Star Wars Retrospectives Part 1: The Prequels
(Author's Note:
In this essay, I go into
why I like the Star Wars Prequels, why I consider them to be great
works of art along with the Original Trilogy, and why I think much of
the hate against them are unwarranted. It's not a popular opinion to
defend the prequels, so enjoy me talking about how the popular critics
who like to bash on the Prequels are wrong.)
STAR WARS RETROSPECTIVES
PART I: The Prequels: Why the hate is unwarranted and unnecessary.
It's quite obvious that, as my avatar and username here suggests, that I am a fan of George Lucas' classic science fiction film franchise, Star Wars. As a young lad, I grew up watching all six of the Star Wars movies, as they released. I watched the Original Trilogy first, in VHS format, and by the time I reached High School, the last of the Prequels had debuted, and I was a fan of all three. I watched Episode I, The Phantom Menace, as a child, marveling at the special effects, the world-building, and the acrobatics of the duels. I watched Episode II, The Attack of the Clones, a few years later, and while I was somewhat bored during the first half, I came to like it during the second half and the battles and duels at the end cemented the film as an enjoyable experience for me and my family. And as for Episode III, The Revenge of the Sith, by that time, I was watering with excitement, and the movie didn't disappoint. Game of Thrones-style backstabbing, battles of fate and broken friendships, coupled with a massive space battle and the epic Rise of the Empire, and I was cemented as a permanent Star Wars fan.
The one thing I did not understand, however, was all the criticism. I remember critics attacking Episode I for being a kiddy movie focused on special effects and lacking real weight with people complaining about Jar Jar Binks. I remember critics savaging Episode II for awkward romances and "stilted acting", even though I didn't have much of a problem concerning the romance aside from the fact that it bored me and I wanted some more action or intrigue in its place. And the same assault was focused on Episode III, when in reality, the romance part was negligible, and the actor playing Anakin did a fine job relaying the emotions of confusion and betrayal when he was being torn between the Jedi and his old friend Palpatine, both trying to use him as a pawn in their own games. Yes, there were goofy things, like Vader's "NOOOOO!" scream or Anakin's goofy romance lines, but they were harmless, and far more subdued compared to the previous two movies.
And I just have one thing to say to those critics: are you people so obsessive-compulsive that you can't even tolerate minor flaws? It's like someone complaining when they get an order of French Fries and Cheeseburgers, and they complain that the French Fries came with too much salt or not enough salt and dismissed the whole meal as bad because of it. And the sad part about these critics? They love to over-praise the so-called values of the Original Trilogy, while savaging the Prequels. They forget the fact that the originals were rife with flaws and mishaps as well, but they don't notice them because they are blinded by nostalgia. I noticed many flaws in the originals when I saw them, as a child, and as a teenager, but I didn't let that get in the way of me enjoying those films. Just as I didn't let "awkward romances" or Jar Jar get in the way of me enjoying the Prequels.
Now, I'm not one to say that the Prequels were downright better than the Originals. Hell no. In fact, the one movie that I liked the most out of all of them was Episode V, Empire Strikes Back. The second is Revenge of the Sith, and the third would be the original Star Wars, Episode IV, A New Hope. Two out of the top three for me are OT films. Just one is a Prequel film. But that doesn't stop me from poking holes at all six and asking questions about plot holes. Plot holes like:
"Why did the Imperial Fleet get defeated in EPVI when they had more ships and the Rebel Fleet lost its two massive cruisers to the Death Star Laser? Even with the Imperial Flagship down, the remaining Rebel ships didn't have the firepower to take on the thirty or so cruisers left."
"Why did Vader move to defend Emperor Palpatine in EPVI when he plotted to use Luke to kill the man in the previous movie? He spent the whole time in EPV trying to get Luke to kill the Emperor, and now that Luke wants to slice the Emperor into ribbons for taunting him, Vader blocks Luke's strike? What changed him? The Dark Side? The Dark Side doesn't inspire loyalty. In fact, shouldn't that make Vader all the more eager to see his son tear the Emperor into ribbons?"
"Why didn't Kenobi save himself in EPIV by mind-tricking the Stormtroopers to attack Vader while he made a beeline for the Falcon? Isn't the whole reason the good guys wanted him was because the Rebels needed GENERAL Kenobi to help lead the Rebellion, now that they're going to open war with the Empire? Why would one of the last Jedi, a high-ranking Republic General and a top-tier asset, sacrifice himself when a clear line of escape was available?"
"Why didn't Anakin use Dooku as a hostage in EPIII to force Grievous to allow them to leave the Confederate flagship in peace? Dooku is the head of state for the Confederacy of Independent Systems, and now he's helpless without his hands! Hasn't Anakin heard of hostage-taking?"
Questions like these kept biting at me when I watch the films, but I pushed them aside, thinking that the movie-makers didn't have time to address them, so I might as well just accept the films, warts and all. But what I don't understand is why the critics and the VERY RAVENOUS Original Trilogy fanbase would take minor, innocuous things from the Prequels and use them as a way to condemn the Prequels as bad movies. If I applied their line of thinking against the prequels to the originals, I'd find so many flaws that I'd be unable to enjoy the OT. But I didn't. Why? Because I'm not the kind of guy who gets upset over a 3D alien stepping on poop and having silly hi-jinks.
Let's address the main issues, shall we?
JAR JAR BINKS: I don't get it. I SERIOUSLY don't get it. Why are people upset over him again? When I saw him, I didn't mind him. I thought he was just an example of the animators jerking themselves off and trying to see what they can do with CGI, which was new at the time. He's there to make the kids laugh, and when I was a kid, I found him to be droll, but I didn't shit my pants over him. Was it because he was supposed to be a racist caricature against blacks? Was George Lucas a racist? I don't think so, considering the two ACTUAL black guys we see in the movies are Mace Windu, a Jedi High Councilor, and Lando Calrissian, a Baron who owns his own floating city and planet. A high-ranking Jedi and a good-natured pirate king. That's a pretty dignified cast for blacks in the films.
