudable criteria for having an opinion on art.

Anyone can be a film critic in a way but there’s a key difference between having an opinion on something versus being able to read it. Like any type of literacy there’s a grammar and rules to how you’re supposed to analyse something. This is different from personal tastes. Film like literature is an artistic medium. Our culture isn’t taught though to read film as we are literature. I find in turn you get people believing their opinion is the consensus and the only valid points are when someone agrees with them. In reality there’s a reason things are the way they are and the artist thought as they did. It might not be to your personal taste but that doesn’t make it bad by default. It’s the grey line between subjective and objective.

He’s not for everyone but he’s only viewing things through a visual literacy lenses and of understanding why and even how George made the decisions he did versus what George was thinking as many do. Context is key. He cites Pauline Kael where neccessary. He has a well rounded view of things but naturally strives to portray the artist as he is one too. He writes and illustrates comics. He’s not the typical YouTube reviewer in that regard. He’s merely giving an artist’s prospective and I think that holds merit even if he can come across as all knowing sometimes.

I’ve only watched bits of the videos you attached and really have no desire to watch anything else they make. I mean if they discussed something I was interested in and were having an intellectual discussion over it I’d be very open minded to giving them a chance but they have opinions. That’s all these channels and people you mention have. Opinions. They may make points and have opinions I agree with sometimes but the difference is they aren’t film critics. They’re people with opinions who are sharing what they think of something without context to back it up. Context is really a key ingredient I think in understanding any type of art or anything for that matter and is lacking in our culture. Everyone can have an opinion but that doesn’t mean they’re right. However if you’re using factual evidence to try to understand something I’m more open to hearing what you have to say as I can tell you really care about what it is you’re talking about.

It’s okay. We can’t agree on everything. I wouldn’t ever want us to but I do encourage you to try giving Rick Worley a chance. I don’t think he’ll change your mind on the Prequels as you seem pretty set on your opinion on them as I am but I do think he’d help you see where I’m coming from with everything I’ve been saying lately. It’s worth a try at least I feel as it may encourage you to see another point of view to something you didn’t consider. He really researches what he shares instead of making assumptions off of what others tell him to think. He goes against the grain sometimes as evident by those who enjoy his takes and those that brush it off as whatever seems relevant to what he’s sharing.

Absolutely that can definitely be an issue. No story is without flaws or things we can fall back on and say personally we wish could’ve been done slightly better in some way, especially as we grow older and become more narrow focused but it’s not my story to tell. So I respect the storyteller telling the story as long as I feel they’re respecting me. George always respected me personally and for that I’m grateful. Others will feel differently but I don’t think the filmmaker is obligated to give you what you want. They have a vision if they’re working as an auteur or to a lesser degree been hired. You can choose if you want to watch it or not.

Of course I take it personally to a degree as making false claims about anything is never a good way to get people to actually understand something or your point of view. It creates tension and fighting in the long run. Like us right now to a degree. This is never healthy and shouldn’t be encouraged as the Red Light Media reviews penetrate. They’re not film critics but people with opinions on what they think George should have done with his films mind you. Instead it’s like many seem to agree with them without actually forming their own opinions or knowing anything about visual literacy. See how Chris Stuckmann copies and pastes their reviews. Does he not have his own takes first? Just because something is a consensus doesn’t make it right. It’s like me I have an opinion of what certain things mean to me personally but I use factual evidence on the contrary when presented with them. I don’t stay restricted to my thinking of what Star Wars has to be but am encouraged to see it grow and not be nostalgic forever. It is truly personal in some ways but everything you love is and I really love George’s six films. I equally love nearly everything else he ever made that I’ve seen. I’m not so keen on Temple of the Doom for example. I like parts of it but overall it’s in my opinion not as good as Raiders of the Lost Ark or Young Indy for that matter. I’ve not seen the other films yet. I equally love the person he is and find him someone you should aspire to be more like.

I mean he’s not but it’s whatever.

Of course I know the Prequels aren’t perfect but neither are the Originals. No film has ever truly reached perfection or not been without criticism from somebody. However criticism and being objective is different from understanding visual literacy and in general terms why something is the way it is. It’s the difference between spilling your opinion on something versus factual evidence that shows what the filmmaker or whomever intended for us to see. More often than not it’s all opinion when it comes to dissing the Prequels and not actually trying to understand them or George. The same points get made time and time again. Are they valid? Sometimes and I’ll leave it at that.

It’s not like George never said himself there weren’t deeper meanings or even the people that worked with him doing the same.

Oh wait … they did!

“The interesting thing about Star Wars—and I didn’t ever really push this very far, because it’s not really that important—but there’s a lot going on there that most people haven’t come to grips with yet. But when they do, they will find it’s a much more intricately made clock than most people would imagine.” - George Lucas

“One of the reasons Star Wars is still so popular is because you can read lots of things into it. A lot of things are there and George did tell me that it was his onion so to speak. That’s George Lucas’s onion. I was with him in his writing room, he wasn’t actually writing. While I was there but I was in his writing room I did talk to him about Indiana Jones movie for that book. And I was trying to read stuff into Indiana Jones and George just stopped and said no there’s nothing going on underneath the surface of Indiana Jones but he said Star Wars on the other hand is like an onion. You can peel away one layer there’s another layer and another layer and he said that was all intended. So he did intend for the six films to be interrelated and for there to be deeper meanings.” - Jonathan Rinzler

Factual evidence right here supports there being more going on than being “toyetic family movies”. Can’t they be both? They’re kids movies with deeper layers going on when you peel the movies back one layer at a time.

He is definitely in the company of Bergman, Varda, Coppola, or even Van Trier. He’s an auteur just as these filmmakers are. He just designed them more for kids versus adults as the ones you listed make/made films for. That’s the only difference separating him between most auteurs. He made films for young people as he saw how important it is to pass on what you know to generations.

