One thing that has always bothered me about complaints about the prequels; the maturity level didn't really go down, and Anakin's genocidal assault on the Tusken Raiders was actually one of the more 'out there' moments. Sure, we saw people get zapped, saw something that may or may not have been the burnt remains of Uncle Owen and Aunt Beru (tough call), we saw Alderaan get KOed by Death Star 1, we saw Jabba getting rapey, and so forth, but yeah, much as I don't particularly LIKE the prequels, they mainly suffer from the fact that I'm substantially older than when I first watched A New Hope. The Star Wars movies are all solidly family movies, safe for most kids IMHO down to age 5-10 yo, depending on how strictly you raise them. Cartoons are pretty violent anyways, so unless you HEAVILY sheltered your 6 year old, he's probably not going to be too freaked out by Star Wars.
That said, Jar Jar Binks was a bad call. A very bad call. All the downsides of the Ewoks combined with blatant racism. Sure, Watto was everyone's favourite covetous Jew, but Jar Jar Binks IMHO had even less redeeming his character, despite not being evil.
I even have to say that while the Anakin/Amidala romance was terrible, its not like the Luke/Leia/Han/Lando love quadrangle wasn't weird and badly done, it just ended before marriage and or children. Neither was really a plus for their respective trilogy. Heck, you could easily argue that the representation of women was pretty poor overall.
TLDR; the original trilogy mostly seems more mature/better because we were younger when we saw it vs when we saw the prequels... both are aimed at the same demographic ultimately.
One thing that has always bothered me about complaints about the prequels; the maturity level didn't really go down, and Anakin's genocidal assault on the Tusken Raiders was actually one of the more 'out there' moments. Sure, we saw people get zapped, saw something that may or may not have been the burnt remains of Uncle Owen and Aunt Beru (tough call), we saw Alderaan get KOed by Death Star 1, we saw Jabba getting rapey, and so forth, but yeah, much as I don't particularly LIKE the prequels, they mainly suffer from the fact that I'm substantially older than when I first watched A New Hope. The Star Wars movies are all solidly family movies, safe for most kids IMHO down to age 5-10 yo, depending on how strictly you raise them. Cartoons are pretty violent anyways, so unless you HEAVILY sheltered your 6 year old, he's probably not going to be too freaked out by Star Wars.
That said, Jar Jar Binks was a bad call. A very bad call. All the downsides of the Ewoks combined with blatant racism. Sure, Watto was everyone's favourite covetous Jew, but Jar Jar Binks IMHO had even less redeeming his character, despite not being evil.
I even have to say that while the Anakin/Amidala romance was terrible, its not like the Luke/Leia/Han/Lando love quadrangle wasn't weird and badly done, it just ended before marriage and or children. Neither was really a plus for their respective trilogy. Heck, you could easily argue that the representation of women was pretty poor overall.
TLDR; the original trilogy mostly seems more mature/better because we were younger when we saw it vs when we saw the prequels... both are aimed at the same demographic ultimately.
I liked a few aspects of the prequels, but there were many things that did them in, especially in hindsight. Jar Jar was obviously ridiculous, but so was the Droid Army. Compared to Storm Troopers, they looked like they were made of toothpicks. The only actors who were able to break through the wooden dialogue were Liam Neeson and Ian McDiarmid. Samuel L. Jackson seemed like a bad cameo (as did Jimmy Smits). The Hayden Christensen/Natalie Portman chemistry was a -50 on a scale of 1-100. Ewan McGregor tried his best to channel a younger Obi-Wan, and he halfway pulled it off.
The visuals were good, the lightsaber fights will always hold up, and Revenge of the Sith was actually a pretty good movie (but again, nearly 75% of the credit for that goes to Ian McDiarmid). But even that was ruined by a Vader transformation scene that came off as a bad Frankenstein spoof. The prequels weren't NEARLY as bad as Kingdom of the Crystal Skull (the true crime for which George Lucas needs to be drowned in a vat of acid), but they weren't good by any stretch of the imagination. The Phantom Menace is especially terrible, and Attack of the Clones has some of the worst dialogue in movie history, despite being a pretty decent action movie at times.
Well, Samuel Jackson didn't do too bad, but I agree, he was a bit burdened by SOME of the dialogue. IMHO there are parts where the various great actors pulled through, but yeah, some of the stuff was so cheesey it just smothered even the immense charm of Ewan McGregor, who was at the time about the most charming man in Hollywood, or at least in the running, despite not being a huge name.
IMHO, the Vader transformation actually was the moment when Revenge of the Sith collapsed; up to that point, it was viable I think, that scene would have seemed painfully dated in the 80s, let alone 20 years later.
No disrespect to him, but George Lucas was a better creative writer than he was a dialogue man for movie scripts. Tolkien wasn't really much better if you ask me, its a failing specialist writers often have; weakness outside their area of specialty.
If you want a really great tip, almost every movies is SUBSTANTIALLY better if you aren't entirely of sound mind. If you aren't watching in a theater, which provides an especially immersive environment (hahaaha... yeah, ****ing people on phones), try having a few beers with a movie. I prefer sherry, but the premise is the same; most of us are too hard on movies, which by their natures cannot please everyone. I know I need loosening up often. If the movie is pretty crummy, I need LOTS of loosening up, whole bottles of loosening up. But most are good after you hit the 'I probably can't legally drive' point, no need to go swamp donkey.
