- PREVIOUS POST
- « REVIEW: The Man Who Turned Into Himself by David Ambrose
- NEXT POST
- Cult Pop Interviews SF Signal »
When last we gathered together, we started to talk about the Star Wars prequels. I've got just a little more to say on the subject, and I hope you'll bear with me. We already talked about what I think of as the perceived bad points against the three prequel movies. Now I want to get into the actual bad points. Shall we?
Let's.
Now, I want to defend some of the actual lousy points of the prequels. Because they were not flawless gems of filmmaking, nor do I contend that they are. I merely offer that they are better than made out to be. And in order to defend them, I am going to discuss the original trilogy. And this, I warn you, is the place where you'll need to separate the original trilogy of movies from the beautiful golden idol in all of our minds. And probably shotgun my front door or something...
- The writing: Well, it's sort of a big point, isn't it? The bad writing? It comes up pretty often. And it is pretty atrocious in some places. One gets the feeling, with the strange and bulky sentences that some of the characters use, that nobody actually sat down and read the script aloud beforehand. And it's true. Especially in some of the quieter character moments, particularly between Amidala and Anikan Skywalker. If I had talked like that to my wife, she would probably be someone else's wife, if you get my meaning. My defense, however, is to point out that in many a place, the writing in the original movies was not a lot more graceful. Lando Calrissian being dashing is cringe-worthy. Anything Luke Skywalker says in the first movie is cringe-worthy. Nearly anything anyone says in the first movie is cringe-worthy. Nobody talks like any of these people talk, in any of the movies. The dialogue doesn't always hold up, therefore, in either trilogy, and the plots of all the movies tend to be fairly simplistic. But more on that later.
- The acting: it was a particularly big joke against the second prequel: wooden acting. And I can make no strong defense of it, because it did have wooden acting. But I can offer some interesting ideas about it. For one: they are, in theory, disciplined people. It's a film mostly made up of Jedi and politicians, i.e., people who are all able to keep their emotions in check. For two: for whatever reason, the prequel movies - particularly the second one - featured a lot more slow, quiet, character-moments than the original trilogy. I therefore find it likely that if we had had long scenes of Leia and Luke, or Han, sitting around talking, they would be just as stilted. (You can see a little evidence of this in The Return of the Jedi, on the rope-bridge in the Ewok village, as Luke talks to Leia and then Leia talks to Han. Expand that scene by an hour. You see what happens).
- Made for kids: I have heard it suggested in many places that the prequel films, particularly the first one, felt dumbed-down and made for kids. This always puzzles me, in that the original Star Wars movies weren't exactly Schindler's List themselves. They were kid friendly too. Mostly, though, I think the thing to consider these are three follow-up films being made to three films made in the seventies and eighties, which were already kid friendly enough. And if you accept that the prequels are on the level of the original movies, then there would be no reason for them to be any darker. There would be no reason for them to evolve into The Matrix-like movies. It's just that time has passed, and the world has changed, and now they seem like kid's films. It's like the perennial parental hallmark argument about how movie ratings seem to be getting worse, and you never see G-rated films anymore, and so forth. The world just changes.
The Star Wars films have always had very simplistic plots, although that's no problem at all since it works, and it's fantastic. There is no need for complex plots, or for complex characters, in that they are essentially films full of archetypes. They are mythology pieces in so many ways, and that's just fine.
One complaint I hear against all of the Star Wars films is about the seriously iffy science, to which I can only say: you betcha. The ships don't move right. The lightsabers make no sense. The Death Star laser makes no sense. All the weapons and explosions and ships make a lot of noise in outer space, which surely doesn't happen.
The reason this doesn't phase me is that I don't particularly think of Star Wars as science fiction. Maybe I just have too much time on my hands, but I think science fiction can be broken down into all sorts of interesting categories. I think that science fiction is stuff by Isaac Asimov, Jules Verne, and so forth. That is to say: work which has a grounding, and an emphasis, on the science. And then there is speculative fiction, which gets lumped into science fiction. Future stories. Stories of the past. Stories based around questions like if this goes on... or if this happens... or what-have-you. And then I think there is a third category, which died with the pulp magazines, which is fantastic fiction. Stories of the fantastic. And into that category, I would include Star Wars. It's huge and exciting and fantastic. (If you want to see Star Wars done as science fiction, watch Joss Whedon's Firefly; the science works, space is soundless, and so forth).
