Star Wars Prequel Trilogy Review

[EffEmDoubleyou]

Consider the fact that the greatest sci-fi movies of the time either were classics from the 1950s or lame attempts such as 2001:A Space Odyssey

WHAWHAWHAT? All the Star Wars movies put together don't sniff 2001!

 

[Mal12345]

WHAWHAWHAT? All the Star Wars movies put together don't sniff 2001!

All right, let's discuss this then.

Blue Danube waltz.

STAR WARS THEME!

 

[The Ü™]

WHAWHAWHAT? All the Star Wars movies put together don't sniff 2001!

All right, let's discuss this then.

Blue Danube waltz.

STAR WARS THEME!

Actually, 2010 was the best. And Star Trek II.

 

[Mal12345]

Actually, 2010 was the best. And Star Trek II.

Star Wars Episode IV scored 8.8 at imdb.com. 2001 is at 8.4. Wrath of Khan 7.7. 2010 is at 6.6.

I liked 2001, even the trippy light show at the end. But the movie did take a long time to get going.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U8Q3X5Gw5I4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z33-qOXOWS4

 

[Hazashin]

Given that there is quite an amount of Star Wars threads active at the moment, I figured that it would be appropriate to post one of the best (if not very best) reviews of the first three films. Done by Red Letter Media, these reviews go above and beyond others as it explains from a analytical perspective why certain aspects of the film just don't work, in addition to questioning the logic of the plot and characters. [...]

Hey S.I., I just got done watching the reviews for Episodes II and III, and even though I didn't watch the review for Episode I yet (which doesn't really matter, since it is inconsequential for this next point), there is hardly a character analysis of Anakin at all. He just says that his characterization was poorly done (which I can agree, but I was still able to understand him).

But you did, however, ruin Star Wars for me. (This isn't personal or anything)
I already don't like the Originals, and now this makes me dislike the Prequels. The only thing I like about it now is Anakin's character.

 

[Mal12345]

Hey S.I., I just got done watching the reviews for Episodes II and III, and even though I didn't watch the review for Episode I yet (which doesn't really matter, since it is inconsequential for this next point), there is hardly a character analysis of Anakin at all. He just says that his characterization was poorly done (which I can agree, but I was still able to understand him).

But you did, however, ruin Star Wars for me. (This isn't personal or anything)
I already don't like the Originals, and now this makes me dislike the Prequels. The only thing I like about it now is Anakin's character.

You should have figured that one out for yourself.

 

[Mal12345]

Now if you watch part 3 of Mr. Plinkett's review of Star Trek:Nemesis, you will see he makes a similar point. More is not necessarily better.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5DT7sSp-3_I

"Every action has a purpose which propels the story."

 

[Totenkindly]

But you did, however, ruin Star Wars for me. (This isn't personal or anything)
I already don't like the Originals, and now this makes me dislike the Prequels. The only thing I like about it now is Anakin's character.

You'll thank us later.

... I'd even refine that to be, "how Anakin's character could have been" rather than as actually implemented.

That is a grievous mistake [that people either love him or hate him], because Anakin does not deserve to be completely loved or hated. He is not black and white; he is not a sadistic monster who truly wishes to cause others pain, nor is he a perfect, angelic person who never fails to do the right thing. He is not a classic hero, nor is he a villain. He is a mixture of both. That's another reason why people hate him. People are able to accept heroes like Luke and seem to at least not bash Palpatine who is the true villain of the series. Anakin is a fallible human being who was well-intentioned and heroic and fell to the Dark Side due to his fear of loss. That's why he did all those horrible things before he became Darth Vader: it's because he simply couldn't let go of the ones he loved. If he didn't have that problem, he would have never committed any of those "evil" deeds and would have never fell to the Dark Side and became Darth Vader. And, yes, I believe that good people can do bad things and bad people can do good things. The reason why this is plausible is because of motivations. See, their motivations would just be different. It's possible for a good person, like Anakin, to steal money from another person to buy medicine for a dying family member, and it is possible for a bad person to save people for payment. Albus Dumbledore was right: "The choices people make tell you a lot about a person, but the reasons why they made those choices tell you even more." (paraphrased).

Again, there's a difference what Anakin could have been, vs how he was actually implemented in the movies by the writer/director. As actually portrayed, Anakin was just a whiny angry kid with a chip on his shoulder. It's a shame he never really had a chance to be done some justice to the degreee that you spell out here.

I feel sorry for your friends. They never had the experience of sitting in the movie theater before the movie starts - ready and waiting for the greatest thing that ever happened up until that time - the crawl ends, the view pans down for a few seconds of stars - and suddenly, there's this big spaceship floating by just overhead; and directly after, another one, a HUGE monstrous thing which was like nothing I had ever personally experienced before in a movie, or since. Yes, it was awe-inspiring. And it was just the beginning.