So it's quite obvious that Lucas isn't being a racist here, he just took a caricature that was once applied against blacks, and applied it to an OUTCAST from a race that BANISHED him. Lucas didn't create a whole race based on black stereotypes, he created an outcast with those traits, but wasn't using it as an attack on blacks. If he was, then Lando and Mace would have done the same thing. I think this was an early case of those politically-correct types getting angry over something they perceive to be a racist caricature. To me, Jar Jar was harmless. He was a means to an end in the first film, an example of an idiot who votes in the people's doom in the second film, and a nonentity in the third film.
AWKWARD ROMANCES: Yes, I can understand, Anakin and Padme weren't Leia and Han, but at the very least, I can see why they acted the way they acted. Do you think Anakin would have a lot of experience with pick-up lines and sex while living in what amounts to a monastery for ten years? Ten years of being taught abstinence and avoiding sexual attachments doesn't necessarily teach a man how to handle romance. Neither does shoving a young teenage Queen into a political senatorial rank and straddling her with political work all day. Leia was at least old enough when we see her being a Senator, and Han probably had lots of time to practice smooth-talk and sex while he was out smuggling things with Lando before he joined the Rebellion. So of course the OT couple was going to come off as more charismatic, while Anakin and Padme's romance came off more as Padme entertaining him and then letting him have some comfort after his mother died.
I'm pretty sure being raised by a bunch of celibate monks who had high expectations of you while your mother dies in your arms isn't necessarily good for your mental health. For what it was, Anakin and Padme's romance didn't bother me. It didn't bother me the way other things in the OT bothered me, like why Vader was still acting like he was married to Palpatine in EPVI when his son shows up, ready to commit regicide against Palpatine, like the way Vader wanted him to in EPV. Defending someone you plotted to kill in the last movie.......how's that for an awkward bromance? Vader should have joined Luke in killing the Emperor, then argued with Luke over which is better, the Empire or the Rebellion, the Light Side or the Dark Side, after killing Palpatine.
STILTED ACTING: This one, again, I didn't understand. The acting in the Prequels was serviceable at worst, and at best, there were good moments of emotion and drama. I can feel the fatherly love and sympathy that Qui-Gon had for kid Anakin, and how, perhaps, had Qui-Gon lived, Anakin would have avoided the Dark Side. I liked how cheery kid Anakin was. I can understand the hate teen Anakin had when his mother died and he was helpless to stop it. I can see him struggling to keep his friendship with Kenobi as the strains of divided loyalties are putting him in an awkward spot with his old friend, the Chancellor. Padme was a bit of a purity sue, but even with her, I felt a sort of connection. She cared for her people. She was fearful for Anakin as Anakin was getting angry and impatient. She was fearful for their child when she got pregnant and relayed the news. Again, the Originals cast was more charismatic, but that's no reason to bash the Prequels cast, who did their jobs just fine. And there were times like in the final duel in Mustafar, where Anakin really shone with emotion and anger.
Heck, some characters from the OT are better in the Prequels. Yoda, Obi-Wan Kenobi, and Palpatine are three glaring examples. In the Originals, Kenobi was at first sympathetic and wise when he teaches Luke about the Force and the Jedi, but later, he and Yoda came off more like pricks, what with Kenobi lying to Luke about Anakin and Yoda outright telling Luke to let his friends die. These are our wise men? They came off more like insensitive pricks. If Luke wasn't such a purity sue, he would probably have defected to Vader's side when the latter broke the truth to Luke about his parentage. Considering that old Ben was a liar and Yoda was a prick, I'd take the father who's willing to offer me the world over them any day. On the other hand, Emperor Palpatine in EPVI was mostly just a smarmy troll, one half of him being all like "I planned this all along" and the other half making jokes and mocking Luke, which was just him being another bad guy.
The Prequels version of all three were far better. We see Kenobi having moral dilemmas and trying to balance different burdens as the movies went on, from working with a master who likes to buck the trend, to working with an impatient pupil, to having his heart broken when he learned that the pupil Qui-Gon entrusted to him went bad. The range of emotions he shows in the final duel at Mustafar was beautiful. Yoda was trying to balance the weight of the world on his back, as the forces of the Dark Side begin to tear and destroy everything he's worked to protect for the last few centuries and it slowly begins to erode his will and crush him with despair. And of course, Palpatine was amazing in the Prequels, playing many different roles, from an "Honest Iago" kind of villain who sheds crocodile tears over terrorist attacks and pretending to be a humble mentor to folks like Anakin, while on the flipside, raging like an egomaniac when his cover's been blown and he goes full Dark Side. He was everything a good villain should be. He had the side of him that was calm and comforting, another side that was sinister and plotting, and of course, the raging, Dark-Side maniac drunk on the power of evil that we all know and love.
VILLAINS THAT DON'T MATTER: Okay, now this is just a bit unfair, because they try to compare the likes of Maul, Dooku, Jango Fett, and Grievous to the top two, Vader and Emperor Palpatine. They were never meant to be compared to Vader and Palpatine. That was their purpose. Palpatine just strung them all along. Maul was just a hitman for Palpie until he found out about the Chosen One. Dooku was a placeholder and a false threat that Palpatine built up so as to rally the Confederacy of Independent Systems against the Jedi, to give the enemy a figurehead that the Jedi would focus on so that Palpatine himself could plot on the side. Jango Fett was another hired gun who again, was just another pawn of the Sith. And of course, Griveous was just a monster Palpatine and Dooku made to kill more Jedi and grab their attention, to get them to focus on an outside threat and not notice the betrayal by the Clone Legions until it was way too late. A more accurate comparison would be to compare them to the Imperial officers, admirals, and guys like Boba Fett, peripheral villains that serve as lapdogs to Vader and the Emperor. Because that's what they were. They were never meant to be the main villains.
The first movie of the Prequels has the title "The Phantom Menace", and people assume that counts for Darth Maul, striking from the shadows only to die at the hand of Kenobi. That is untrue-the title refers to Darth Sidious, Senator Palpatine, who was the Phantom Menace hiding in plain sight, and the menace is him gaining power, and the reason it was called the Phantom Menace is because nobody saw what was really happening aside from Palpatine himself-the Dark Lord of the Sith was just elected Chancellor over the whole Republic, and nobody figured it out during the movie.