The Plinkett reviews are arguably lies. No main protagonist in The Phantom Menace? Oh it’s actually just like A New Hope where Leia is except in this case Padme. The stories are equally told through the eyes of Qui-Gon and Obi-Wan just as the original film was told through C-3PO and R2-D2. All according to George. George said “I may have gone too far in a few places”. Oh yes he did but when they were editing and trying to make the ending battle work. George surrounded himself with “yes men”. Jonathan Rinzler just laughed when asked about that. I could go on and on about the false claims they spill over and over and that people cite as truth over the actual facts to the contrary.

Or you know being passionate enough about a subject to want to try sharing the truth instead of what is repeated time and time again? We all need something to feel passionate about that gives us joy. Find what you love and you’ll never be bored again.

People can like whatever they want and choose to view them however they want but if they took another step they may just find a more rewarding experience. Maybe not. However at least they’d have more understanding of George as a filmmaker and person.

BedeHistory731 said:

Rick Worley? Man, that guy spends countless videos trying to trick himself into thinking the PT is Actually Good.

I’d rather listen to what Mike, Jay, and Rich have to say. They aren’t up their own ass about these movies nearly as much.

I mean isn’t that exactly what they’re doing by refusing to actually look at the factual evidence and spilling lies? Wouldn’t you prefer having your opinion challenged instead of watching something that reinforces what you already think and believe it to be? Sometimes you have to go after it with what you believe in. You can’t sit and wait for opportunities to share what matters to you or sit still in being who you’re meant to be. Rick is one of those people. I am too.

BedeHistory731 said:

If you want some good videos about the deeper meaning of the PT, I’d suggest the writings of Harold S. Plinkett.

It’s Mike, Jay, and Rich’s opus, just ignore the live-action bits.

You mean the videos that are reinforcing opinions people have on the surface instead of being factual and trying to understand the films for what they really are? They spill out so many lies about George and the Prequels. It’s not even funny anymore how much videos like these gain traction over thoughtful analyses that truly address the actual films George made versus the ones the viewer wanted him to make. I mean if people need hooker jokes to get a point across I think that’s pretty bad taste in of itself versus actually trying to understand things for what they are. That’s just me though.

If you want a thoughtful prospective that actually makes an effort to understand Star Wars beyond opinion I’d recommend Rick Worley’s videos time and time again. He actually shows factual evidence for the things he talks about. You know like Roger Ebert would do and any critic for that matter who actually addresses the films given to them with the tools they have instead of just reinforcing opinions of what must clearly be the consensus to gain popularity.

Emre1601 said:

Stardust1138 said:

Emre1601 said:

SparkySywer said:

Stardust1138 said:

SparkySywer said:

Stardust1138 said:

StarkillerAG said:

• Obi-Wan doesn’t remember owning a droid, despite having owned a droid for at least 3 years

2. During the Clone Wars he has a very low opinion of droids and thinks they can be easily replaced.

Considering a droid replaceable and never owning a droid are different things

Not necessarily. He could have such a low opinion that he couldn’t care less for remembering their names or having one.

That’s a really insane stretch man

Mental gymnastics and insane stretches have always been required by Prequel fans when in discussion with others who did not enjoy these films or point out the discrepancies between the two trilogies. I am surprised many Prequel fans themselves rarely seem to question why Lucas’ poor writing for the later Trilogy created so many needless plot-holes and contradictions, and still look to use such gymnastics and stretches instead.

Or you know trying to understand why George made the choices he did. Sometimes it could be perceived as stretching with certain issues like Obi-Wan possibly experiencing PTSD but it’s only because we don’t know exactly what he was thinking with x and y sometimes. Star Wars is just as much participation of the audience as it is George’s answers. It’s part of the experience with Star Wars that you can have your own explanation of the way things are until George gives concrete details that adds to the mythos he already created with say the Whills and Midi-Chlorians connection to the Force. It’s almost certainly all been there in some shape or form from the very beginning but it took time for the story to develop and evolved a lot in the span of nearly forty years. He always did what served the story first. It’s like The Clone Wars eventually giving a probable definitive answer to why Obi-Wan doesn’t really remember ever owning a droid. He had a low opinion of them. It’s probably not what fans envisioned or some wanted the answer to be but that’s his explanation and at the end of the day that’s where fan explanation stops and you understand author’s intention. You should ask how and why instead of what. Episodes I-VI, The Clone Wars series, and his Sequel Trilogy treatments are the definitive final word in what is and isn’t Star Wars. Anything that comes afterwards is fanfiction. We can’t be spoon fed every little detail or even know everything. Some things must remain a mystery for audience and creative alike. There’s no fun in knowing everything and he recongised that as all the greats do. These are his stories and at the end of the day that’s Star Wars for better or worse depending on who you ask. Now it’s run though by a corporation who pays fanfiction writers. Some of it might actually be good but it’s unlikely it will ever be consistently good or in line with George’s values.

That is a lot of words attempting to justify mental gymnastics and stretches, that somehow veers off into something else which has nothing to do with what I posted. Like many other fans I am only interested in what happens on screen, and this is the subject of the Opening Post of thread between the Original and Prequel Trilogies.

I am not interested in George’s thoughts, his intentions, or what happened outside the two trilogies many years later. Or what you think is his definitive Sequel Trilogy treatments are. Nor your thoughts on modern-era Star Wars or other grandstanding in your post. Just what happened onscreen. I know you do not like or agree with this because of your posts to the last person who stated a similar viewpoint resulted in you apologising for insulting them when they were only interested in what occurred on screen.