@DreadKhan - My issues with episodes 1-3 were pretty much as follows:
I did not need to see Darth Vader as a precocious brat. That was painful. I think Weird Al said it best: "Oh my my, this here Anakin guy Maybe Vader someday later, now he's just a small fry He left his home and kissed his mommy goodbye Sayin', "Soon I'm gonna be a Jedi, soon I'm gonna be a Jedi"
Did you know this junkyard slave Isn't even old enough to shave But he can use the Force, they say
Ahh, do you see him hitting on the Queen? Though he's just nine and she's fourteen Yeah, he's probably gonna marry her someday"
Also, the medi-chlorines. I am sorry, but it worked fine as this Mystical force in the original series. Creating some science based reason behind it was just wrong on many levels.
Jar Jar Binks. Nuff said.
These three factors alone made it feel MUCH less mature than the originals. Nothing says they couldn't have done a 16 year old deep and troubled teenager as an early Vader. That would have worked well.
I did quite like seeing Palpatine and how he grew to power, playing chess with the entire Galaxy and no one even knew. That was pretty cool. But then there were HUGE plot holes in Clone wars and Revenge that really made it hard to watch.
All in all, the movies weren't "BAD". They didn't ruin my childhood or anything like that (I'd have to be pretty mal-adjusted for that to be the case). They just weren't the originals, nor even appearing to tell the same story. Hopefully 7-9 will be awesome.
As far as the EU is concerned, I hope that they keep some of the ideas like Thrawn and Mara and even the Solo children. I can see them 'de-canonizing' it all so that they can weave their own story, but I expect that they are smart enough to take the best elements of what has already been done. Well, I can hope, can't I?
I've never mustered the courage to give the prequels a second spin. I do know someone though who not only had no familiarity whatsoever with the series, but upon learning of it, watched all six back-to-back over a few days. From her perspective, she thought it was one of the greatest epic stories told on film.
This was partly my friend's idea, as he wanted to introduce these to his wife, and he was motivated by the fear that she wouldn't enjoy the first three. It turns out that when *he* watched them like this, he actually enjoyed them much more himself.
One of the things that he learned when watching them in sequence was how much the prequels actually do tie rather well into the originals, but he also found them "rewriting" how he used to watch the originals. Little bits of dialogue made more sense with the knowledge of the prequel content. The most significant change for him, however, was no longer seeing the originals as a story about Luke; instead, he came to see all six as about Vader, always being the chosen one but becoming a victim to fate as if he were in an old-fashioned Greek tragedy.
It was kind of neat for me to hear his newer interpretation of the series and *almost* made me want to watch them all back-to-back myself. I just can't stand the thought of tolerating JJB, the Anakin-transformation scene, and the Twilightesque love angles. Maybe some day in a galaxy far far away....
I just saw it yesterday. I liked it, but won't be rewatching it a million times. Few trailers make me do that. The movie itself I likely will be watching a million times though. Because
too. All of the movies and the IP in general. Admittedly I wasn't a fan of Emokin Crywalker and Jar Jar Binks was trying too hard, but other than that I like all the movies thus far. I have a slight fear the new one will be Lens Flare Wars since mr Abrams is behind it, but time will tell.
@the_spyder ...You're bothered by the fact that a probably pubescent boy has a crush, which he attempts to pursue? Because she's older? I disagree the movie would have worked better with Anakin starting out older, in part due to the time restrictions on events. It is likely true things wouldn't fall apart if Anakin was 14, and Padme was 14, but it was a nice twist having a younger male character and a slightly older female, so I really just wish 'Little Ani' wasn't as annoying. But even then, it was more the peculiarity seeing the character in the SW universe that is shown to be the number 2 bad guy as a pretty normal boy. The whole 'uber Pod Racer' thing felt SLIGHTLY contrived, but we should remember, Anakin is MEANT to be a very, very abnormal individual.
Midi-Chlorians I agree were entirely unnecessary, and felt really pry bared in. They are an example of the difficulty of introducing a new universe... We don't have ANY need to know why or how The Force works, so spending time explaining it was a bad call, and pretty pointless. I really can't say it ruined anything, but it wasn't ideal.
Jar Jar Binks and the associated 'no, no, we're not bad racial stereotypes, we're ALIENS!' thing was pretty ****ing awkward all around. Jar Jar is a Space Yardman/Rasta, the Nemoidians are all evil Japanese/Chinese Corrupt Economic Overlords, and Watto was... yeah. Anyways, there are certainly others, including some in the original trilogy (Lando was a Space Smooth Funky Jazzman, for example, and despite stealing everyone scene he was in, HE GETS ALMOST NO LINES). There have always been troubling aspects of Star Wars, but on the whole, this trilogy is the big chance to fix some of that, IE there could be a gay character, or a trans character, or anyone at all not strictly basic. The Star Wars universe was REALLY REALLY conservative, incredibly so. Even the Expanded Universe was about as diverse as Utah (nothing personal, Utah, #JustSayin).
So, if the new trilogy at least makes an effort to be inclusive, it'll not be a wasted effort even if the movies aren't great.
In regards to Attack of the Clones and Revenge of the Sith having holey plots, they REALLY tried to cram twice as much stuff into those movies as they should have. They each needed another hour of run-time, if not longer. They felt rather truncated in some ways, especially Attack of the Clones... which was also the single worst named movie in the history of Hollywood. Seriously.