The same goes for Dooku and Grievous-they were not the true threat, just placeholders for Palpatine. The same way Sauron used Saruman as a tool for his war. The same can be said of the legions of Battle Droids that the Jedi fought on the Prequels. Critics of the Prequels state that the droids feel like an artificial foe, one that does not command the threat that the Empire posed in the originals. THAT IS EXACTLY THE POINT. The whole war was an artificial construct. Not a natural war that blossomed spontaneously. Like Dooku and Grievous, they were not the real threat at all. They were cannon fodder for Sidious' plans. The whole plot of the Clone Wars was that it was a fake war, a war made to distract the Jedi so that the real threat, Palpatine, the Clones, and the newly-Christened Darth Vader, would catch the Jedi off-guard and allow Palpatine to slaughter them once and for all.
THE STORY MAKES NO SENSE: All right, I'm going to have to take a stop here. If you cannot understand the basics of the story for the Prequels, then you are officially too dumb to understand KID LEVEL STORIES. People talk about how it doesn't make sense for Palpatine to attack the Naboo with the Trade Federation because he was from Naboo. "Why is he attacking himself?" they ask. It's quite obvious. So he can bitch to the Senate about how much of a victim he is and how the corrupt galactic order can't solve a crisis. As for why the Trade Federation serves Darth Sidious, remember that scene where Vader made an Admiral shut up with a Force choke when the guy started questioning his power? That admiral must have had a whole fleet under his command to be able to sit in that council. It was a council of the Empire's finest, commanded by a guy who has authority even above that of Vader's. And Vader makes one of the highest-ranking Imperial military officers, an admiral, shut up with one gesture of his hand. Then fast forward to the next movie where Vader summarily executes another admiral with the same move.
Now apply that to the Trade Federation. These guys aren't admirals. These guys are corporate stooges with a private army, meaning that they don't even have the bravado that one admiral in the Death Star had when he smack-talked Vader. And Sidious is far more powerful than Vader. See the picture? Sith are able to manipulate and keep powerful figures in line, powerful figures with their own armies, because a Sith can kill them with a thought even through the holo. Sidious could be half a galaxy away, and if he sees you on a hologram in a live feed, he can choke you like a bitch. One of the critics asked "Why don't the Trade Federation just ditch Sidious and tell him to go fuck himself? He's clearly using them as pawns!" Replace the Trade Federation with the Empire and Sidious with Vader, and ask the same question again. Now slap yourself for realizing how stupid the question was in the first place. When Sidious told Gunray to go along with the invasion, Gunray did it, with the knowledge that Sidious could snap his neck like a stalk of celery half a galaxy away if he defied the Sith Lord. All it takes is one holo call and bam, Gunray's dead.
As for the rest of the Prequels' story, it's quite obvious that it's Alex Jones in space. An evil figure, Darth Sidious, wants to take power in the galaxy while the galaxy has a weak and divided government system. He uses pawns, false flags, and sets up a fake war so that he can get more and more power legitimately through the democratic system, so that he can become the God-Emperor that we see in the Original Trilogy. He makes the government more powerful at the expense of the Senate and the Jedi, the traditional ruling body and the guardians of peace and justice. Sidious creates two armies, one clone, the other, droid, and has an assassin lead a Jedi to "accidentally" discover the Clone Army which was supposedly commissioned by a Jedi who was conveniently dead. Sidious uses the war to get the Senate behind him and give him more and more power, and since he's using a Jedi like Dooku as the leader of the enemy, he can then blame the Jedi and have the Clones "discover" their treachery as an excuse to have them all wiped out. Especially when Mace Windu and his Jedi strike team attack first, giving the Chancellor a legal right to strike back against the guardians who just attempted a coup against a legal sovereign without bringing any evidence to court or even putting him on trial for any accusations.
With a legal right to strike back against the Jedi, and the Separatists mysteriously "surrendering" as their robot armies deactivate across the galaxy, Sidious has all he needs. Now that Sidious has constructed an Empire out of the Republic in fact, he urges the Republic to be an Empire in name as well, to "Make the Galaxy Great Again!" as our dear President Trump might have said. With the Senators disgusted at the Jedi for their attempted coup, and with Palpatine looking even more like a martyr, the Senate agrees to his decision and rewards him with the throne in return for saving the galaxy from the Separatist menace and the Jedi traitors.
If this is all too complex for you, then I suppose you should take a study on 101 on politics. And if you say that "movies like this shouldn't be complicated, it should just be a wacky fun space adventure with fights and explosions!" Then congratulations. You've just proven why Michael Bay is so successful. Fights and explosions are what he's good at, and while the critic crowd snarls with hatred towards Bay, they can't understand the fact that they practically fed into his moviemaking ideology by attacking films for being too complex. Note that by this time, many knockoffs and other science fiction series have already done the same thing the original Star Wars movies did. Making more clones of them would be uncreative and droll. Lucas was trying to get out a message to the audience about the dangers of unchecked government power, how war can blind us to such dangers, and why it's important to be vigilant. While it's not a message I fully agree with, (considering that I'm an Empire fan and that having an Empire with an enlightened individual as the ruler is fine by me) but it's a message I can easily understand. If you want a film with explosions, romance, and spaceships, go rewatch the OT or look up other science fiction stories. But know that trying to copy the OT all the time is a formula that won't work. There's a reason why there's a massive hatedom for Star Wars Episode VII. Even among former Prequel haters, who now have a newfound respect for George Lucas for not plagiarizing his old work ad nauseam to make cheap bucks.