I think that if the prequels had any one big flaw, it was that they were perhaps too earnest and too sincere. There was absolutely no cynicism or irony in the love scenes, in the dramatic conflicts between characters. There are really no gray areas between the light, and the dark. And I think that this level of earnest intent can make the movies feel a bit cheesy and awkward in places. And on a related note, it occurs to me that the prequels do not have one thing which the original movies did, which is: Han Solo and Chewbacca. They added not only an interesting level of banter, but also a cynicism and sarcasm which did help the original movies from feeling entirely earnest and intense all of the time. There is no equivalent to them in the prequel movies, and I think that is to their detriment.
(Anyway, if you ask me, the best thing about Star Wars as a whole is that it led to the Expanded Universe. It gave us shelves upon shelves of novels and comics and some truly amazing video games. I perhaps have more fond memories of playing Dark Forces II: Jedi Knight than I do watching any of the movies. And the books, although some are good and some are bad, form one massive work of continuity which is really rivaled only by the comic book universes of Marvel and DC Comics. I think that's pretty special. And a whole lot of fun. And it enhances the movies, when you come back to them.)
I think that it's actually too soon to judge the prequels successes or not. And actually, that's part of why I'm talking about them now, even though there's no reason for me to be bringing up and discussing the prequels. It's not like they're in the news, or having an anniversary, or needing reconsideration or anything. If the phrase "time heals all wounds" is true, I think it can comfortably be applied to movies as well as, you know, the other things it applies to (shark bites? Harlan Ellison attacks? your pick). Now that time has come between me and the prequels, I can look back at them and consider them a little more objectively. I can try to take from them what they give me, leave what they don't, and then go on my merry way. And I think as we put more and more distance between ourselves and the prequels, they might start to look friendlier.
I think the final thing to keep in mind is that actually, they're probably a hugely different experience for kids. Writing this article, I keep wishing I had a child of about, say, eleven. I mean, we are beginning to have whole generations to whom all six Star Wars movies have just existed on DVD for them. They don't remember having three movies in their lives, and then three interlopers appearing. There's just always been these six things. I wonder what they think of the prequels? And I wonder what they think of these older, rougher creatures, these Star Wars movies that came out a long time ago...
There. I think we've gotten through it all without tearing apart any golden idols, without emptying that beautiful drawer labeled Star Wars, which I would never want to empty. Far from it, I want to add to it. Ideally, I want you to be able to watch the prequels and take from them as much as you possibly can, adding it to that drawer in your mind. I have found that since I had to take the original trilogy off its pedestal and consider all the movies, and Star Wars, that my love for it all has not only reignited, but increased. And so, I try to pass some of that onto you.
I hope it works.
Please put the shotgun away.
Comments (16)
| PermaLink
| Category: Star Wars
Posted by Peter Damien at Tuesday March 10, 2009 at 12:25 AM
© 2009 SF Signal
My biggest issue with the prequel trilogy was how it LOOKED. Just like any other sci fi thing with shiny ships and clean, brand new things.
The old trilogy was dirty, industrial, spartan and people wore shitty clothes like vests. That made the old movies feel real. The new ones did the opposite.
Posted by John Harper on Tuesday March 10, 2009 at 1:28 AM
I've never really been into the Star Wars films, but I think the thing that sets them apart is the way they tell a "pulp" space opera story, without devolving into camp. It's an easy trick and one that would bring great success for any space story brought to the screen, but for some reason, filmmakers haven't allowed themselves to do it. It baffles me.
As filmmakers plan new films involving Buck Rogers and John Carter, I'm curious if they will allow themselves some pulpy, retro-futuristic characters and ideas. The trend is to go toward the updated BSG television show, which lean toward something gritty and modern in their storytelling, and ignore the pulpy roots. I can see why they do this, but it does make me wonder if it's impossible to see one of the key things that makes the Star Wars universe so successful.
From what I can tell from the new Star TRek trailers, Abrams would appear to be swinging things back toward Star Wars style of storytelling. I happen to think that approach will resonate.
Posted by weyland yutani on Tuesday March 10, 2009 at 6:12 AM
I have to say that I do not share any affectation for the Star Wars prequel films. Some of it down to the stories and some of it down to acting and characterisation. In a New hope Obi Wan speaks of this great friendship he had with Anakin Skywalker. But in the later two prequel films Obi-Wan sounds like a nagging father and Anakins character can be summed up as a bad tempered teenager. If the relationship between them had of been more like the one Obi-Wan had with Qui Gon Gin in the Phantom Menace I might have been able to shed a tear or two when Obi Wan was forced to fight Anakin.