I have a feeling the best/most popular stuff will be kept canon, with changes though. Thrawn will now be pink skinned, or something similarly absurd.
My pet theory, if you watched the original trilogy for the first time right now, it'd be surprisingly on par with the prequels; I still say Lucas' biggest sin was not changing with the times for the prequels. You are free to disagree of course! But both trilogies were strictly family movies, and both had lots of troubling aspects mixed with Super Cool Nifty Space Battles, and also The Force. Leia wasn't significantly better a character than Padme.
Racial stereotypes? Huh. I'm glad I'm unwilling to, and incapable of, analyzing the contents of a movie to that degree. Ignorance is bliss I guess, entertainment merely being entertainment is great!
Leia might not have been a better character than Padme, but she was played by an actress with considerably more charisma. Sense of humour >> high cheekbones.
Padme was fine in TCW, where she was voiced by a different actress, and Natalie Portman was fine in - nothing she has ever been in.
@Dreadkhan - When I was 9, I wasn't focused as much on girls, so I found it difficult to relate to him being so obviously attracted to her at that age. Add to that the fact that the actor and the character were really annoying. And yes, the Pod racing was just.... i shudder. And much like the new Gotham TV series, it is quite painful to see someone who is dark and brooding like Vader or Batman as a precocious brat. It is a disconnect and one that really breaks immersion.
As far as the timing of things, I think they could have simply shifted the events or the timeline around a bit, or merely not introduced 'Ani' until the second movie. I am sure there are better writers than myself who could come up with a better solution.
Regarding Jar Jar Binks, I don't generally associate based on stereotypes (at least I try not to). I didn't care who or what he was supposed to be similar with or "represent". I just thought he was an attempt to be Tele-tubbies for the star wars universe. That annoyed me. More specifically, it appeared that they were trying to capture C3P0 all over again by simply being sillier and goofier. They would have done so very much better just having C3PO back in. At the end of the day, Lucas himself stated that he was trying to capture a MUCH younger audience so that the franchise could go on for decades to come. I think Jar Jar was a HUGE representation of that desire.
And yes, Attack and Revenge were both attempting to tell to much story in to short a time. I actually really liked the Clone wars cartoons and thought that they did a much better job of conveying the war and it's depth and breadth. It filled in quite a lot of the gaps that should have been part of the franchise. But then they locked themselves in by calling A New Hope, episode 4 so...
Finally, the fact that Padme pretty much phoned in her performance in Revenge was just a shame. She is an EXTREMELY talented actress and to be given the card board performance that ended up on screen, I find it very hard to credit to her. I could be wrong. Of course Hayden was just cardboard all the way along. Was that the writing? The directing? or him? I can't (won't) say.
@Dreadkhan - When I was 9, I wasn't focused as much on girls, so I found it difficult to relate to him being so obviously attracted to her at that age. Add to that the fact that the actor and the character were really annoying. And yes, the Pod racing was just.... i shudder. And much like the new Gotham TV series, it is quite painful to see someone who is dark and brooding like Vader or Batman as a precocious brat. It is a disconnect and one that really breaks immersion.
OBJECTION! Gotham is an amazing show and Bruce isn't a brat.
That aside I agree. Nine year olds don't really go for 14 year olds like that.
@Dreadkhan - When I was 9, I wasn't focused as much on girls, so I found it difficult to relate to him being so obviously attracted to her at that age. Add to that the fact that the actor and the character were really annoying. And yes, the Pod racing was just.... i shudder. And much like the new Gotham TV series, it is quite painful to see someone who is dark and brooding like Vader or Batman as a precocious brat. It is a disconnect and one that really breaks immersion.
OBJECTION! Gotham is an amazing show and Bruce isn't a brat.
That aside I agree. Nine year olds don't really go for 14 year olds like that.
Ha! Was going to say something similar. I wouldn't say it's amazing. It has its ups and downs, probably partly plagued by ridiculously long seasons, but it's really good for network television. I actually think Bruce has been one of the brightest spots, acting pretty much like I would have expected a young Bruce Wayne. You see all of the elements there and, for the first time in movies and television (animated series aside), they're emphasizing his most notable quality from the comics, his investigative ability.
@Dreadkhan - When I was 9, I wasn't focused as much on girls, so I found it difficult to relate to him being so obviously attracted to her at that age. Add to that the fact that the actor and the character were really annoying. And yes, the Pod racing was just.... i shudder. And much like the new Gotham TV series, it is quite painful to see someone who is dark and brooding like Vader or Batman as a precocious brat. It is a disconnect and one that really breaks immersion.
OBJECTION! Gotham is an amazing show and Bruce isn't a brat.
That aside I agree. Nine year olds don't really go for 14 year olds like that.
Gotham is a good show. I really like Selina's Character. I am a BIG fan of Sean Pertwee as well. Overall I do enjoy it. But you have to admit that the Bruce character is a bit whiny for the future Batman. When he broke his leg out in the woods, Batman would have climbed back up the hill and when Alfred asked him about he he would have brushed it off like it was nothing. I am not saying that he was as whiny and annoying as 'Ani', but there are times...