Your writing style and prowse are very good, interesting to read and you are obviously passionate about what you believe. I enjoy your posts, even the twists and interpretations you put into them after others here prove you are mistaken with facts.

Yet many people are only interested what happens on screen. If many fans find some of the attempts to explain the discrepancies between the two Trilogies onscreen to be an insane stretch, or to be yet more of the mental gymnastics provided for other discrepancies between the two trilogies, then it likely means they are still waiting or looking for a better answer for these discrepancies than has been provided so far.

Being pointed to looking at George’s intentions, additional materials and content, or grandstanding on the “definitive final word in what is and isn’t Star Wars”, or “George’s values” just doesn’t cut it.

It’s all right there on the screen and not just what I’ve learned years later. Everything that is essential to understanding the films is within them. The problem I find is the unwillingness of some outright refusing to look pass their own personal viewpoints and attachments to the series. Isn’t it just as good to challenge ourselves than merely looking at things only how we want to see it? I don’t find there’s as many plotholes between the two trilogies as many want to claim there to be. Just as I think there’s things the audience can think are important but aren’t actually in the grand scheme of things to being needed to understand the greater whole. There’s plenty of things that can happen off screen. I don’t blame people themselves despite how I may have come across but more so how they’re taught. A very important skill I find is visual literacy but it’s not taught in our culture. The most glaring example where this is an issue that I can think of within Star Wars is the fight between Anakin and Obi-Wan on Mustafar. Some fans will complain it runs too long, it’s all spectacle and no substance, and that Obi-Wan never backups later claims that he once thought as Luke did. The thing is it’s not about runtime as if a sequence is meant to go on, let it. Secondly when we see the volcano erupt it represents Anakin’s inner turmoil erupting and equally when we see him and Obi-Wan swinging with the ropes it could be seen as representing the blurring reality of the situation as not long after Obi-Wan says he has failed Anakin. Most importantly Obi-Wan fights nearly the entire fight in defence. He’s looking to protect and bring Anakin back the entire time. Unfortunately many tend to miss these nuances because they’re not taught to look out for them. Ironic people claim George can’t tell his stories without some melodramatic dialogue but here he is illustrating his skills and prose as a visual filmmaker and communicator.

I understand perfectly well we all have differing views on what Star Wars is but everything we truly need to know is within the films themselves. There’s some minor things that get addressed in The Clone Wars like the premise of the thread but we don’t neccessary need to see it as the films show us the beginning and ending of the war. Not the part where Obi-Wan served Bail.

I’m merely providing the skills to help people gain a greater understanding and appreciation to the details that are often overlooked because they’re not always verbally spoken.

If people want to view these films as space wizard movies for kids that’s their choice because they are. However they equally have something deeply meaningful to juxtaposition that very thing. There’s always a bigger fish.

His stories grew and evolved throughout the years. Plus as he always said the Sequels were never as fleshed out and detailed as what he had for the Prequels. So it only makes sense his story for it would take the turns it did.

Thank you for your kind words about my posts. I enjoy yours as well. We may not agree on what Star Wars means to us necessarily on a personal level but that’s okay as that’s the case for everyone. At the end of the day we both love the series. Isn’t that what it’s all about?

Emre1601 said:

SparkySywer said:

Stardust1138 said:

SparkySywer said:

Stardust1138 said:

StarkillerAG said:

• Obi-Wan doesn’t remember owning a droid, despite having owned a droid for at least 3 years

2. During the Clone Wars he has a very low opinion of droids and thinks they can be easily replaced.

Considering a droid replaceable and never owning a droid are different things

Not necessarily. He could have such a low opinion that he couldn’t care less for remembering their names or having one.

That’s a really insane stretch man

Mental gymnastics and insane stretches have always been required by Prequel fans when in discussion with others who did not enjoy these films or point out the discrepancies between the two trilogies. I am surprised many Prequel fans themselves rarely seem to question why Lucas’ poor writing for the later Trilogy created so many needless plot-holes and contradictions, and still look to use such gymnastics and stretches instead.

Or you know trying to understand why George made the choices he did. Sometimes it could be perceived as stretching with certain issues like Obi-Wan possibly experiencing PTSD but it’s only because we don’t know exactly what he was thinking with x and y sometimes. Star Wars is just as much participation of the audience as it is George’s answers. It’s part of the experience with Star Wars that you can have your own explanation of the way things are until George gives concrete details that adds to the mythos he already created with say the Whills and Midi-Chlorians connection to the Force. It’s almost certainly all been there in some shape or form from the very beginning but it took time for the story to develop and evolved a lot in the span of nearly forty years. He always did what served the story first. It’s like The Clone Wars eventually giving a probable definitive answer to why Obi-Wan doesn’t really remember ever owning a droid. He had a low opinion of them. It’s probably not what fans envisioned or some wanted the answer to be but that’s his explanation and at the end of the day that’s where fan explanation stops and you understand author’s intention. You should ask how and why instead of what. Episodes I-VI, The Clone Wars series, and his Sequel Trilogy treatments are the definitive final word in what is and isn’t Star Wars. Anything that comes afterwards is fanfiction. We can’t be spoon fed every little detail or even know everything. Some things must remain a mystery for audience and creative alike. There’s no fun in knowing everything and he recongised that as all the greats do. These are his stories and at the end of the day that’s Star Wars for better or worse depending on who you ask. Now it’s run though by a corporation who pays fanfiction writers. Some of it might actually be good but it’s unlikely it will ever be consistently good or in line with George’s values.

The Star Wars Archives Episodes I-III: 1999-2005 by Paul Duncan.

I’ve been wanting to read this book for quite awhile now. I’m really looking forward to its arrival to learn in-depth about my favourite era of the series more than what has ever been released before as it is told through various collaborators and detailed contents such as scripts and concept art, learning more about George’s Sequel plans than what has made it online, and of course hearing directly from him his philosophy and way of seeing life. I feel it’s going to be such an immersive and emotional experience. It will also be a great resource in my continued growth in telling stories of my own. I can’t wait!