Heck, I remember how someone suggested that the Clone Wars should just be about evil, Uruk-Hai-style monster clones attacking the Republic and how that would put the Republic in a state of poverty and weakness, which Palpatine would exploit, making the whole thing a more straightfoward matter. First off, this plan was already done in the Yuuzhan Vong books-where a nasty, ugly, alien race invaded the galaxy and forced the Jedi, the Republic, and the Empire to join forces. Second, this plot for the Clone Wars would not lead to the Empire that we see in the movies. The Empire in the movies is decidedly anti-Jedi. What would cause the people to hate the Jedi when a bunch of evil monster clones attacks the Republic? The people would rally around the Jedi and see them as gods and heroes for defending the galaxy against the monster clones and rallying the soldiers of the galaxy against them. Yes, it would lead to an Empire, but not the Jedi-hating Empire of the OT. Instead, it's an Empire where the Jedi would rule like Feudal Lords and Bishops, with the Jedi Council parceling off a piece of the galaxy for them to rule, and with them parceling their holdings into smaller holds held by lesser Jedi, once they have driven out these so-called monster clones. Critics who come up with ideas like these usually don't think far beyond the first few pages of their first drafts.
THERE'S TOO MUCH CGI: It's quite funny for people to bring complaints like this then turn around and drool over the CGI-laden movies of Marvel and Michael Bay. The Avengers is almost 90% CGI when it comes to action scenes, to the point where I get flashbacks of playing Marvel games when I see them. The Transformers movies remind me more of video games than cartoons. People don't complain about these, but then complain that the Prequels has too much CGI? This, despite the fact that others have pointed out that the sets for many scenes in the prequels were practical effects. They interwove with the CG because THAT'S WHAT GOOD CG DOES. Weave with the practical sets to the point where you can't tell which is practical and which is CG. Also, just because something is CG, doesn't automatically make it good or bad. If the Prequels are bad because of CG, then the Avengers and other Marvel movies are bad, because they also use a lot of CG. And comparing the action between the two? The Prequels had at least real people doing stunts and swordwork accompanying the CG robots and clone soldiers getting killed, instead of just CG Hulk slamming CG Loki around. Speaking of swordwork.........
THE FIGHTS ARE OVER-CHOREOGRAPHED: Here's another complaint that I just can't understand. So these critics hate the lightsaber fights.........because they had good choreography. That's like hating a restaurant for serving Filet Mignon instead of Beef Jerky. People who echo this complaint try to hearken back to the "good old days" where lightsaber fights are "simple" and "realistic". Really? Duels with swords made out of lasers that burn through almost anything should be realistic? Are you people fucking high? The main reason why lightsaber fights were "simple" back then was because the actors were afraid of damaging the equipment. Also, outside of Episode V, those duels were kind of........oh, what's the word........boring. EPIV had an old man swinging a sword like a stick against a mechanical giant. EPVI had the fight so badly lopsided that it had little tension. We were just waiting for Luke to win. EPV had tension, and good use of atmosphere and terrain. The two fighters try to ambush each other, try to gain the upper hand, knock each other off of platforms, graze each other, try surprise attacks, use the environment, etcetera. It felt like a real contest because both fighters were somewhat neck-to-neck. But the other two duels lacked that.
And realism? Really? You want to know what's unrealistic? An old man standing up against a mechanical giant in a sword fight. I'm pretty sure that in a realistic swordfight, a power-armored robotic space knight would take less than five seconds to out-duel an old man. They both had the Force, so the Force should offer no advantage in a realistic fight because they both have it and that negates any advantage. If the OT duels were realistic, that fight would have lasted all of five seconds before Vader knocked Ben down and killed him.
And something that all three OT duels lacked was grace. I can understand Vader, he had mechanical limbs, not much room for grace when you're a bloody metal juggernaut. But Kenobi looked like an old man swinging his cane at kids. And Luke fought more like Conan the Barbarian than a graceful knight of an eastern-style spiritual order. That's why the acrobatics of the Prequel fights actually FIT the idea of the Jedi. These guys fight with the Force at their side; they're capable of great feats of strength and flexibility. And it makes sense that they're more well-trained in the Prequels, because they've had time to practice off of each other and see which techniques work best. The way Dooku fought, for example, showed how experienced he was and how he was close to Yoda, enough to know that Yoda held Kenobi in high esteem. Maul's whole character was based on how good a fighter he is; he barely talked, because he didn't need to. He was a born killer, a living weapon, and his fighting style reflected that. It showed that he truly was being trained by the best when he's able to hold against two opponents and not break a sweat. He garnered a massive fanbase by his fighting skills alone, and yet the naysayers still bitch about how "he had little character" despite the fact that the man showed his character through his skill and actions, not words. I suppose they compensated for that by making him talkative in the cartoons.
As for emotion, the duels in the Prequels had just as much emotion as the duels in V and VI, and more emotion than the duel in IV. The Death Star Duel between Kenobi and Vader was as emotionless as the Jedi themselves. Vader was humoring an old man, and Kenobi was trying to commit suicide by cop through Vader. Vader talks about how he's more powerful, and Kenobi talks about how he will ascend in death and that his death will be a victory for him. Why would I be invested in a fight where neither fighter is invested? You know what fight had the duelists invested? The fights in Episodes I and III. Even II had some investment considering how Anakin was trying to protect his master from certain death and Yoda was both impressed and fearful that his old student had grown strong in the Dark Side. So yeah, those excuses of the Prequel duels being "emotionless ballets" are complete and utter bullshit.
CONCLUSION:
As I continue to watch these so-called "critics" continue to demonize George Lucas and worship Disney, I just can't help but either shake my head in disappointment, or laugh. Disney's Star Wars is a hit or miss for me, sometimes they do things right like with Rebels' later seasons and episodes, and sometimes they do things wrong, like the end of the recent SWTOR expansion and the way the Force and the setting was handled in EPVII. But I'd just like to pose a question to all the prequel-haters out there who have demonized George Lucas for years: Is it really worth it? Do you really have fun, ruining the lives of the likes of Jake Lloyd, or getting Hayden Christensen to quit acting? Is it really worth it than now, the massive Star Wars Expanded Universe, a treasure trove of literature to rival that of any other series, is now thrown out of the canon with no chance of being on the big screen? I hope you guys are happy. Because many of us, who loved the prequels, loved the people who brought it to us, and loved the Expanded Universe, are certainly NOT happy. Speaking of which, my next retrospective is on the way: The Expanded Universe! I will go into why it was a great treasure trove of literature and art, why its de-canonization by Disney was a BIG MISTAKE, and why Disney is lost without it, to the point where they were already ripping off the Expanded Universe as early as Episode VII and Rebels.