I never saw Star Wars in the theater (I think I was only 8-9 when it came out). The first time I saw it was on betamax at a friend of my parents'. I think I did see Episodes V and VI in the theater though. I can imagine the ship would have been magnificent, seeing such a thing for the first time on the big screen.

To be fair to Lucas, I did have a jaw-drop reaction in Episode I when they're taking the underwater vehicle, a big monster comes after them, and then this HUGE monster gobbles it up and they get away. On the big screen, that second critter still sticks with me; I really got a full sense of its size.

(meant to include this in the last post)

I think one of the great things about the prequels is how correct Palpatine was in his assessment of the Jedi Order. They were blind, arrogant, and corrupt. But I sometimes wonder if Lucas thinks this as well, or this is just fans reading intentions into a simpler story. Yoda said he failed towards the end of Episode III. Did he mean that he saw the true magnitude of the Jedi failure in which he played a part? Or just that he failed to defeat the Emperor in the Senate fight?

I have the impression that Yoda withdrew in part because he felt like the Jedi failed, not just lost a fight. Their attempts to instill order and dictate society had led to disaster; better to withdraw from power and aschew it, searching within for enlightenment.

I found the Jedi in the movies to be pompous jerks and rigid in their own way; at least the Sith were honest, and bequeated power to individuals, whereas the Jedi were opinionated and demanding. I like how the video games focused more on the reality of the Jedi code as described and how it contributed to that kind of behavior (SWKOTOR 1 & 2); at least they were honest. I have trouble telling from the movies whether Lucas actually realizes this about the Jedi or whether he's such a bad story teller that he can't even tell when his own creation is corrupt.

No, no, no, I mean, analyze his character and see how he was. It seems to me that the majority of people don't quite understand him, and it's because he wasn't done very well.

Is Anakin what you imagine him to be in your analysis, or is he actually what he actually was? (I guess this is the situation with people in general: Are they what you idealize they could and should be, or are they actually just what they are?)

Honestly, I'm not sure whether Twilight or Star Wars Prequels were done better. It's a toss up. Which is rather sad.

 

[Totenkindly]

Anakin's downfall wasn't even interesting. He was just some angry kid (whether he was 17 or 27 or whatever) who kept finding more and more excuses to get angry and want power. But getting mad at his teacher wasn't good enough. Obsessing over a dream about Padme dying wasn't good enough. I can see jealousy being a decent motive, except there was nothing so complex as a love triangle.

About halfway through the second episode Anakin seemed happy enough rolling through the grass, but the next thing you know he's cutting off someone's head next to the beginning of the third installment. (No wonder it was the only Star Wars series movie rated PG-13 in the US. Egads, what has happened to Star Wars?)

Recall that Yoda had a bad feeling about Anakin at the end of the first installment. But none of the Jedi council listened to him. All he had to do was say "no," and history would have been very different. Why does Yoda have such a weak will? And if you stop and look at every decision made by the council, not a single one was even close to anything like common-sense and every single one of them led inexorably to more political power for Palatine. How wise were they really? And what was their whole problem anyway? Don't they get out enough and see how the world really is? Were they too reliant on the Force to tell them things? but that of course was blocked. So all they could do was sit around impotently hemming and hawing while Yoda mumbled some gibberish about a prophecy and the Senators were led around like sheep believing everything they were told.

[Edit: these frustrations are related to viewing pleasure and not to plot per se. As one of the audience, I can't do anything with the information the movie is giving me to create a rewarding experience that was worth my nickel. I agree with Mr. Plinkett the reviewer in that I watched part 3 just to make it official that I watched them all.]

Yeah, all that. I think it is advised to recall Lucas' clumsy continual use of the "cut scene" -- he couldn't make an organic transition in his films, visually, if he tried... and it comes out with his characterizations too. There is no smooth organic arc to character development; we are witnessing Anakin happy, and suddenly he is murderous (and so on and so on throughout the prequels), and somehow we are supposed to believe the reality of his character.

 

[Totenkindly]

Well, nobody wanted to argue with Lucas. He surrounds himself with intellectually void sycophants who nod whenever he speaks and laugh whenever he makes a lame joke. It wasn't like that in 1977.

I think this is why I was kind of blown away (despite how risque it was) at the episode of South Park where they dished up on Lucas and Spielberg for the fourth installment of Indiana Jones. It was pretty bad -- essentially they had Lucas raping Indiana Jones on-screen in various montages, since Parker and Stone felt Lucas had raped the franchise, and it was about as graphic as a cartoon of that type can be. Hard to tell whether to be filled with dread or amazement, because to publicly pillory Lucas so directly wasn't something that seemed to be happening... his adoring masses of fanboys provide a protective buffer for him to hide behind.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_China_Probrem
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...of-Hollywood-titans-raping-Indiana-Jones.html
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/showtracker/2008/10/south-park-vs-l.html

I can't find any actual notes on it, but the impression I recall from reading various things at the time was that Spielberg just wanted it to disappear rather than getting pissy about it (it was kind of beneath anything he wanted to respond to) but Lucas was really angry .