Posted by Tremas on Tuesday March 10, 2009 at 6:47 AM
I should also add that I think the main problem with the prequels is that they told the story before the story that would have been a lot more entertaining - you know, that whole "star wars" thing with Darth Vader being Darth Vader. The rise and fall of Anakin is an interesting story, but I sort of wish that was film one.
The rest of the prequel failures might have seemed smaller if Anakin wasn't so annoying to watch. If people loved him even a little bit, it would have worked much better.
Posted by weyland yutani on Tuesday March 10, 2009 at 9:36 AM
Thanks for a pair of well-thought-out and well-argued essays. I tend to agree: if one went into the prequels expecting a life-changing experience like the first Star Wars, then of course one would be disappointed.
Another development in the last two decades affects all movies: the Internet. The writers/directors/etc. don't have to slow down the action with backstory, plot details, character development, and other exposition: all of that can go on the Internet. Most moviegoers just want to see fights, explosions, and kewl special effects; those few who want backstory & such can search the Web when they get home.
Your comment about kids who have grown up with all six movies on DVD is spot-on. I've talked to a fair number of 8-12 year olds who really like the current Clone Wars cartoon but feel the live-action movies are "old-fashioned." (So far I have not strangled any of these kids, which I think shows remarkable restraint.) I do have to admit that the computer-generated Anakin Skywalker is much more expressive than Hayden Christensen....
And one aside to the commenter who said that the Star Wars movies told their story "without devolving into camp" -- if the scenes of the mad Emperor tearing apart the Senate chamber and hurling pieces at Yoda while cackling maniacally weren't camp, then I don't know what is. Deliciously, operatically, way-over-the-top camp, yes...but camp. I loved every second!
Are the Star Wars prequels flawless? No, of course not. Did George Lucas, ultimately, make me sympathize with Anakin and believe in his transformation into Darth Vader? No, not really. Were the movies filled with swashbuckling derring-do and flashy adventure? You betcha. Were they true space opera, in the fine tradition of Flash Gordon, Buck Rogers, and E.E. "Doc" Smith? Oh, yeah.
And when I'm clicking through channels and happen across any of the Star Wars movies, do I stop and watch, even though I have them all on DVD and have seen them a million times anyway?
Yep.
Posted by Don Sakers on Tuesday March 10, 2009 at 10:40 AM
My nephew went through a huge Star Wars phase (passing out of it now), and for him the prequels WERE Star Wars. He loved them and their characters just as much or more as I loved the originals when I was his age. He likes the originals fine too, but they are nothing special to him. I think there's a lot to the context argument.
Even so, I think the prequels were too much "Revenge of the Jedi" and not enough "Empire Strikes Back."
Posted by kew on Tuesday March 10, 2009 at 11:31 AM
The shotgun is still out.
Sure Luke's dialogue wasn't spectacular, but it at least seemed ernest. Anakin's dialogue was terrible and seemed forced, just so the movie could be made. Hell, the writing and emotion from the new Star Wars cartoon Anakin on Cartoon Network evokes more emotion than anything in the 3 prequels.
Also, I agree the original movies were kid friendly, but they didn't talk down to the adults like the prequels do. My guess is all the 11-12 year olds who like the prequels better will eventually grow to love the originals as they get older. I bet when they are adults they rank the movies :
1. Empire
2. Revenge of the Sith
3. Star Wars
4. Return of the Jedi
5. Clones
6. Phantom
Of course children like the prequels better, as they are pure eye candy. I know I always like Return of the Jedi best as a child, because it was eye candy. Now I realize that Empire and Star Wars are better written and have better plots, even if they are all simple. Sure it's all pulp, but there is a difference between good and bad pulp.
Posted by Chad on Tuesday March 10, 2009 at 12:32 PM
I have to say I thoroughly enjoyed these two essays. Putting the movies into perspective (all of them), avoiding the polarized 'prequels are better' vs. 'originals are better' is a difficult thing to do, but you seem to have pulled it off! I take off my hat to you good sir!
Posted by lucas on Tuesday March 10, 2009 at 2:15 PM
"Lando Calrissian being dashing is cringe-worthy."
It's not valid to say that without providing a detailed rationale.
Posted by TheAdlerian on Tuesday March 10, 2009 at 5:23 PM
OK, Pete,
My verdict is in...
As good a writer as you are...
I hereby disown and disavow any prior friendship with you.
I want my jewelry back.
Posted by Lucien E. G. Spelman on Wednesday March 11, 2009 at 12:47 AM
ANY of Lando's dialogue toward Leia. The delivery of "You truly belong with us, here among the clouds" for example. The only reason it works in the movie is that, rather than everyone taking it very seriously, we immediately cut to a shot of Han Solo, leaning against the wall, rolling his eyes and going "Oh christ..."