Alice in Wonderland by Clyde Geronimi, Wilfred Jackson, and Hamilton Luske.

Continuing the journey of watching a film my friend recommends me while she watches Star Wars for the first time. I can’t remember if I ever watched it as a kid because I vaguely recall certain parts but I’m not sure if that was seeing previews on the tapes I have for other Disney movies. It was very delightful. I loved how every scene connected poetically but wasn’t meant to be taken literally at the same time. There was a lot of eye candy and fun little songs with meaning. All and all it was a delightful little film.

CloakedDragon97 said:

I never thought I would see the end of Arthur but here we are.

Same here. It will always be one of my childhood favourites and a great escape as I find it transcends the spaces between childhood and adulthood seamlessly. Buster will always be one of my favourite characters in storytelling. He helped me get through a lot as a kid as we are very similar.

Added:

Blue Velvet
Black Narcissus

Added the Criterion versions of Blue Velvet and Black Narcissus.

yotsuya said:

theprequelsrule said:

Channel72 said:

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.

theprequelsrule said:

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:

https://youtu.be/S5E-eSdRjXs

https://youtu.be/rD2G0D-nyLA

https://youtu.be/Btp1BoGbuiM

Channel72 said:

theprequelsrule said:

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.

theprequelsrule said:

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.

theprequelsrule said:

I will again reiterate the fact that we did not get a story that made much sense in terms of Anakin’s fall.

The Jedi Council had grave concerns about training Anakin, yes? So why make him the student of a just-promoted new “Master”? Stupid! Of course it never matters; we get no hint whatsoever that Obi-wan fails to “train him as well as Yoda”. In fact Obi-wan is supportive of Anakin in ROTS all the time - even when the rest of The Order has its doubts.

As many others in this thread have pointed out, Lucas was unconcerned about making the PT and OT makes sense as a whole. He wanted to tell a specific story about how Anakin went to the darkside even if it was not believable and contradicted his original films!

I think of it like this, Obi-Wan was promoted to a Jedi Knight, who can train Padawan learners, but given permission by Yoda and the Jedi Council because Qui-Gon made Obi-Wan promise to train Anakin. Yoda and the council reluctantly agreed only because Obi-Wan was showing signs of Qui-Gon’s percieved defiance by saying he’d train Anakin without their permission and they didn’t want him to go down the same road. Later when Obi-Wan relies what happened to Luke he tells him “I thought I could train him just as well as Yoda. I was wrong”. The “I was wrong” is key. Obi-Wan believes he could train Anakin as well as Yoda but from the guilt he feels for what happened he feels he failed him as he equally alludes to in his duel with Anakin himself on Mustafar. “I have failed you Anakin. I have failed you.” Yoda was very wise in his wisdom he showed when training the younglings, which Obi-Wan was at one time and when he was instructed partially, and equally when he offered advice to Anakin but he didn’t listen as he was beginning to feel twisted from fear of losing another loved one. I’d say Obi-Wan is supportive of Anakin but in the sense of doing what he thinks is right by him and trying to understand him the best he could. He does the best he can with his limitations and inexperiences of not being ready. This in a way carries over to why they didn’t tell Luke about Anakin right away. They didn’t want to burden him with the responsibility of what happened until they knew he could handle it or at least until it was inevitable as his father told him first. Anakin would’ve been better served with Qui-Gon as his master but unfortunately that wasn’t where fate lead them. Obi-Wan cares and loves Anakin like a brother as he protects him from the prejudices of the Jedi Council as any older sibling would with say a parent or authority figure but wasn’t the master he needed. They’re different responsibilities but connected in their shared circumstance. He did try his best though and ended up being a better mentor to Luke arguably as he taught him to feel but think as he failed to with Anakin. Trial and error.

ken-obi said:

No, apart from the slighted insult I didn’t understand any of what you wrote there either.

Those videos won’t help me somehow now enjoy the Prequels either.

Why would anyone want to watch YouTube videos, linked from someone who continually insults those don’t like the Prequel films, to somehow now be able to now enjoy the Prequels years after they were released?
 

Let’s say you don’t like Doritos. And there are plenty of others chips out there to enjoy. Do you think watching YouTube videos about Doritos will somehow make yourself now enjoy them? Will reading and listening to what the creator of Doritos says about Doritos what his “intentions and how successfully they achieved what they set out to do” make me now like the Doritos chips?

Let’s say you don’t like a film you saw 20 years ago. You didn’t like it and have no intention of watching it again, life is short and there are far more films to watch. Do you think watching YouTube videos about the film you didn’t like 20 years ago will somehow make yourself now enjoy it? (or watching YouTube videos on “Video Literacy” will change your opinion of not liking the film?) Will reading and listening to what the creator of of the film says about it and what his “intentions and how successfully they achieved what they set out to do” make me now enjoy the films?

Of course not.
 

Instead you could have asked what aspects of the films people here did enjoy, or thought were positive. Talk about that, but it now is a little late after you’ve insulted, lectured and patronized them.

As posted previously, there seems little point in continuing this discussion with you, if nothing else but to not further derail this thread. I apologize to everyone if I have derailed the thread or if anyone does not agree with my posts, and I’ll refrain from further posting in here.

My intentions weren’t to offend you but I do sincerely apologise to you for making you feel that way. I truly didn’t mean it as a personal insult to you personally or anyone else for that matter but merely an observation experience I’ve encountered through personal experiences with art and the way of seeing it that most tend to have in particular against the Prequels and George Lucas. It’s not a slight against you personally as a person as I know art is subjective and we all have our own personal view of seeing things.