I quite like Gotham too. It's difficult to portray a kid obsessed with the murder of his parents without him being at least a little whiney, and on the whole they usually avoid making him too annoying. Bale's Bruce is a bit whiney at the beginning of Batman Begins.
@Dreadkhan - When I was 9, I wasn't focused as much on girls, so I found it difficult to relate to him being so obviously attracted to her at that age. Add to that the fact that the actor and the character were really annoying. And yes, the Pod racing was just.... i shudder. And much like the new Gotham TV series, it is quite painful to see someone who is dark and brooding like Vader or Batman as a precocious brat. It is a disconnect and one that really breaks immersion.
OBJECTION! Gotham is an amazing show and Bruce isn't a brat.
That aside I agree. Nine year olds don't really go for 14 year olds like that.
Gotham is a good show. I really like Selina's Character. I am a BIG fan of Sean Pertwee as well. Overall I do enjoy it. But you have to admit that the Bruce character is a bit whiny for the future Batman. When he broke his leg out in the woods, Batman would have climbed back up the hill and when Alfred asked him about he he would have brushed it off like it was nothing. I am not saying that he was as whiny and annoying as 'Ani', but there are times...
I think it makes sense, for his current character and for his development into batman. Tweenage sons of billionaires aren't exactly known for they're rugged toughness and deep character, and I think the show is more or less about his transition from annoying to badass. Bratman to batman, if you will:P
Regarding Jar Jar Binks, I don't generally associate based on stereotypes (at least I try not to). I didn't care who or what he was supposed to be similar with or "represent". I just thought he was an attempt to be Tele-tubbies for the star wars universe. That annoyed me. More specifically, it appeared that they were trying to capture C3P0 all over again by simply being sillier and goofier. They would have done so very much better just having C3PO back in. At the end of the day, Lucas himself stated that he was trying to capture a MUCH younger audience so that the franchise could go on for decades to come. I think Jar Jar was a HUGE representation of that desire.
And yes, Attack and Revenge were both attempting to tell to much story in to short a time. I actually really liked the Clone wars cartoons and thought that they did a much better job of conveying the war and it's depth and breadth. It filled in quite a lot of the gaps that should have been part of the franchise. But then they locked themselves in by calling A New Hope, episode 4 so...
Finally, the fact that Padme pretty much phoned in her performance in Revenge was just a shame. She is an EXTREMELY talented actress and to be given the card board performance that ended up on screen, I find it very hard to credit to her. I could be wrong. Of course Hayden was just cardboard all the way along. Was that the writing? The directing? or him? I can't (won't) say.
Plus the fact that C3PO himself was a complete and utter joke throughout all 3 movies. R2-D2 managed to retain most of his character, but my god....that assembly line sequence in Attack of the Clones where C3PO's head ends up on a battle droid in the arena was absolutely cringe worthy.
Natalie Portman and Hayden Christensen had nothing to work with from a dialogue perspective, it's the wort written romantic relationship in a movie setting I have ever seen, and I've had the misfortune of seeing 4 of the 5 Twilight films. Hayden Christensen is actually pretty damn great as the disgraced journalist Stephen Glass in "Shattered Glass", but his career was essentially torpedoed by these films. Everyone assumed his performance was at fault, when in fact no one in the entire trilogy outside of Liam Neeson and Ian McDiarmid could even manage an average screen presence with this material.
Christopher Lee's Count Dooku seemed like a goofy gimmick compared to his presence in Lord of the Rings. Darth Maul only worked because he didn't have any dialogue. Jango Fett looked cool but was utterly useless as a character. Shoehorning Chewbacca into Revenge of the Sith, and forcing Yoda to specifically say his name in case anyone missed the cameo was one of the most forced things I've ever heard in a movie. It reminds me of the newest Godzilla, a movie I generally liked in many ways, but had dialogue that was on par with the prequels. The characters at a certain point were taking every chance they got to mention the name "Godzilla", as if he was an old family pet, and as if the audience didn't know who the hell the giant monster swimming underneath the ocean was the entire time. It's insulting to the audience and completely ruins the fantasy of the story in the moment.
@Dreadkhan - When I was 9, I wasn't focused as much on girls, so I found it difficult to relate to him being so obviously attracted to her at that age. Add to that the fact that the actor and the character were really annoying. And yes, the Pod racing was just.... i shudder. And much like the new Gotham TV series, it is quite painful to see someone who is dark and brooding like Vader or Batman as a precocious brat. It is a disconnect and one that really breaks immersion.
OBJECTION! Gotham is an amazing show and Bruce isn't a brat.
That aside I agree. Nine year olds don't really go for 14 year olds like that.
Gotham is a good show. I really like Selina's Character. I am a BIG fan of Sean Pertwee as well. Overall I do enjoy it. But you have to admit that the Bruce character is a bit whiny for the future Batman. When he broke his leg out in the woods, Batman would have climbed back up the hill and when Alfred asked him about he he would have brushed it off like it was nothing. I am not saying that he was as whiny and annoying as 'Ani', but there are times...
I think it makes sense, for his current character and for his development into batman. Tweenage sons of billionaires aren't exactly known for they're rugged toughness and deep character, and I think the show is more or less about his transition from annoying to badass. Bratman to batman, if you will:P
I agree. It's not as if the show is unaware of this too. Cat remarked early in the season that he had a lot to learn about how the real world worked. Instead of getting upset, he decided that he needed to see for himself.