PART I: The Prequels: Why the hate is unwarranted and unnecessary.
It's quite obvious that, as my avatar and username here suggests, that I am a fan of George Lucas' classic science fiction film franchise, Star Wars. As a young lad, I grew up watching all six of the Star Wars movies, as they released. I watched the Original Trilogy first, in VHS format, and by the time I reached High School, the last of the Prequels had debuted, and I was a fan of all three. I watched Episode I, The Phantom Menace, as a child, marveling at the special effects, the world-building, and the acrobatics of the duels. I watched Episode II, The Attack of the Clones, a few years later, and while I was somewhat bored during the first half, I came to like it during the second half and the battles and duels at the end cemented the film as an enjoyable experience for me and my family. And as for Episode III, The Revenge of the Sith, by that time, I was watering with excitement, and the movie didn't disappoint. Game of Thrones-style backstabbing, battles of fate and broken friendships, coupled with a massive space battle and the epic Rise of the Empire, and I was cemented as a permanent Star Wars fan.
The one thing I did not understand, however, was all the criticism. I remember critics attacking Episode I for being a kiddy movie focused on special effects and lacking real weight with people complaining about Jar Jar Binks. I remember critics savaging Episode II for awkward romances and "stilted acting", even though I didn't have much of a problem concerning the romance aside from the fact that it bored me and I wanted some more action or intrigue in its place. And the same assault was focused on Episode III, when in reality, the romance part was negligible, and the actor playing Anakin did a fine job relaying the emotions of confusion and betrayal when he was being torn between the Jedi and his old friend Palpatine, both trying to use him as a pawn in their own games. Yes, there were goofy things, like Vader's "NOOOOO!" scream or Anakin's goofy romance lines, but they were harmless, and far more subdued compared to the previous two movies.
And I just have one thing to say to those critics: are you people so obsessive-compulsive that you can't even tolerate minor flaws? It's like someone complaining when they get an order of French Fries and Cheeseburgers, and they complain that the French Fries came with too much salt or not enough salt and dismissed the whole meal as bad because of it. And the sad part about these critics? They love to over-praise the so-called values of the Original Trilogy, while savaging the Prequels. They forget the fact that the originals were rife with flaws and mishaps as well, but they don't notice them because they are blinded by nostalgia. I noticed many flaws in the originals when I saw them, as a child, and as a teenager, but I didn't let that get in the way of me enjoying those films. Just as I didn't let "awkward romances" or Jar Jar get in the way of me enjoying the Prequels.
Now, I'm not one to say that the Prequels were downright better than the Originals. Hell no. In fact, the one movie that I liked the most out of all of them was Episode V, Empire Strikes Back. The second is Revenge of the Sith, and the third would be the original Star Wars, Episode IV, A New Hope. Two out of the top three for me are OT films. Just one is a Prequel film. But that doesn't stop me from poking holes at all six and asking questions about plot holes. Plot holes like:
"Why did the Imperial Fleet get defeated in EPVI when they had more ships and the Rebel Fleet lost its two massive cruisers to the Death Star Laser? Even with the Imperial Flagship down, the remaining Rebel ships didn't have the firepower to take on the thirty or so cruisers left."
"Why did Vader move to defend Emperor Palpatine in EPVI when he plotted to use Luke to kill the man in the previous movie? He spent the whole time in EPV trying to get Luke to kill the Emperor, and now that Luke wants to slice the Emperor into ribbons for taunting him, Vader blocks Luke's strike? What changed him? The Dark Side? The Dark Side doesn't inspire loyalty. In fact, shouldn't that make Vader all the more eager to see his son tear the Emperor into ribbons?"
"Why didn't Kenobi save himself in EPIV by mind-tricking the Stormtroopers to attack Vader while he made a beeline for the Falcon? Isn't the whole reason the good guys wanted him was because the Rebels needed GENERAL Kenobi to help lead the Rebellion, now that they're going to open war with the Empire? Why would one of the last Jedi, a high-ranking Republic General and a top-tier asset, sacrifice himself when a clear line of escape was available?"
"Why didn't Anakin use Dooku as a hostage in EPIII to force Grievous to allow them to leave the Confederate flagship in peace? Dooku is the head of state for the Confederacy of Independent Systems, and now he's helpless without his hands! Hasn't Anakin heard of hostage-taking?"
Questions like these kept biting at me when I watch the films, but I pushed them aside, thinking that the movie-makers didn't have time to address them, so I might as well just accept the films, warts and all. But what I don't understand is why the critics and the VERY RAVENOUS Original Trilogy fanbase would take minor, innocuous things from the Prequels and use them as a way to condemn the Prequels as bad movies. If I applied their line of thinking against the prequels to the originals, I'd find so many flaws that I'd be unable to enjoy the OT. But I didn't. Why? Because I'm not the kind of guy who gets upset over a 3D alien stepping on poop and having silly hi-jinks.
Let's address the main issues, shall we?
JAR JAR BINKS: I don't get it. I SERIOUSLY don't get it. Why are people upset over him again? When I saw him, I didn't mind him. I thought he was just an example of the animators jerking themselves off and trying to see what they can do with CGI, which was new at the time. He's there to make the kids laugh, and when I was a kid, I found him to be droll, but I didn't shit my pants over him. Was it because he was supposed to be a racist caricature against blacks? Was George Lucas a racist? I don't think so, considering the two ACTUAL black guys we see in the movies are Mace Windu, a Jedi High Councilor, and Lando Calrissian, a Baron who owns his own floating city and planet. A high-ranking Jedi and a good-natured pirate king. That's a pretty dignified cast for blacks in the films.
So it's quite obvious that Lucas isn't being a racist here, he just took a caricature that was once applied against blacks, and applied it to an OUTCAST from a race that BANISHED him. Lucas didn't create a whole race based on black stereotypes, he created an outcast with those traits, but wasn't using it as an attack on blacks. If he was, then Lando and Mace would have done the same thing. I think this was an early case of those politically-correct types getting angry over something they perceive to be a racist caricature. To me, Jar Jar was harmless. He was a means to an end in the first film, an example of an idiot who votes in the people's doom in the second film, and a nonentity in the third film.