Absolutely. Not everyone likes Doritos and that’s okay. We can’t all like the same food.

It’s not my intention to make you suddenly love them like I do but merely to give you the tools to understand them through the intentions of the collective whole as George intended and what it means to be visually literate. This is a different thing to that of personal preferences. It’s an important tool I find in understanding the world around us. It isn’t taught in our culture unfortunately. I may have gone too far in how I expressed this desire to teach it but it wasn’t to belittle you.

Life would be a pretty dull thing if we all liked the same things but making it personal or generalising people is never healthy. No matter who you are as we all have a reason for liking or disliking the things we do. I certainly respect and understand that but I conveyed it in a way that didn’t come across as well as I had in my head. For that and how it came across I do apologise.

BedeHistory731 said:

Stardust, maybe it’s best to back away. Recognize when somebody isn’t worth engaging with and don’t antagonize them with a wall of text.

Yes indeed. That’s exactly what I’ll be doing. I just felt I needed to provide the resources if anyone decided they wanted to take the leap. I understand we all have a different view of things but sometimes I wish people were willing to open themselves up to hearing both sides of a discussion instead of only what they believe it to be. We’re all guilty of it. Things would be immensely better if we listened and tried to understand things for what they are. I definitely understand why people don’t like the Prequels or even love the Sequels. The Prequels are different from the Originals. They have a different look and feel to them in certain ways. They’re telling a more complex narrative and asking deeper questions than those given in the Original Trilogy. They aren’t as simplistic and have aspects that can be hard to understand the first time watching them. I just wish the same level of understanding was given to George and knowing him as a person. He’s not some cynical man who was trying to make a film you dislike. He just had a vision and he stuck with it no matter what when it came to all of his films, including even the Special Editions. You have to admire someone who is unflinching to what critics want you to make but instead right or wrong you follow your own bliss. It’s a lesson we can all learn from and just because we may not always agree with it or someone we can always try learning from it and respecting it for what it gives to us. It’s also not meant to be condescending but merely show what has been provided to us and a way of seeing things. It can certainly come off that way but that’s not my intentions. I don’t make the rules or pretend to be an expect but I do try to understand things as I find it’s an important ingredient to understanding art and even life itself.

ken-obi said:

Stardust1138 said:

Sorry. I didn’t understand any of that.

These might help if you’re open to understanding a creative mindset:

https://youtu.be/O39niAzuapc

https://youtu.be/aDBmH9ntEOA

ken-obi said:

Firstly, if people enjoy the Prequel films then all power to them. It is pleasing that some people enjoyed these films. A younger generation of fans have now come through online: and the young kids who enjoyed them at the time are now grown up and want to talk about them and why they enjoyed them. Good for them.
 

But for those of us that didn’t enjoy them:

George seemed to forget the golden rule of making movies with the Prequels:

Show. Don’t tell.
 

Show: George should have done was delivered on what he promised - the story of a great man and his fall into darkness. Although The Phantom Menace is probably the best of the three films, but it served little purpose in the greater narrative. He could have centered the first two films on an intelligent, thoughtful but conflicted Jedi who was lured to the Dark Side. The third film would have then chronicled the crusade of a tortured, Vader who traveled the galaxy hunting down the remaining Jedi.

But instead George gave us something very different - the adventures of an annoying hot-shot child who got lucky in a repeat of a space battle seen twice before in previous Star Wars movies, who then started a toxic controlling relationship with the mother of Luke and Leia, and somehow inexplicably morphed into Vader. George also gave the audience countless contradictions to what had already been explained and established in the previous Original films.

When you consider what could have been, and probably should have been, it is difficult not to feel letdown. Disappointed. Frustrated. In need of a good Fan Edit or 50! 😃
 

Don’t Tell: Since the backlash on the Prequel films George, Lucasfilm and many Prequel fans has spent considerable time and effort to explain why the Prequel films were what they were, and that people who didn’t like them just didn’t understand them, or that in not liking the films they were being mean to him. Mental gymnastics is required to take George at his word, And that is a problem in itself - George had the opportunity to show us the films he later espoused about, but he didn’t. The quality, the heart, the thrill, the story, the talent, all in abundance in the Originals, just wasn’t there for the Prequels. The later explanations and attempts at reasoning why the Prequels weren’t widely liked mean little to the people who paid their ticket money on these much hyped and publicized films at the time, sat down to watch them, and left disappointed. Or people who just plain didn’t like them or thought they were “merely okay”. Or just don’t want to watch them again.
 

Licensed books, animated and live actions series trying to explain the contradictions and plot holes between the two trilogies really only serve to remind people how poor, lazy and incoherent the Prequel films were. Selective interviews from George with friendly journalists and pre-approved questions, more retcons, extensive PR campaigns, videos, blogs, articles - all trying to justify, explain, or give some reason why the Prequels were better than we think or remember, or that we just didn’t understand them - all fail in their purpose: to get more people to watch, like and appreciate these films.

Why would George and others who champion the Prequels think people who didn’t enjoy these films want to read articles and watch videos and so on, or have it explained to them they were somehow wrong not to like these films? Or that they didn’t understand them? It seems a waste of time and effort to me, and yes, we understood them perfectly fine, thank you. George would probably have more respect from fans if he was more honest, about his own shortcomings in approaching the Prequels and the films themselves. Answer the tough and hard questions, not avoid them. Sometimes films don’t work out - not every film is going to be a smash and that is okay. It is also okay to say you “got it wrong” or could have done it differently. Many of us would rather find other Star Wars content to enjoy, whether new games, books, comics series and films.

Enjoy what you like. Leave what you don’t enjoy behind.