@Silverstar When the stereotypes are as odious AND even include things like really thick accents/caricature of stereotypical physical traits, it gets hard to ignore. I noticed them before I was even introduced to Critical Theory. No real analysis was required to realize that the Nemoidians were Space Asians, and Gungans were Space Jamaicans, I was 14 when I noticed it. Maybe 15?
As much as I am a fan of Carrie Fisher, I'm not sure you'll have an easy time arguing she's a better actress than Natalie Portman. If you are willing to ignore the creepy, The Professional is a really impressive performance. Mind you, I haven't seen it for years, I can't say if it aged well or not. And remember, thats only one role, she's had other 'artsy' stuff. Didn't she go to an Ivy League school? Anyways, I think they're of a different caliber of actress, though both great examples of their caliber. Carrie does have bragging rights for a really great cameo in Austin Powers, which ought not be ignored.
By 9, I liked girls, but I've always been very picky, so I could have related to being into Padme. Besides, I had swimming lessons growing up, and there were some very cute life guards. So the older thing wouldn't have phased me either.
What exactly bothered you so much about the pod-racing? It does seem slightly ridiculous, the whole 'Space Chariot Race!' thing, as opposed to swoops and speeder bikes, which make SOME sense. I rationalize the use of the pods due to the significant increase in difficulty they would provide. Hence humans not having any potential in the races. I'm unfamiliar with Gotham, so I can't comment, but I think its important to remember that only people in the grasp of clinical Major Depression brood that often, and Major Depression tends to reduce your lifespan. Vader is more of a seething rage type I would argue, vs depressive brooding. Vader is hate incarnate, whereas Palpatine is cold and I think you could argue more of a brooder.
C3PO was in Phantom Menace. They rewrote 'canon' to make it so iirc, he was supposed to be quite a bit older. Part of why nobody was terribly interested in him, he was century old protocol droid, one that probably hasn't had great maintenance. Jar Jar to me always seemed a bit too mean-spirited in how the stereotypes was used... at least the Nemoidians were reasonably competent. Jar Jar played the stereotypes hard AND was a ****ing idiot, and the butt of many jokes. I know there were Asians who were QUITE offended by the Nemoidians, for example, and Jar Jar is widely accepted to be the worst thing in the prequels.
I have a feeling that after a certain point, even talented actors will start to give up. It's like asking a mechanic to take out an engine, and supplying him with vicegrips instead of wrenches and ratchets. If you pay him, he'll probably try it, but it will gnaw away at him, doing things in a way he knows is stupid, and eventually many will just refuse to continue I expect. Others will just fumble away, bitterly, which is how I think many actors started feeling during Revenge of the Sith. Parts were quite solid, other parts less so, but universally, the dialogue was not very strong, even by Star Wars standards. I've read in a sorta-interview, George Lucas has stated he thinks dialogue isn't as important as the visuals/sound effects, and we really saw his philosophy in the prequels I think. Still implausibly profitable, and still all around decent movies. My personal preference doesn't preclude them being objectively decent... I might not have gotten what I wanted, but the issue was my expectations I think, rather than the final product being crap. I've seen bad fantasy/sci-fi movies/shows, and they are usually REALLY bad. I once watched an anime that clearly ran out of money... there were scenes when the visuals DID NOT CHANGE AT ALL, for more than 30 seconds. It was terrible. I have to agree with George Lucas on that at least, I'd rather have had sound effects and visuals than just dialogue for that show, the dialogue didn't really tell the story. If dialogue is key, read the damn book!
Natalie Portman and Hayden Christensen had nothing to work with from a dialogue perspective, it's the wort written romantic relationship in a movie setting I have ever seen, and I've had the misfortune of seeing 4 of the 5 Twilight films.
Nah, nothing trumps Twilight for REALLY poor... just about everything.
Christopher Lee's Count Dooku seemed like a goofy gimmick compared to his presence in Lord of the Rings. Darth Maul only worked because he didn't have any dialogue. Jango Fett looked cool but was utterly useless as a character. Shoehorning Chewbacca into Revenge of the Sith, and forcing Yoda to specifically say his name in case anyone missed the cameo was one of the most forced things I've ever heard in a movie.
Yeah, Dooku and Grievious were both again very "Kiddie" focused characters. Vader was a bit Faustian in nature, but he wasn't cartoony. I felt so sorry for Christopher Lee having to play someone that paper thin and obviously written for children. And then the other side of the coin was all of the cameos that never quite worked out.
It reminds me of the newest Godzilla, a movie I generally liked in many ways, but had dialogue that was on par with the prequels. The characters at a certain point were taking every chance they got to mention the name "Godzilla", as if he was an old family pet, and as if the audience didn't know who the hell the giant monster swimming underneath the ocean was the entire time. It's insulting to the audience and completely ruins the fantasy of the story in the moment.
I didn't fault the Godzilla movie, which I also enjoyed, for it's campiness and it's attempt to make sure that you knew you were watching a Godzilla movie. That was what I went in expecting and that is what I got. And given 'Cloverfield' and that other one (the name escapes me), not to mention that atrocious movie with Mathew Broderick, I've got nothing against them trying to associate as closely as possible with select outings. As a side note, has anyone seen the MST3K treatment of Gamera? Classic.