AWKWARD ROMANCES: Yes, I can understand, Anakin and Padme weren't Leia and Han, but at the very least, I can see why they acted the way they acted. Do you think Anakin would have a lot of experience with pick-up lines and sex while living in what amounts to a monastery for ten years? Ten years of being taught abstinence and avoiding sexual attachments doesn't necessarily teach a man how to handle romance. Neither does shoving a young teenage Queen into a political senatorial rank and straddling her with political work all day. Leia was at least old enough when we see her being a Senator, and Han probably had lots of time to practice smooth-talk and sex while he was out smuggling things with Lando before he joined the Rebellion. So of course the OT couple was going to come off as more charismatic, while Anakin and Padme's romance came off more as Padme entertaining him and then letting him have some comfort after his mother died.
I'm pretty sure being raised by a bunch of celibate monks who had high expectations of you while your mother dies in your arms isn't necessarily good for your mental health. For what it was, Anakin and Padme's romance didn't bother me. It didn't bother me the way other things in the OT bothered me, like why Vader was still acting like he was married to Palpatine in EPVI when his son shows up, ready to commit regicide against Palpatine, like the way Vader wanted him to in EPV. Defending someone you plotted to kill in the last movie.......how's that for an awkward bromance? Vader should have joined Luke in killing the Emperor, then argued with Luke over which is better, the Empire or the Rebellion, the Light Side or the Dark Side, after killing Palpatine.
STILTED ACTING: This one, again, I didn't understand. The acting in the Prequels was serviceable at worst, and at best, there were good moments of emotion and drama. I can feel the fatherly love and sympathy that Qui-Gon had for kid Anakin, and how, perhaps, had Qui-Gon lived, Anakin would have avoided the Dark Side. I liked how cheery kid Anakin was. I can understand the hate teen Anakin had when his mother died and he was helpless to stop it. I can see him struggling to keep his friendship with Kenobi as the strains of divided loyalties are putting him in an awkward spot with his old friend, the Chancellor. Padme was a bit of a purity sue, but even with her, I felt a sort of connection. She cared for her people. She was fearful for Anakin as Anakin was getting angry and impatient. She was fearful for their child when she got pregnant and relayed the news. Again, the Originals cast was more charismatic, but that's no reason to bash the Prequels cast, who did their jobs just fine. And there were times like in the final duel in Mustafar, where Anakin really shone with emotion and anger.
Heck, some characters from the OT are better in the Prequels. Yoda, Obi-Wan Kenobi, and Palpatine are three glaring examples. In the Originals, Kenobi was at first sympathetic and wise when he teaches Luke about the Force and the Jedi, but later, he and Yoda came off more like pricks, what with Kenobi lying to Luke about Anakin and Yoda outright telling Luke to let his friends die. These are our wise men? They came off more like insensitive pricks. If Luke wasn't such a purity sue, he would probably have defected to Vader's side when the latter broke the truth to Luke about his parentage. Considering that old Ben was a liar and Yoda was a prick, I'd take the father who's willing to offer me the world over them any day. On the other hand, Emperor Palpatine in EPVI was mostly just a smarmy troll, one half of him being all like "I planned this all along" and the other half making jokes and mocking Luke, which was just him being another bad guy.
The Prequels version of all three were far better. We see Kenobi having moral dilemmas and trying to balance different burdens as the movies went on, from working with a master who likes to buck the trend, to working with an impatient pupil, to having his heart broken when he learned that the pupil Qui-Gon entrusted to him went bad. The range of emotions he shows in the final duel at Mustafar was beautiful. Yoda was trying to balance the weight of the world on his back, as the forces of the Dark Side begin to tear and destroy everything he's worked to protect for the last few centuries and it slowly begins to erode his will and crush him with despair. And of course, Palpatine was amazing in the Prequels, playing many different roles, from an "Honest Iago" kind of villain who sheds crocodile tears over terrorist attacks and pretending to be a humble mentor to folks like Anakin, while on the flipside, raging like an egomaniac when his cover's been blown and he goes full Dark Side. He was everything a good villain should be. He had the side of him that was calm and comforting, another side that was sinister and plotting, and of course, the raging, Dark-Side maniac drunk on the power of evil that we all know and love.
VILLAINS THAT DON'T MATTER: Okay, now this is just a bit unfair, because they try to compare the likes of Maul, Dooku, Jango Fett, and Grievous to the top two, Vader and Emperor Palpatine. They were never meant to be compared to Vader and Palpatine. That was their purpose. Palpatine just strung them all along. Maul was just a hitman for Palpie until he found out about the Chosen One. Dooku was a placeholder and a false threat that Palpatine built up so as to rally the Confederacy of Independent Systems against the Jedi, to give the enemy a figurehead that the Jedi would focus on so that Palpatine himself could plot on the side. Jango Fett was another hired gun who again, was just another pawn of the Sith. And of course, Griveous was just a monster Palpatine and Dooku made to kill more Jedi and grab their attention, to get them to focus on an outside threat and not notice the betrayal by the Clone Legions until it was way too late. A more accurate comparison would be to compare them to the Imperial officers, admirals, and guys like Boba Fett, peripheral villains that serve as lapdogs to Vader and the Emperor. Because that's what they were. They were never meant to be the main villains.
The first movie of the Prequels has the title "The Phantom Menace", and people assume that counts for Darth Maul, striking from the shadows only to die at the hand of Kenobi. That is untrue-the title refers to Darth Sidious, Senator Palpatine, who was the Phantom Menace hiding in plain sight, and the menace is him gaining power, and the reason it was called the Phantom Menace is because nobody saw what was really happening aside from Palpatine himself-the Dark Lord of the Sith was just elected Chancellor over the whole Republic, and nobody figured it out during the movie.