There’s a great documentary about this from History Channel. It’s just the Prequels tend to get more unfairly treated because the media tended to propel the backlash to continue as they attacked Ahmed Best, Jake Lloyd, Hayden Christensen, Natalie Portman, and Rick McCallum. They attacked George too. Why would they want to listen to people who are going to accuse them of being racists, poor actors, yes men, or out of touch mainly deprived from not giving fans what they want? You get nothing from attacking people personally. Instead that’s exactly what happened and still does with a different group. George did listen to critics but he also recognised most were circlejerking around the ideas of things that just weren’t true about him or his colleagues. Most critics tend to view the films from the view of what they wish had happened in the films versus the actual stories and understanding them for what they are. An artist is equally not obligated to tell you their intentions. Andrei Tarkovsky or even Stanley Kubrick never explained themselves. George doesn’t need to either.

“Many don’t understand the Prequels and even Original Trilogy for that matter.”

“racists, poor actors, yes men, or out of touch mainly deprived from not giving fans what they want? You get nothing from attacking people personally”, and “most critics were circlejerking”

WTF? I just don’t like the films. Like I said before many people just don’t like them too, and has nothing to do with what you listed above.

“Most critics tend to view the films from the view of what they wish had happened in the films versus the actual stories and understanding them for what they are.”

No, they don’t. Critics may offer possibilities and alternative scenarios sometime after - but they can also understand the actual films for what they are.

“Andrei Tarkovsky or even Stanley Kubrick never explained themselves. George doesn’t need to either.”

I completely agree, and said before George “doesn’t need to”, yet George continues to attempt to explain them, retcon them, and bridge them so many years afterwards? Again, show - don’t tell.

"What matters I think though is you try understanding the author’s intentions and how successfully they achieved what they set out to do." and “at least give things a chance from the filmmaker’s prospective instead of brushing them off off and thinking only about what you thought could’ve been better”

No. What matters is people making their own mind up if they enjoyed watching a series of films or not. Again, show - don’t tell.

If people decided they did not enjoy them, they do not need to be labelled or associated with, as you did above, as being inferior minded people, accusers of others being racist, people who personally attack others, or are people who don’t understand the Prequels, or other films. Yes, a minority of those toxic fans exist, but they do not speak for the vast majority of those who simply did not enjoy the Prequel Films. A running theme with your posts is that if people critique the Prequel films (or George) then they somehow do not understand them. So there is no point in continuing this discussion with you.

I am happy you and others do enjoy these films, but the many that didn’t enjoy the Prequels certainly don’t need lectures on how we just “don’t understand them”.

Firstly, I’m not calling you or anyone who dislikes the films these things. I’m calling out the critics who labeled George and the creatives as such as an excuse to not view the films for what they are or trying to understand them. It’s okay to dislike a film but going to the extreme most critics did is completely unacceptable and frankly contributed to the inability of people to take the films for what they are. It’s the difference between an intelligent critic like Roger Ebert and someone who doesn’t understand Star Wars like Red Light Media. They understand certain pop culture but not Star Wars.

He has a right to show and tell. He gives cookie cutter explanations of things. It’s not like he’s going minute by minute to tell you his intentions with everything. He leaves a lot of room for people to take in what they want to. This isn’t contradictory. He’s been doing it since the beginning when he explained how the original film was meant to convey the Saturday matinee serial. It’s much more than that though and he’s only now been trying to get that out there. I could see it being motivated by the fact Disney doesn’t understand Star Wars. He’s trying to put out there what it actually means so that it’s at least known to serve as help towards making more meaningful stories going forward. However it’s equally refreshing to hear what inspires a creative but they’re not obligated to show you everything. George seems to be doing both.

Not to sound condescending but that’s the difference between a creative mindset and one of taking what is given to you. As a creative like George I find you want people to understand your intentions and what the story means to you but you also understand that isn’t always the case. Star Wars is the perfect example of this. So few actually understand it the way he intended. There’s nothing inherently good or bad about that as people take in information how they choose but that’s why things like visual literacy and the like are super important as you end up getting stories that dumb themselves down for the audience and create unlikable characters who can’t have flaws. It’s the domino effect in a way. Coincidentally George dealt with this issue in a matter of speaking in THX 1138. You can’t please everyone. So why do studios continue to cater? Because that’s what the consumer wants and as long as they do and don’t fight back against it or Twitter mobs with checklists for that matter it will continue to make films worse. I guess that’s subjective though. Some just want the stories to remain like they were when growing up and to capture that feeling. That’s okay I suppose sometimes but it’s not healthy to want the same thing all the time. It’s not okay though to listen to the mobs.

It’s true many don’t understand Star Wars. I don’t mean it as a slight against anyone personally but it’s true. Many people don’t take the time to actually truly delve into and spend time with a film before they move onto the next one. They see what they want to within a film and when there’s someone that reinforces what they already know it’s like a bond is automatically formed. It’s a cycle of consume and move onto next product. Some are very easily amused by seeing X-Wings and TIE Fighters again or hearing Duel of the Fates in the latest Obi-Wan trailer. I’m not. I was happy to see X-Wings at first again. I even got the Lego set of Poe’s X-Wing. However in time I realised why they’re there. Nostalgia is like a powerful drug. It’s not a bad thing if kept in check per say but when it’s the only thing you have to show versus an actual story you’re in a real danger. It’s like what Alec Guiness spoke of to that kid he told to never watch Star Wars again. It can be unhealthy. It’s very important to continue to grow a story and not let it grow stagnant. George, Marcia Lucas, Howard Kazanjian, and many creatives agree.

It’s not meant to lecture but merely to say there’s always another side to the story. You can like and dislike what you want. Our prospectives change as we grow older and evolve but sometimes there’s a greater danger in not trying to grow with something or understand it for what it is. It’s like a relationship in that way. You can either grow together and evolve or stay the same and have momentary pleasure.