@Silverstar When the stereotypes are as odious AND even include things like really thick accents/caricature of stereotypical physical traits, it gets hard to ignore. I noticed them before I was even introduced to Critical Theory. No real analysis was required to realize that the Nemoidians were Space Asians, and Gungans were Space Jamaicans, I was 14 when I noticed it. Maybe 15?
If you watch Orphan Black (a great show by the way), one of the characters is VERY overtly stereotypical. The actor got a lot of flack over that. His response was brilliant.
Stereotypes aren't really the true problem, its how you actually handle them, and do they completely define the character? In the case of Jar Jar and the Nemoidians, yes, they are defined by their stereotypes, while at least Wato is an interesting if hard to love individual.
I enjoy some blaxploitation films, ones that I feel use stereotypes to help tell a good story. I don't like hamfisted use of stereotypes that belittle. Jar Jar is neither progressive nor remotely redeeming, he's more or less Minstrel Show In Space. Is using those stereotypes inherently wrong? **** no, I loved Chappelle Show, I loved The Boondocks, etc. I fully have the right to be offended by Jar Jar, even if I'm not black or carib. Its like Penny Arcade getting a great deal of flak for having handled sexual assault so poorly.
If we take your argument to heart, and that of the fellow in the video, you remove the possibility of anyone NOT of an unempowered minority (...which are notoriously voiceless remember) to state that a representation is problematic.
I suppose the correct reply would be 'how could Jar Jar have been made less racist while still drawing on the rich culture of the African diaspora?', which is hard to answer perfectly. Obviously he might have been given some manner of redeeming characteristic, other than just being a lucky idiot? There are going to be dumb people in every culture, and Jar Jar is decidedly supposed to be a loser, but the films did not do a good job of portraying him as a person, just as a bad stereotype. He had no depth, just stereotype.
For my part, I don't feel that Jar Jar was offensive because of any perceived 'racism' but so much that he was written to enthrall 5 year olds. In that I felt it was inappropriate for a movie of that type. But I'll leave it that there are a lot of different interpretations and ways of looking at it. I think we can all agree that inclusion of the character (for whatever reason) hurt the franchise more than it helped it.
However I wish not to debate this further because it is a sensitive topic and open to rampant debate.
Comments
That said, Jar Jar Binks was a bad call. A very bad call. All the downsides of the Ewoks combined with blatant racism. Sure, Watto was everyone's favourite covetous Jew, but Jar Jar Binks IMHO had even less redeeming his character, despite not being evil.
I even have to say that while the Anakin/Amidala romance was terrible, its not like the Luke/Leia/Han/Lando love quadrangle wasn't weird and badly done, it just ended before marriage and or children. Neither was really a plus for their respective trilogy. Heck, you could easily argue that the representation of women was pretty poor overall.
TLDR; the original trilogy mostly seems more mature/better because we were younger when we saw it vs when we saw the prequels... both are aimed at the same demographic ultimately.
The visuals were good, the lightsaber fights will always hold up, and Revenge of the Sith was actually a pretty good movie (but again, nearly 75% of the credit for that goes to Ian McDiarmid). But even that was ruined by a Vader transformation scene that came off as a bad Frankenstein spoof. The prequels weren't NEARLY as bad as Kingdom of the Crystal Skull (the true crime for which George Lucas needs to be drowned in a vat of acid), but they weren't good by any stretch of the imagination. The Phantom Menace is especially terrible, and Attack of the Clones has some of the worst dialogue in movie history, despite being a pretty decent action movie at times.
IMHO, the Vader transformation actually was the moment when Revenge of the Sith collapsed; up to that point, it was viable I think, that scene would have seemed painfully dated in the 80s, let alone 20 years later.
No disrespect to him, but George Lucas was a better creative writer than he was a dialogue man for movie scripts. Tolkien wasn't really much better if you ask me, its a failing specialist writers often have; weakness outside their area of specialty.
If you want a really great tip, almost every movies is SUBSTANTIALLY better if you aren't entirely of sound mind. If you aren't watching in a theater, which provides an especially immersive environment (hahaaha... yeah, ****ing people on phones), try having a few beers with a movie. I prefer sherry, but the premise is the same; most of us are too hard on movies, which by their natures cannot please everyone. I know I need loosening up often. If the movie is pretty crummy, I need LOTS of loosening up, whole bottles of loosening up.
I did not need to see Darth Vader as a precocious brat. That was painful. I think Weird Al said it best:
"Oh my my, this here Anakin guy
Maybe Vader someday later, now he's just a small fry
He left his home and kissed his mommy goodbye
Sayin', "Soon I'm gonna be a Jedi, soon I'm gonna be a Jedi"
Did you know this junkyard slave
Isn't even old enough to shave
But he can use the Force, they say
Ahh, do you see him hitting on the Queen?
Though he's just nine and she's fourteen
Yeah, he's probably gonna marry her someday"
Also, the medi-chlorines. I am sorry, but it worked fine as this Mystical force in the original series. Creating some science based reason behind it was just wrong on many levels.
Jar Jar Binks. Nuff said.
These three factors alone made it feel MUCH less mature than the originals. Nothing says they couldn't have done a 16 year old deep and troubled teenager as an early Vader. That would have worked well.
I did quite like seeing Palpatine and how he grew to power, playing chess with the entire Galaxy and no one even knew. That was pretty cool. But then there were HUGE plot holes in Clone wars and Revenge that really made it hard to watch.