The same goes for Dooku and Grievous-they were not the true threat, just placeholders for Palpatine. The same way Sauron used Saruman as a tool for his war. The same can be said of the legions of Battle Droids that the Jedi fought on the Prequels. Critics of the Prequels state that the droids feel like an artificial foe, one that does not command the threat that the Empire posed in the originals. THAT IS EXACTLY THE POINT. The whole war was an artificial construct. Not a natural war that blossomed spontaneously. Like Dooku and Grievous, they were not the real threat at all. They were cannon fodder for Sidious' plans. The whole plot of the Clone Wars was that it was a fake war, a war made to distract the Jedi so that the real threat, Palpatine, the Clones, and the newly-Christened Darth Vader, would catch the Jedi off-guard and allow Palpatine to slaughter them once and for all.
THE STORY MAKES NO SENSE: All right, I'm going to have to take a stop here. If you cannot understand the basics of the story for the Prequels, then you are officially too dumb to understand KID LEVEL STORIES. People talk about how it doesn't make sense for Palpatine to attack the Naboo with the Trade Federation because he was from Naboo. "Why is he attacking himself?" they ask. It's quite obvious. So he can bitch to the Senate about how much of a victim he is and how the corrupt galactic order can't solve a crisis. As for why the Trade Federation serves Darth Sidious, remember that scene where Vader made an Admiral shut up with a Force choke when the guy started questioning his power? That admiral must have had a whole fleet under his command to be able to sit in that council. It was a council of the Empire's finest, commanded by a guy who has authority even above that of Vader's. And Vader makes one of the highest-ranking Imperial military officers, an admiral, shut up with one gesture of his hand. Then fast forward to the next movie where Vader summarily executes another admiral with the same move.
Now apply that to the Trade Federation. These guys aren't admirals. These guys are corporate stooges with a private army, meaning that they don't even have the bravado that one admiral in the Death Star had when he smack-talked Vader. And Sidious is far more powerful than Vader. See the picture? Sith are able to manipulate and keep powerful figures in line, powerful figures with their own armies, because a Sith can kill them with a thought even through the holo. Sidious could be half a galaxy away, and if he sees you on a hologram in a live feed, he can choke you like a bitch. One of the critics asked "Why don't the Trade Federation just ditch Sidious and tell him to go fuck himself? He's clearly using them as pawns!" Replace the Trade Federation with the Empire and Sidious with Vader, and ask the same question again. Now slap yourself for realizing how stupid the question was in the first place. When Sidious told Gunray to go along with the invasion, Gunray did it, with the knowledge that Sidious could snap his neck like a stalk of celery half a galaxy away if he defied the Sith Lord. All it takes is one holo call and bam, Gunray's dead.
As for the rest of the Prequels' story, it's quite obvious that it's Alex Jones in space. An evil figure, Darth Sidious, wants to take power in the galaxy while the galaxy has a weak and divided government system. He uses pawns, false flags, and sets up a fake war so that he can get more and more power legitimately through the democratic system, so that he can become the God-Emperor that we see in the Original Trilogy. He makes the government more powerful at the expense of the Senate and the Jedi, the traditional ruling body and the guardians of peace and justice. Sidious creates two armies, one clone, the other, droid, and has an assassin lead a Jedi to "accidentally" discover the Clone Army which was supposedly commissioned by a Jedi who was conveniently dead. Sidious uses the war to get the Senate behind him and give him more and more power, and since he's using a Jedi like Dooku as the leader of the enemy, he can then blame the Jedi and have the Clones "discover" their treachery as an excuse to have them all wiped out. Especially when Mace Windu and his Jedi strike team attack first, giving the Chancellor a legal right to strike back against the guardians who just attempted a coup against a legal sovereign without bringing any evidence to court or even putting him on trial for any accusations.
With a legal right to strike back against the Jedi, and the Separatists mysteriously "surrendering" as their robot armies deactivate across the galaxy, Sidious has all he needs. Now that Sidious has constructed an Empire out of the Republic in fact, he urges the Republic to be an Empire in name as well, to "Make the Galaxy Great Again!" as our dear President Trump might have said. With the Senators disgusted at the Jedi for their attempted coup, and with Palpatine looking even more like a martyr, the Senate agrees to his decision and rewards him with the throne in return for saving the galaxy from the Separatist menace and the Jedi traitors.
If this is all too complex for you, then I suppose you should take a study on 101 on politics. And if you say that "movies like this shouldn't be complicated, it should just be a wacky fun space adventure with fights and explosions!" Then congratulations. You've just proven why Michael Bay is so successful. Fights and explosions are what he's good at, and while the critic crowd snarls with hatred towards Bay, they can't understand the fact that they practically fed into his moviemaking ideology by attacking films for being too complex. Note that by this time, many knockoffs and other science fiction series have already done the same thing the original Star Wars movies did. Making more clones of them would be uncreative and droll. Lucas was trying to get out a message to the audience about the dangers of unchecked government power, how war can blind us to such dangers, and why it's important to be vigilant. While it's not a message I fully agree with, (considering that I'm an Empire fan and that having an Empire with an enlightened individual as the ruler is fine by me) but it's a message I can easily understand. If you want a film with explosions, romance, and spaceships, go rewatch the OT or look up other science fiction stories. But know that trying to copy the OT all the time is a formula that won't work. There's a reason why there's a massive hatedom for Star Wars Episode VII. Even among former Prequel haters, who now have a newfound respect for George Lucas for not plagiarizing his old work ad nauseam to make cheap bucks.
Heck, I remember how someone suggested that the Clone Wars should just be about evil, Uruk-Hai-style monster clones attacking the Republic and how that would put the Republic in a state of poverty and weakness, which Palpatine would exploit, making the whole thing a more straightfoward matter. First off, this plan was already done in the Yuuzhan Vong books-where a nasty, ugly, alien race invaded the galaxy and forced the Jedi, the Republic, and the Empire to join forces. Second, this plot for the Clone Wars would not lead to the Empire that we see in the movies. The Empire in the movies is decidedly anti-Jedi. What would cause the people to hate the Jedi when a bunch of evil monster clones attacks the Republic? The people would rally around the Jedi and see them as gods and heroes for defending the galaxy against the monster clones and rallying the soldiers of the galaxy against them. Yes, it would lead to an Empire, but not the Jedi-hating Empire of the OT. Instead, it's an Empire where the Jedi would rule like Feudal Lords and Bishops, with the Jedi Council parceling off a piece of the galaxy for them to rule, and with them parceling their holdings into smaller holds held by lesser Jedi, once they have driven out these so-called monster clones. Critics who come up with ideas like these usually don't think far beyond the first few pages of their first drafts.