 

[Mal12345]

I think this is why I was kind of blown away (despite how risque it was) at the episode of South Park where they dished up on Lucas and Spielberg for the fourth installment of Indiana Jones. It was pretty bad -- essentially they had Lucas raping Indiana Jones on-screen in various montages, since Parker and Stone felt Lucas had raped the franchise, and it was about as graphic as a cartoon of that type can be. Hard to tell whether to be filled with dread or amazement, because to publicly pillory Lucas so directly wasn't something that seemed to be happening... his adoring masses of fanboys provide a protective buffer for him to hide behind.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_China_Probrem
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...of-Hollywood-titans-raping-Indiana-Jones.html
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/showtracker/2008/10/south-park-vs-l.html

I can't find any actual notes on it, but the impression I recall from reading various things at the time was that Spielberg just wanted it to disappear rather than getting pissy about it (it was kind of beneath anything he wanted to respond to) but Lucas was really angry .

I'll have to catch that episode somewhere. I didn't watch Kingdom of the Crystal Shlock so the reference would have been lost on me. The most I've ever seen of that movie was the outtakes here:
http://redlettermedia.com/plinkett/indiana-jones-and-the-kingdom-of-the-crystal-skull/

 

[Savage Idealist]

Hey S.I., I just got done watching the reviews for Episodes II and III, and even though I didn't watch the review for Episode I yet (which doesn't really matter, since it is inconsequential for this next point), there is hardly a character analysis of Anakin at all. He just says that his characterization was poorly done (which I can agree, but I was still able to understand him).

But you did, however, ruin Star Wars for me. (This isn't personal or anything)
I already don't like the Originals, and now this makes me dislike the Prequels. The only thing I like about it now is Anakin's character.

Sorry dude, that wasn't my intent. But you still can enjoy the films is you want; it doesn't matter what the critics say, if you like the movie then enjoy the movie. Or perhaps you could enjoy it in a new way; like I acknowledge the claims of the critics, but now I find watching the prequel films to be hilarious, as my brother and I can crack jokes at all the logical inconsistencies and plot holes.

By the way though, I did post my typings of the Star Wars characters

 

[Hazashin]

You should have figured that one out for yourself.

I think I was too immersed in how the story played out and how Anakin's character was in my mind (by filling in all the gaps, via Ne, I guess) instead of actually watching the movie for what it was to notice. I saw the meanings/intentions behind most of it, even though it wasn't done or done properly on-screen, and I just accepted it as that. Perhaps this is why I have found only <10% I have ever watched to be uninteresting.

You'll thank us later.

No, I get it. It was necessary for me to see the reality of it all. I have a tendency to build things up in my mind for what I think they are instead of what they actually are. I think it's the Fi trying to find the value in everything.

... I'd even refine that to be, "how Anakin's character could have been" rather than as actually implemented.

You're right. Most of what I said wasn't actually presented on screen, or if it was, it wasn't convincing or done properly.

Again, there's a difference what Anakin could have been, vs how he was actually implemented in the movies by the writer/director. As actually portrayed, Anakin was just a whiny angry kid with a chip on his shoulder. It's a shame he never really had a chance to be done some justice to the degreee that you spell out here.

Yeah, no wonder why everyone misunderstands him. He wasn't done properly in the film, and I never saw it because I saw what the movie was trying to convey in my mind.

I found the Jedi in the movies to be pompous jerks and rigid in their own way; at least the Sith were honest, and bequeated power to individuals, whereas the Jedi were opinionated and demanding. I like how the video games focused more on the reality of the Jedi code as described and how it contributed to that kind of behavior (SWKOTOR 1 & 2); at least they were honest. I have trouble telling from the movies whether Lucas actually realizes this about the Jedi or whether he's such a bad story teller that he can't even tell when his own creation is corrupt.

You're right, which is why I wrote this post:

One of the biggest problems with the Jedi is that they were often too narrow-minded, rigid, emotionally void and repressive (in all honesty, trying to repress your feelings is not good for your psychological health), and afraid of change. Completely anti-human. They just weren't adaptable or flexible enough, and ignored emotional needs altogether. On top of that, they knew that Anakin was taken in late and wasn't trained to control his emotions, and they didn't adapt to that either. They just hoped that he would learn. And when Anakin messed up, they got mad at him.

Is Anakin what you imagine him to be in your analysis, or is he actually what he actually was? (I guess this is the situation with people in general: Are they what you idealize they could and should be, or are they actually just what they are?)