All in all, the movies weren't "BAD". They didn't ruin my childhood or anything like that (I'd have to be pretty mal-adjusted for that to be the case). They just weren't the originals, nor even appearing to tell the same story. Hopefully 7-9 will be awesome.
As far as the EU is concerned, I hope that they keep some of the ideas like Thrawn and Mara and even the Solo children. I can see them 'de-canonizing' it all so that they can weave their own story, but I expect that they are smart enough to take the best elements of what has already been done. Well, I can hope, can't I?
This was partly my friend's idea, as he wanted to introduce these to his wife, and he was motivated by the fear that she wouldn't enjoy the first three. It turns out that when *he* watched them like this, he actually enjoyed them much more himself.
One of the things that he learned when watching them in sequence was how much the prequels actually do tie rather well into the originals, but he also found them "rewriting" how he used to watch the originals. Little bits of dialogue made more sense with the knowledge of the prequel content. The most significant change for him, however, was no longer seeing the originals as a story about Luke; instead, he came to see all six as about Vader, always being the chosen one but becoming a victim to fate as if he were in an old-fashioned Greek tragedy.
It was kind of neat for me to hear his newer interpretation of the series and *almost* made me want to watch them all back-to-back myself. I just can't stand the thought of tolerating JJB, the Anakin-transformation scene, and the Twilightesque love angles. Maybe some day in a galaxy far far away....
I honestly was wondering if they would ever make a new one of these. I loved Battlefront.
Midi-Chlorians I agree were entirely unnecessary, and felt really pry bared in. They are an example of the difficulty of introducing a new universe... We don't have ANY need to know why or how The Force works, so spending time explaining it was a bad call, and pretty pointless. I really can't say it ruined anything, but it wasn't ideal.
Jar Jar Binks and the associated 'no, no, we're not bad racial stereotypes, we're ALIENS!' thing was pretty ****ing awkward all around. Jar Jar is a Space Yardman/Rasta, the Nemoidians are all evil Japanese/Chinese Corrupt Economic Overlords, and Watto was... yeah. Anyways, there are certainly others, including some in the original trilogy (Lando was a Space Smooth Funky Jazzman, for example, and despite stealing everyone scene he was in, HE GETS ALMOST NO LINES). There have always been troubling aspects of Star Wars, but on the whole, this trilogy is the big chance to fix some of that, IE there could be a gay character, or a trans character, or anyone at all not strictly basic. The Star Wars universe was REALLY REALLY conservative, incredibly so. Even the Expanded Universe was about as diverse as Utah (nothing personal, Utah, #JustSayin).
So, if the new trilogy at least makes an effort to be inclusive, it'll not be a wasted effort even if the movies aren't great.
In regards to Attack of the Clones and Revenge of the Sith having holey plots, they REALLY tried to cram twice as much stuff into those movies as they should have. They each needed another hour of run-time, if not longer. They felt rather truncated in some ways, especially Attack of the Clones... which was also the single worst named movie in the history of Hollywood. Seriously.
I have a feeling the best/most popular stuff will be kept canon, with changes though. Thrawn will now be pink skinned, or something similarly absurd.
My pet theory, if you watched the original trilogy for the first time right now, it'd be surprisingly on par with the prequels; I still say Lucas' biggest sin was not changing with the times for the prequels. You are free to disagree of course! But both trilogies were strictly family movies, and both had lots of troubling aspects mixed with Super Cool Nifty Space Battles, and also The Force. Leia wasn't significantly better a character than Padme.
Padme was fine in TCW, where she was voiced by a different actress, and Natalie Portman was fine in - nothing she has ever been in.
As far as the timing of things, I think they could have simply shifted the events or the timeline around a bit, or merely not introduced 'Ani' until the second movie. I am sure there are better writers than myself who could come up with a better solution.
Regarding Jar Jar Binks, I don't generally associate based on stereotypes (at least I try not to). I didn't care who or what he was supposed to be similar with or "represent". I just thought he was an attempt to be Tele-tubbies for the star wars universe. That annoyed me. More specifically, it appeared that they were trying to capture C3P0 all over again by simply being sillier and goofier. They would have done so very much better just having C3PO back in. At the end of the day, Lucas himself stated that he was trying to capture a MUCH younger audience so that the franchise could go on for decades to come. I think Jar Jar was a HUGE representation of that desire.
And yes, Attack and Revenge were both attempting to tell to much story in to short a time. I actually really liked the Clone wars cartoons and thought that they did a much better job of conveying the war and it's depth and breadth. It filled in quite a lot of the gaps that should have been part of the franchise. But then they locked themselves in by calling A New Hope, episode 4 so...
Finally, the fact that Padme pretty much phoned in her performance in Revenge was just a shame. She is an EXTREMELY talented actress and to be given the card board performance that ended up on screen, I find it very hard to credit to her. I could be wrong. Of course Hayden was just cardboard all the way along. Was that the writing? The directing? or him? I can't (won't) say.
That aside I agree. Nine year olds don't really go for 14 year olds like that.