THERE'S TOO MUCH CGI: It's quite funny for people to bring complaints like this then turn around and drool over the CGI-laden movies of Marvel and Michael Bay. The Avengers is almost 90% CGI when it comes to action scenes, to the point where I get flashbacks of playing Marvel games when I see them. The Transformers movies remind me more of video games than cartoons. People don't complain about these, but then complain that the Prequels has too much CGI? This, despite the fact that others have pointed out that the sets for many scenes in the prequels were practical effects. They interwove with the CG because THAT'S WHAT GOOD CG DOES. Weave with the practical sets to the point where you can't tell which is practical and which is CG. Also, just because something is CG, doesn't automatically make it good or bad. If the Prequels are bad because of CG, then the Avengers and other Marvel movies are bad, because they also use a lot of CG. And comparing the action between the two? The Prequels had at least real people doing stunts and swordwork accompanying the CG robots and clone soldiers getting killed, instead of just CG Hulk slamming CG Loki around. Speaking of swordwork.........
THE FIGHTS ARE OVER-CHOREOGRAPHED: Here's another complaint that I just can't understand. So these critics hate the lightsaber fights.........because they had good choreography. That's like hating a restaurant for serving Filet Mignon instead of Beef Jerky. People who echo this complaint try to hearken back to the "good old days" where lightsaber fights are "simple" and "realistic". Really? Duels with swords made out of lasers that burn through almost anything should be realistic? Are you people fucking high? The main reason why lightsaber fights were "simple" back then was because the actors were afraid of damaging the equipment. Also, outside of Episode V, those duels were kind of........oh, what's the word........boring. EPIV had an old man swinging a sword like a stick against a mechanical giant. EPVI had the fight so badly lopsided that it had little tension. We were just waiting for Luke to win. EPV had tension, and good use of atmosphere and terrain. The two fighters try to ambush each other, try to gain the upper hand, knock each other off of platforms, graze each other, try surprise attacks, use the environment, etcetera. It felt like a real contest because both fighters were somewhat neck-to-neck. But the other two duels lacked that.
And realism? Really? You want to know what's unrealistic? An old man standing up against a mechanical giant in a sword fight. I'm pretty sure that in a realistic swordfight, a power-armored robotic space knight would take less than five seconds to out-duel an old man. They both had the Force, so the Force should offer no advantage in a realistic fight because they both have it and that negates any advantage. If the OT duels were realistic, that fight would have lasted all of five seconds before Vader knocked Ben down and killed him.
And something that all three OT duels lacked was grace. I can understand Vader, he had mechanical limbs, not much room for grace when you're a bloody metal juggernaut. But Kenobi looked like an old man swinging his cane at kids. And Luke fought more like Conan the Barbarian than a graceful knight of an eastern-style spiritual order. That's why the acrobatics of the Prequel fights actually FIT the idea of the Jedi. These guys fight with the Force at their side; they're capable of great feats of strength and flexibility. And it makes sense that they're more well-trained in the Prequels, because they've had time to practice off of each other and see which techniques work best. The way Dooku fought, for example, showed how experienced he was and how he was close to Yoda, enough to know that Yoda held Kenobi in high esteem. Maul's whole character was based on how good a fighter he is; he barely talked, because he didn't need to. He was a born killer, a living weapon, and his fighting style reflected that. It showed that he truly was being trained by the best when he's able to hold against two opponents and not break a sweat. He garnered a massive fanbase by his fighting skills alone, and yet the naysayers still bitch about how "he had little character" despite the fact that the man showed his character through his skill and actions, not words. I suppose they compensated for that by making him talkative in the cartoons.
As for emotion, the duels in the Prequels had just as much emotion as the duels in V and VI, and more emotion than the duel in IV. The Death Star Duel between Kenobi and Vader was as emotionless as the Jedi themselves. Vader was humoring an old man, and Kenobi was trying to commit suicide by cop through Vader. Vader talks about how he's more powerful, and Kenobi talks about how he will ascend in death and that his death will be a victory for him. Why would I be invested in a fight where neither fighter is invested? You know what fight had the duelists invested? The fights in Episodes I and III. Even II had some investment considering how Anakin was trying to protect his master from certain death and Yoda was both impressed and fearful that his old student had grown strong in the Dark Side. So yeah, those excuses of the Prequel duels being "emotionless ballets" are complete and utter bullshit.
CONCLUSION:
As I continue to watch these so-called "critics" continue to demonize George Lucas and worship Disney, I just can't help but either shake my head in disappointment, or laugh. Disney's Star Wars is a hit or miss for me, sometimes they do things right like with Rebels' later seasons and episodes, and sometimes they do things wrong, like the end of the recent SWTOR expansion and the way the Force and the setting was handled in EPVII. But I'd just like to pose a question to all the prequel-haters out there who have demonized George Lucas for years: Is it really worth it? Do you really have fun, ruining the lives of the likes of Jake Lloyd, or getting Hayden Christensen to quit acting? Is it really worth it than now, the massive Star Wars Expanded Universe, a treasure trove of literature to rival that of any other series, is now thrown out of the canon with no chance of being on the big screen? I hope you guys are happy. Because many of us, who loved the prequels, loved the people who brought it to us, and loved the Expanded Universe, are certainly NOT happy. Speaking of which, my next retrospective is on the way: The Expanded Universe! I will go into why it was a great treasure trove of literature and art, why its de-canonization by Disney was a BIG MISTAKE, and why Disney is lost without it, to the point where they were already ripping off the Expanded Universe as early as Episode VII and Rebels.
Comments
Post a Comment