Life is one contradiction after another in a way but it’s a beautiful thing if we remain open to all that it has to offer instead of only seeing it from the lenses of what we wish it to be and those that reinforce beliefs we already have.

ken-obi said:

Firstly, if people enjoy the Prequel films then all power to them. It is pleasing that some people enjoyed these films. A younger generation of fans have now come through online: and the young kids who enjoyed them at the time are now grown up and want to talk about them and why they enjoyed them. Good for them.
 

But for those of us that didn’t enjoy them:

George seemed to forget the golden rule of making movies with the Prequels:

Show. Don’t tell.
 

Show: George should have done was delivered on what he promised - the story of a great man and his fall into darkness. Although The Phantom Menace is probably the best of the three films, but it served little purpose in the greater narrative. He could have centered the first two films on an intelligent, thoughtful but conflicted Jedi who was lured to the Dark Side. The third film would have then chronicled the crusade of a tortured, Vader who traveled the galaxy hunting down the remaining Jedi.

But instead George gave us something very different - the adventures of an annoying hot-shot child who got lucky in a repeat of a space battle seen twice before in previous Star Wars movies, who then started a toxic controlling relationship with the mother of Luke and Leia, and somehow inexplicably morphed into Vader. George also gave the audience countless contradictions to what had already been explained and established in the previous Original films.

When you consider what could have been, and probably should have been, it is difficult not to feel letdown. Disappointed. Frustrated. In need of a good Fan Edit or 50! 😃
 

Don’t Tell: Since the backlash on the Prequel films George, Lucasfilm and many Prequel fans has spent considerable time and effort to explain why the Prequel films were what they were, and that people who didn’t like them just didn’t understand them, or that in not liking the films they were being mean to him. Mental gymnastics is required to take George at his word, And that is a problem in itself - George had the opportunity to show us the films he later espoused about, but he didn’t. The quality, the heart, the thrill, the story, the talent, all in abundance in the Originals, just wasn’t there for the Prequels. The later explanations and attempts at reasoning why the Prequels weren’t widely liked mean little to the people who paid their ticket money on these much hyped and publicized films at the time, sat down to watch them, and left disappointed. Or people who just plain didn’t like them or thought they were “merely okay”. Or just don’t want to watch them again.
 

Licensed books, animated and live actions series trying to explain the contradictions and plot holes between the two trilogies really only serve to remind people how poor, lazy and incoherent the Prequel films were. Selective interviews from George with friendly journalists and pre-approved questions, more retcons, extensive PR campaigns, videos, blogs, articles - all trying to justify, explain, or give some reason why the Prequels were better than we think or remember, or that we just didn’t understand them - all fail in their purpose: to get more people to watch, like and appreciate these films.

Why would George and others who champion the Prequels think people who didn’t enjoy these films want to read articles and watch videos and so on, or have it explained to them they were somehow wrong not to like these films? Or that they didn’t understand them? It seems a waste of time and effort to me, and yes, we understood them perfectly fine, thank you. George would probably have more respect from fans if he was more honest, about his own shortcomings in approaching the Prequels and the films themselves. Answer the tough and hard questions, not avoid them. Sometimes films don’t work out - not every film is going to be a smash and that is okay. It is also okay to say you “got it wrong” or could have done it differently. Many of us would rather find other Star Wars content to enjoy, whether new games, books, comics series and films.

Enjoy what you like. Leave what you don’t enjoy behind.

I’d argue George did show and tell. Just not in the way some expected or wanted him to. It seems to be the biggest criticism I find in people who dislike the Prequels have. It’s about the films they think he should’ve made versus understanding and viewing the films he actually delivered as he intended them. It’s not a bad thing per say as art is subjective but sometimes I find people view things from the idea of what they want from a film or any art instead of taking what is given to them. It’s exactly why Marvel is so popular. They follow a formula and that’s fine I suppose for some as that’s what some want. For me it doesn’t as I like to be challenged and have my ideas of something expanded. I like having the director as the voice and not a committee. That’s exactly what George delivered with the Prequels and arguably the Originals. They both changed cinema in important ways in spite of the system that tried to deny them.

If it were easy we’d have more successful films and series like Star Wars but the reality is these films are very difficult to make. They’re also denied greenlighting or being released like old Soviet films more than likely. I’d hate to know how many great films are denied or censored.

It’s true though in a general sense. Many don’t understand the Prequels and even Original Trilogy for that matter. I’m not an expert on these things but I do try understanding why something is the way it is instead of assuming I know everything there is to know about Star Wars. I’m open to having my ideas of what it can be challenged but understanding context and the rules can’t be forgotten or you end up with films like J.J. gave us. I don’t need to be reminded of A New Hope when watching Star Wars. I can just watch it. I don’t need Palpatine to return with a promise of aggressive revenge as this is out of character with how he’s always been portrayed as calm and collective with patience throughout his previous appearances. I want to see the characters I love respected and to see them grow consistently instead of staying the people we knew them as. It’s exactly what George did. He just recontextualised or expanded upon certain ideas and continued the story differently from how some viewed things with the information given at the time. This isn’t a bad thing. In fact I find it a good thing as it’s a pretty boring thing if a story is only serving as wish fulfillment to give you what you want it to be.

You don’t need books or TV shows to understand George’s stories. Everything you need to know is within the films themselves except the rare exception of Sifo-Dyas but he planned to explain him in his Sequels. Everything else I find like Obi-Wan and Bail or Obi-Wan and Owen Lars could happen off screen. You don’t need to be shown every little detail for a story to work. It’s about creating a sense of scale and world building.