Possibly a little. However, I think I understand what was trying to be conveyed. After all, how could I relate with him so much and not any other character in the entire series, if he wasn't even done well at all?

Sorry dude, that wasn't my intent.

This was the kind of thing I was hoping to avoid.

I wasn't saying that as a bad thing or that you should feel guilty about it or anything like that. I was simply pointing it out.

But you still can enjoy the films is you want; it doesn't matter what the critics say, if you like the movie then enjoy the movie. Or perhaps you could enjoy it in a new way; like I acknowledge the claims of the critics, but now I find watching the prequel films to be hilarious, as my brother and I can crack jokes at all the logical inconsistencies and plot holes.

Oh, I wasn't saying the reviews ruined them to the point of no return. It's just that now I can't enjoy them as much. It happens with practically any nicely done negative review of anything I like or even love.

By the way though, I did post my typings of the Star Wars characters

Awesome!

Thanks.

 

[Laurie]

Well, the insinuation (I think) was that he hadn't killed her outright but severely damaged/weakened her (through choking) so that she expired during the rigors of childbirth. Yeah. Whatever. Does this guy even bother to read basic medical journals? Lucas is such an idiot outside his area of specialty. he creates too many "omfg" and "wtf" moments during his movies than can be dealt with.

I've heard that you can die in childbirth if you got a cut before you go into labor. True story.

Also, if you fall in lava and your arms and legs are burned off obviously you can live. Strangulation and childbirth does anyone in.

It's just obvious what's going on here is very simple. We have an age difference. When Star Wars first came out it was a BIG deal, not just to me but to millions of people. <snip> So it's just something where you had to be there, in 1977, or the effect of it all is lost.

The first movies really had their awesome enhanced by how ground breaking they were at the time. In the long term it doesn't make them stand the test of time any better. Not that they don't stand the test of time, it's just that that novelty isn't going to be there for anyone who didn't watch them "originally."

I was 7 when Star Wars came out so I don't remember watching them in the theatre, if I did. I just remember watching them almost every weekend growing up.

I hate the prequels I've seen them all more than once and they just never stick. The basic ideas behind it were good but the execution was just awful.



eta: wtf?? I know what year star wars was made and theoretically I know what year I was born but from those two facts I got 7?? I was four.

 

[Totenkindly]

I've heard that you can die in childbirth if you got a cut before you go into labor. True story.

Who told you that, your brother's cousin's sister's friend's boss?

He: She got cut and died during labor.
She: OMG. That's incredible.
He: Yes, after the decapitation, she only lasted another minute but still long enough to get the baby out.

More seriously, I would guess, if I had to imagine such an incident, that the muscle contractions and pushing would make blood pressure shoot up, and a wound that would normally clot might have trouble doing so due to all the bleeding pressure.

A similar piece of "weird death" trivia is that later-term pregnant women should avoid oral sex since if her partner "huffs" (blows air) into the vagina, it's possible for air bubbles to pass into the blood stream and cause strokes.

Also, if you fall in lava and your arms and legs are burned off obviously you can live. Strangulation and childbirth does anyone in.

Honestly, he should have been "Darth Torsoboy," not "Darth Vader."
Or maybe "Darth Stumpy."

 

[Laurie]

I was kidding about the cut! I was taking the death of padme silliness to an extreme.

 

[Totenkindly]

I was kidding about the cut! I was taking the death of padme silliness to an extreme.

curse my gullibility!
(is that in the dictionary?)

 

[Mal12345]

The first movies really had their awesome enhanced by how ground breaking they were at the time. In the long term it doesn't make them stand the test of time any better. Not that they don't stand the test of time, it's just that that novelty isn't going to be there for anyone who didn't watch them "originally."

The story itself stands the test of time, age has nothing to do with it because the theme itself is eternal and will always strike a positive chord in people. Obi-wan getting cut down by Vader shall always be with us, even if the epic light-saber fight that preceded it was kind of lame. The importance to the plot of that single act was phenomenal, as a dead Obi was far more valuable than a living one. And they blew up an entire planet! I have no idea if that's been done in movies since, or only in books, but it doesn't matter. Luke destroying the Death Star with one shot from his blasters was only possible because "Ben's" sacrificial death was their salvation, and because Luke had faith in a power higher than his mortal being. The ending was a true miracle.

I like sci-fi, but I find most of it to be personally dissatisfying. There should be more to the genre than spaceships flying around shooting at each other.

 

[MacGuffin]

Yeah, all that. I think it is advised to recall Lucas' clumsy continual use of the "cut scene" -- he couldn't make an organic transition in his films, visually, if he tried...

Are you talking about the screen wipes?

 

[Totenkindly]

Are you talking about the screen wipes?

Yeah. They are very blatant and break any emotional flow currently in place, and don't contribute anything to the emotional arcs of the scenes.