Natalie Portman and Hayden Christensen had nothing to work with from a dialogue perspective, it's the wort written romantic relationship in a movie setting I have ever seen, and I've had the misfortune of seeing 4 of the 5 Twilight films. Hayden Christensen is actually pretty damn great as the disgraced journalist Stephen Glass in "Shattered Glass", but his career was essentially torpedoed by these films. Everyone assumed his performance was at fault, when in fact no one in the entire trilogy outside of Liam Neeson and Ian McDiarmid could even manage an average screen presence with this material.
Christopher Lee's Count Dooku seemed like a goofy gimmick compared to his presence in Lord of the Rings. Darth Maul only worked because he didn't have any dialogue. Jango Fett looked cool but was utterly useless as a character. Shoehorning Chewbacca into Revenge of the Sith, and forcing Yoda to specifically say his name in case anyone missed the cameo was one of the most forced things I've ever heard in a movie. It reminds me of the newest Godzilla, a movie I generally liked in many ways, but had dialogue that was on par with the prequels. The characters at a certain point were taking every chance they got to mention the name "Godzilla", as if he was an old family pet, and as if the audience didn't know who the hell the giant monster swimming underneath the ocean was the entire time. It's insulting to the audience and completely ruins the fantasy of the story in the moment.
As much as I am a fan of Carrie Fisher, I'm not sure you'll have an easy time arguing she's a better actress than Natalie Portman. If you are willing to ignore the creepy, The Professional is a really impressive performance. Mind you, I haven't seen it for years, I can't say if it aged well or not. And remember, thats only one role, she's had other 'artsy' stuff. Didn't she go to an Ivy League school? Anyways, I think they're of a different caliber of actress, though both great examples of their caliber. Carrie does have bragging rights for a really great cameo in Austin Powers, which ought not be ignored.
By 9, I liked girls, but I've always been very picky, so I could have related to being into Padme. Besides, I had swimming lessons growing up, and there were some very cute life guards.
What exactly bothered you so much about the pod-racing? It does seem slightly ridiculous, the whole 'Space Chariot Race!' thing, as opposed to swoops and speeder bikes, which make SOME sense. I rationalize the use of the pods due to the significant increase in difficulty they would provide. Hence humans not having any potential in the races. I'm unfamiliar with Gotham, so I can't comment, but I think its important to remember that only people in the grasp of clinical Major Depression brood that often, and Major Depression tends to reduce your lifespan. Vader is more of a seething rage type I would argue, vs depressive brooding. Vader is hate incarnate, whereas Palpatine is cold and I think you could argue more of a brooder.
C3PO was in Phantom Menace. They rewrote 'canon' to make it so iirc, he was supposed to be quite a bit older. Part of why nobody was terribly interested in him, he was century old protocol droid, one that probably hasn't had great maintenance. Jar Jar to me always seemed a bit too mean-spirited in how the stereotypes was used... at least the Nemoidians were reasonably competent. Jar Jar played the stereotypes hard AND was a ****ing idiot, and the butt of many jokes. I know there were Asians who were QUITE offended by the Nemoidians, for example, and Jar Jar is widely accepted to be the worst thing in the prequels.
I have a feeling that after a certain point, even talented actors will start to give up. It's like asking a mechanic to take out an engine, and supplying him with vicegrips instead of wrenches and ratchets. If you pay him, he'll probably try it, but it will gnaw away at him, doing things in a way he knows is stupid, and eventually many will just refuse to continue I expect. Others will just fumble away, bitterly, which is how I think many actors started feeling during Revenge of the Sith. Parts were quite solid, other parts less so, but universally, the dialogue was not very strong, even by Star Wars standards. I've read in a sorta-interview, George Lucas has stated he thinks dialogue isn't as important as the visuals/sound effects, and we really saw his philosophy in the prequels I think. Still implausibly profitable, and still all around decent movies. My personal preference doesn't preclude them being objectively decent... I might not have gotten what I wanted, but the issue was my expectations I think, rather than the final product being crap. I've seen bad fantasy/sci-fi movies/shows, and they are usually REALLY bad. I once watched an anime that clearly ran out of money... there were scenes when the visuals DID NOT CHANGE AT ALL, for more than 30 seconds.
If you watch Orphan Black (a great show by the way), one of the characters is VERY overtly stereotypical. The actor got a lot of flack over that. His response was brilliant.
I enjoy some blaxploitation films, ones that I feel use stereotypes to help tell a good story. I don't like hamfisted use of stereotypes that belittle. Jar Jar is neither progressive nor remotely redeeming, he's more or less Minstrel Show In Space. Is using those stereotypes inherently wrong? **** no, I loved Chappelle Show, I loved The Boondocks, etc. I fully have the right to be offended by Jar Jar, even if I'm not black or carib. Its like Penny Arcade getting a great deal of flak for having handled sexual assault so poorly.
If we take your argument to heart, and that of the fellow in the video, you remove the possibility of anyone NOT of an unempowered minority (...which are notoriously voiceless remember) to state that a representation is problematic.
I suppose the correct reply would be 'how could Jar Jar have been made less racist while still drawing on the rich culture of the African diaspora?', which is hard to answer perfectly. Obviously he might have been given some manner of redeeming characteristic, other than just being a lucky idiot? There are going to be dumb people in every culture, and Jar Jar is decidedly supposed to be a loser, but the films did not do a good job of portraying him as a person, just as a bad stereotype. He had no depth, just stereotype.
However I wish not to debate this further because it is a sensitive topic and open to rampant debate.