Why? The same reason people look into and use the Original Trilogy to create stories in their head of what something must have meant before seeing the full picture or using Darth Vader in psychology sessions with kids. Star Wars has from the very beginning been studied and examined by scholars. There’s a great documentary about this from History Channel. It’s just the Prequels tend to get more unfairly treated because the media tended to propel the backlash to continue as they attacked Ahmed Best, Jake Lloyd, Hayden Christensen, Natalie Portman, and Rick McCallum. They attacked George too. Why would they want to listen to people who are going to accuse them of being racists, poor actors, yes men, or out of touch mainly deprived from not giving fans what they want? You get nothing from attacking people personally. Instead that’s exactly what happened and still does with a different group. George did listen to critics but he also recognised most were circlejerking around the ideas of things that just weren’t true about him or his colleagues. Most critics tend to view the films from the view of what they wish had happened in the films versus the actual stories and understanding them for what they are. An artist is equally not obligated to tell you their intentions. Andrei Tarkovsky or even Stanley Kubrick never explained themselves. George doesn’t need to either.

Ulimately everyone has a different point of view in all art forms. It’s a subjective medium and it can mean different things between groups of people. What matters I think though is you try understanding the author’s intentions and how successfully they achieved what they set out to do. The Prequels or any film with an author in particular may still not work but you should at least give things a chance from the filmmaker’s prospective instead of brushing them off and thinking only about what you thought could’ve been better or doesn’t align with the fraction of what you knew already in the case of the Original Trilogy. Why else can I kind of appreciate The Last Jedi for what it is? I try understanding Rian’s intentions with it instead of strictly my own viewpoint. It’s not my Star Wars but it still isn’t all bad on its own merits.

BedeHistory731 said:

If Lucas had a Roman Polanski-level crime in his past, do you think your defense would be as passionate? I’m just a bit curious.

I try to seperate artist from the person they are more often than not as I recongise nobody is perfect and we all have made a shady decision or two at one point or another. Do I neccessary have any desire to watch a film by Roman Polanski? No but that’s because all but one film of his intrigues me. Will I ever watch it? Doubtful. I’d also argue the girl who he had the encounter with has spoken of him and said she faced more problems with the media than she did with him as a person. I tend to make my judgement of what I find acceptable and not acceptable by hearing all sides of things instead of my own personal viewpoint as each person and circumstance is different. We all make mistakes. We may as well forgive each other as we too have made poor choices in character. Instead of trusting ourselves we listen to the outside noise and what they tell us to think.

BedeHistory731 said:

Plenty of people with “visual literacy” can still think the justifications given in commentaries, documentaries, and interviews (along with close viewings) are still hollow.

Of course they can. Nobody is correct all the time. Only the artist who knew their intentions from the start will have a concrete answer but even that can be contradicting as some artists work through intuition more than logic. However when enough evidence on the contrary to what the viewer thinks adds up it might be time to notice.

theprequelsrule said:

BedeHistory731 said:

I know how to do the close readings and find those parallels, but that doesn’t make something good or deep or even important. It’s cool if you see it and want to make those arguments, but that’s not going to stop some people from saying that you’re full of shit or are going way too deep into something that never had this level of thought put into it (outside of post-facto interview statements).

Some of the mental gymnastics people put themselves through to justify some of the questionable plot points in the PT is pretty funny to watch, such as George Lucas wanting the Jedi Order to be unlikeable etc.

Big problem with the prequels: no good villain. Maul should not have died at the end of TPM. Each movie they introduce a new baddie - Maul, then Dooku, then Grievous. No real buildup.

Yes and that’s again another issue with a lack of visual literacy within culture. It goes on both sides. The Jedi though are meant to be flawed and shown as complacent. George has spoken of this in a matter of words but he’s hesitant as any great artist is in discussing their own work. He’s just as much wanting his vision to be accurately represented as he is in letting the viewer take in what they choose to see.

I don’t find that a big problem as each of the villains serve the function of showing us what Anakin will become. They each have their own sense of self and equally a reason for being within the story. I can’t say the same about the Sequel villains.

BedeHistory731 said:

I know how to do the close readings and find those parallels, but that doesn’t make something good or deep or even important. It’s cool if you see it and want to make those arguments, but that’s not going to stop some people from saying that you’re full of shit or are going way too deep into something that never had this level of thought put into it (outside of post-facto interview statements).

Actually he talks about it to the crew in The Beginning documentary, he discusses it in the commentaries of the films and even some crew members rely what George is saying including Lawerence Kasdan and Rob Coleman, and if you watch his films from the very beginning with THX 1138 and American Graffiti you can see the beginnings of playing with these concepts. THX and Curt both go through similar journeys as Luke and Anakin. It’s a matter of prospective and how you choose to watch things. For some it means a lot to be able to uncover more and more layers within these films and film in general. For others they just want to be entertained and have fun with cinema. For many that’s what Star Wars is strictly speaking. There’s nothing at all wrong with that either as they are meant to entertain but I find if you choose to understand George’s intentions and him as a person I find you gain a greater appreciation of him as an individual and artist. You begin to see a uniquely whole picture of what Star Wars means to him and why he made certain decisions. You also understand him as a person and see just how much he is Luke but also Anakin and not just Darth Vader as many claim he became.

I get why people would be disappointed by the Prequels. They appear to be vastly different from the Originals on the surface but they’re really not that different if you go into them with trying to understand what George intended and him as a person. It’s all in how you decide to see things and want to believe them to be. It’s much like faith.

Cinema as an art form is something we only touch the iceberg of what it can be. It has so many purposes that haven’t been discovered or created yet. It’s very exciting but unfortunately it’s not what sales tickets and that’s the harsh reality most studios and moviegoers judge a film by. Cinema is more than a means to only entertain. It can inform, challenge, transport you to another place, show you another culture, and change your life by giving you life.