That's what I mean about stuff in the original movies working because of the cynicism and Han Solo, whereas in the prequels, the same line would have been used as earnestly and sincerely as possible.
I like Star Wars movies, all six, for what they are. I many times think that Firefly is a much better-written and more interesting version of Star Wars.
And maybe Imitation Milk made the best prequel movie...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=byMClFz6w-w
(And I'm very much enjoying the Cartoon Network stuff, when I catch it.)
Posted by Pete Tzinski on Wednesday March 11, 2009 at 7:52 AM
I am really really late to the party here. That won't stop me however. I supposed I could be one of those 11-12 year olds you were talking about, considering I was 11 or 12 when TPM came to theaters. I had saw the original trilogy before hand, both the original and special editions. Then I saw the prequels one by one as they came into theaters.
Well, I do like the prequels better. To be honest, I think the stories are deeper and a lot more complex. I would argue that by comparison, the original trilogy was made for kids. You don't have children being slaughtered in Empire. And acting in the Prequels was a lot more stomachable. I can't stand to listen to Luke Skywalker sound like he is going through puberty for A New Hope and Empire. He finally sounded like someone in their twenties in RotJ.
Posted by Shawn VanHoose on Saturday January 30, 2010 at 11:43 AM
There really is a god!
There is an old saying if you can't dazzle them with brilliance baffle them with bullshit.
That is what you've done.
Since you know nothing about a decent movie here it is.
Acting, acting, acting not excuses acting.
If you fail that you have mount everest to climb to please your audience you can do it but you either have to be a brilliant director or the only other category is so bad that it's good.
Sorry Lucas you ain't joining that club.
Stop defending the undefendable just hate it like everyone else.
Christ it's twits like you that will make Sarah Palin the next president of the united states!
Learn about your future before you don't have one! And while you're at it learn what a good movie is.
Gladiator that was a great movie.
I'll let you in on a little trade secret not every movie we praise stands the test of time.
Even ones we initially loved.
Who can tell me they sit down and watch Lord of the Rings The Special Edition every week.
And now thanks to the DVD we scrutinise even more.
Sorry Son that's just how it is.
Substance not Style.
P.S The new Battlestar Galactica Series was probably the finest show I've ever seen on the big or small screen.
Posted by Bill Kinsey on Tuesday February 23, 2010 at 3:19 AM
Sorry but nothing you can say will defend the prequels. Yes you can point out that the original trilogy wasn't oscar winning movies either but so what? They are still a country mile better than the newer films.
The one point of your defense I really don't get is that you talk about how the original films where child friendly and so are the new ones, as if that means something. Yes they are both products of the era in which they were made, but just look at some contemporary 'child friendly' movies to the prequels like Toy Story, Shrek even the early Harry Potter movies and you can see a lot more 'grown up' themes and images than you will find in those movies, and they have done it with out going Matrix dark.
The reality is Lucas really isn't a great movie maker and when making the prequels he really stunk, I have seen a fair bit that supports the idea that everyone was too scared to challenge him on flaws in the movies and without the creative input of those he was working with the movies never had a chance to be decent.
Lets not forget his CGI/fx/stunt crimes either. He seems to have been blinded by flash, bang and the desire to sell toys without ever considering any form of narative flow, plot, logic or reason. He didn't have to try and shoe horn everything he did into the movies... Lets face it the original movies shifted tonnes of merchandise with ease, the prequels were going to as well... he didn't need to milk it and ruin the product!
Posted by Andy W on Tuesday February 23, 2010 at 7:42 AM
Whatever you think of Lucas, it's pretty silly to say he isn't a great movie maker. He made one of the greatest films of all time, and even the prequels had some great moments in them.
A lot of bitter middle-aged losers out there who hate on Lucas. Pretty sad, really.
Posted by Roddy Reta on Tuesday February 23, 2010 at 3:37 PM
The conversation going has nothing much to do with me, really, so I'll make a quiet note and then keep on going.
I get when people like or dislike Star Wars. that's your little red wagon. But slagging off on Lucas, I never get that. The man had an impossible-to-escape effect on HOllywood as we know it.
Forget Star Wars: this is the man who founded or set into motion THX, Industrial Light and Magic, Skywalker Sound and Pixar. And has done quite a lot besides.
Say what you will about the films, but his impact on filmmaking is undeniable.
Posted by Peter Damien on Tuesday February 23, 2010 at 8:32 PM