F--k you, George Lucas

This attitude may have been initially the way people felt, but it really has nothing to do with what makes those three films complete and total shit. And neither does Jar Jar. They're lazy, two-dimensional pieces of masturbatory crap by a guy who forgot that making movies is not about sticking two people in front of a green screen and doing shot/reverse shot an infinite number of times while you drink coffee. He was a hungry, ambitious director once, eager to prove he was Speilberg and Coppala's equal. When he made the prequels, he was just a lazy billionaire surrounded by sycophants in love with technology.

I've pimped these before, so forgive me if I'm passing along links people have already seen, but the Red Letter Media bit where the fake serial killer does real analysis of the prequels is one of the greatest critical beat downs of our time. All you fanbois should watch it, because it really exposes exactly what's went wrong and just how embarrassing of a performance it truly was. You can literally see -- because it's intercut with clips from the documentary Lucas Films did while making them -- points along the way where Lucas needed someone, anyone, to stand up and call him on his bullshit. It's become fashionable in recent years to say that Revenge of the Sith is actually the third best film, that it's better than Jedi. It's not. In fact, it's not even fucking close. Sith is a terrible, terrible film. And if you are willing to sit through all the RedLetterMedia clips, you'll see exactly why.

Here is Part 1.

http://redlettermedia.com/plinkett/star-wars/star-wars-episode-1-the-phantom-menace/

 

How old are you people?

 

Old enough to have seen the original three in the theater, several dozen times, as a kid.

 

The original three are not nearly as good as people make them out to be. Yes, I get it, they're beloved by millions across the globe. And, yes, I enjoyed them. But to pretend they're not as flawed as other films is ridiculous. To pretend they're perfect and beyond tweaking is even worse.

 

They are not nearly as flawed as the prequels. Sorry, but you lost me right there. Flawed? Sure, but not like the prequels.

It's not that they are beyond tweaking. It's that the fact that he keeps doing it again and again is getting ridiculous.

And some of the tweaks are truly horrible. The Jabba scene in Episode 4 looks awful. So does the scene where Greedo shoots first. There is no way you could possibly have him miss from that range and not have it look ridiculous, but Lucas had to go and do it anyway.

 

Where did I say compared to the prequels?

I said compared to "other films".

If you want to compare them to the prequels, that's a different argument. Yes, the prequels were bad but that was mostly due to the poor dialogue and overemphasis on special effects over storytelling.

But, to me, the prequels had the better plot. It was much more interesting for me to watch the slow and steady decline of a potential hero from promised leader to dark lord than it was to watch a whiny, bitchy brat complain because he wasn't as cool as Han Solo.

I'm sorry but as long as the originals have Luke in them, I will say they remain flawed films. He was, BY FAR, the worst human character in the series.

 

The premise of the prequels was better. The execution? Not so much.

 

The plots of the prequels are convoluted and illogical on multiple, multiple levels. The original trilogy was worlds better because of their simplicity and basic character development.

 

As Inky said, old enough to have seen the originals in the theaters the first time around.

Yes, there was some stuff in the originals that was goofy and flawed. It's not that they aren't beyond tweaking or don't have things that couldn't have been done better the first time around. BUT, Lucas doesn't get to just keep going back ... maybe once to get the "directors cut" or whatever ... but at some point it belongs to the ages. (Of course they're dead) but you don't see the artists keep going back into the museum to add stuff famous paintings.

I read something once where it was suggested the best way to fix the plot holes introduced by the prequels was to just forget that they have anything connection whatsoever with 4/5/6 and don't really exist. That sounds about right.

 

What made the original Star Wars so great was the dialogue and humor. Han Solo was a great character. A rascal, funny, brave but doesn't want to admit it. The droids had funny bits too.

In the prequels, the Jedi are all so capable and stiff and boring. Anakin is stiff and boring but also manages to be a unlikable punk.

If it's a tragedy that he inevitably turns to the Dark Side, you should like him first. People should be weeping in the theaters that this character that they've cheered on and loved turns bad.

No humor, no fun, no characters you even like, except for Yoda. And the clumsy attempt at comedy is Jar-Jar Binks? Ugh.

 

I would go further. It's best to watch the prequels without constantly remembering the various events in the other movies. If I had a nickel for every time different friends asked "where was the Han Solo character?!?!?!" or who accepted the Muppet who sounded like Fozzie Bear, but hated all those "fake-looking" effects in space fantasy films that were rooted in a world that doesn't exist . . . I guess I'd buy you a house.

Anyway:

http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/19990517/REVIEWS/905170301/1023

In general, it's best to not consume most works of fiction starting with the final chapters, then spending all of the early chapters wondering why they're not setting up the final chapters in the manner you expected.

The older movies were largely B-caliber plots and acting raised by great production values and great music. The dialogue elicited that famous, "George, you can write this shit, but you can't say it" reaction from the actors.

The new ones tried to be more ambitious plot-wise, but the execution had its problems. If he was going to try to set up a more complex overall plot, the acting and dialogue needed to rise to complete the package. It didn't.

They also fell short, music-wise, after the first one. Williams got lazy, a laziness that carried through to the last Indiana Jones film.

I get why the new ones are so nitpicked, though much of the plot-related criticism seems to seek films that beat the viewer and characters over the head with various points.

But much of the old ones doesn't hold up to true scrutiny. They were never meant to be some kind of Earth-shattering films. And the new ones were never going to be good enough.

 

Seriously, Piotr. Watch the videos I linked in my post. The prequels aren't flawed as Star Wars films. They're flawed as films. It's not that the plot is complicated. It's that it makes no fucking sense. At all.