PT Why Are The PT Films criticized? (catch-all thread)

Now, here, with this post, you reminded me of something:

I also consider myself a bit of a "visual" person; in that I love to take photographs and I also love to manipulate them on my computer. And, I must say, I feel I only gained respect for directors who do much more than that: they create images but set them to a story; they give them incredible structure. I feel like I could never do that; that that is a million miles away from my marginal talent. It's like, wow, the guys 'n' gals that make movies are incredibly focused, and incredibly talented; and after you've waded into the shallowest part of that great lake they swim so effortlessly in (by comparison), how could you not respect what they do all the more? Filmmaking is so exciting because it is something with structure. And that leads me onto another confession: I am absolutely fascinated by the structure -- or, rather, the structuring -- of the Star Wars movies. I feel there is a lot of meaning and beauty locked up there; that the rhythms and fine patterning are the thing that, perhaps, best make it what it is (whatever it actually is).

Love, love, love the open-mindedness and the silky elegance of that answer. Yes, completely that. I guess, in some small way -- oh, what a crazy confessional this has turned into! -- I am getting vengeance (in a fairly playful way, I hope) on all those who have put this thing down, and essentially scoffed at the idea it has any real worth or meaning. Around the time of ROTS, Hayden Christensen reiterated an earlier comment made by someone before him, "Acting is the shy man's revenge". I completely see that; and, I might add, writing is, too.

 

First and foremost, I will always relate to the original trilogy as standard. It's a generational thing I guess *shrug*. The Vader backstory was something I'd always envisaged as being a tale that was somewhat exclusive, and entirely subjective with regards to each fans imagination..

 

Yikes.

I'm formulating a response to this, but first reaction is yikes. "A film is a film." That's so...alien, to me.


Sent from my brain using thumbs.

 

Indeed. A film is whatever one wants or regards it to be.

I could keep using this quote without fatigue:

"Your focus determines your reality."

 

Still there are some films that generate more far positive focus than others. If you watch Norbit or Gigli, chances are you're going to think they're rubbish. The problem isn't your focus, it's those movies. Same goes for the more highly rated & acclaimed SW movies compared to the ones at the other end of the scale.

 

My post had nothing to do with "chances".

It was about personal apprehension of art.

 

Okay. I'm just saying, people often say "art is subjective" & talk about focus etc. On an individual level that's true. When it comes to popular art, like movies, a bigger picture analysis is also needed. Whether it's the PT or any other blockbuster, we're talking about art displayed in every cinema in every shopping mall on Earth. Art for the masses. When you get such wild swings in audience reception as say, The Dark Knight & Battlefield Earth, some objective factors need to be looked at. Why did so many individuals like one & detest the other. At a micro-level, ie two individual audience members you can say a difference in opinion of those two movies is subjective. When you look at the broad scale (an average of millions of opinions) then it becomes more objective.
While at the same time never invalidating a differing view held by an individual.

 

I'm just thinking, right this second, as I sometimes do, of Yoda remonstrating Luke: "No, no, there is no why."

The closest you can get to obtaining objective data is to wait for neuroscience to catch up with modern physics. Much of this remains entirely speculative.

Also, in part, you are advocating for art to be measured by mass appeal, and attempting to smuggle in an argument from popularity:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_majority


"Orthodoxy is unconsciousness"
-- George Orwell, "1984"

 

Popular art is measured by popularity in a broad sense. That's bcs its goal is to be popular. To entertain as many people as possible. When any filmmaker of a blockbuster movie (incl Lucas) releases it, given any packed cinema their goal is for as many people in that cinema to leave having liked the movie. There's nothing wrong with us measuring something based on its own goal. As I said, this differs from the individual level which is entirely subjective. What we shouldn't do is confuse a commercial movie with art such a painting hung in a gallery. That's art that isn't marketed to within an inch of its life. That isn't copied in a factory a million times & sent to every shopping mall on the planet to be shown to the masses all day & every day. They're two examples of art with very different goals. One is entirely artistic expression. The other is artistic expression mixed heavily with commercial interests.

 

There's a lot that could be said in response to this. I'll try not to say too much.

Firstly, of course, the prequels are popular. Maybe not popular in the way you conceive, or in a way that you feel makes them worthy to rank alongside other popular works, but many people went to see them, and many people still watch and talk about (and endlessly obsess over) them. They are successes on a scale that few things are in this world.

Second, art that's marketed "to within an inch of its life" -- this can't be art? Forgive me, I know you're not quite saying that; you're, again, making an argument about the importance of popularity. But there seems to be this implication that such art, if it isn't widely accepted and adored, can't then be proper art, or worthy of much respect; it must have failed in some irrevocable and ignominious way. And I really don't know about that. The LOTR movies were also marketed to within an inch of their lives; including being the focus of a very aggressive Oscar campaign (hey, it worked). But that, to me, has always felt like a bit of a sacrilege, next to the quiet nature of the original creator of the mythology, and the fact he was anti-technology and anti- a lot of other stuff which the movies and their aggressive marketing tactics jar against: a phenomenon that throws the whole thing into a sort of spiritual contradiction. That, and, really, I don't like those movies very much. So, something can be popular, can be well-received, well-liked, and yet there are those who still don't like it; and why should they be forced -- even if only very subtly -- to somehow concede that they're wrong?

Third, it doesn't matter how obscure an artist is, nobody wants to be completely ignored. Sometimes, people put their heart and soul into something, and it's barely acknowledged. Artists like Herman Melville and William Blake, for instance, are extremely popular, now -- or, at the least, academically revered -- but they were more or less shunned and ignored in their own time. What does that say about this idea that something needs to be popular, right here, right now, or it's a failure for all time? You know, sometimes, something comes along, isn't seen for what it is, and artists pretty much kill themselves over it. Years later, history becomes something different, and those artworks finally reach a level of prestige denied to them by the machinations of fate in their creators' own time. It's a little screwed up, but seems to be the way the human universe works.

Fourth, you've probably heard of a guy called William Shakespeare. He wrote some popular plays a few hundred years ago; plays now widely looked upon as treasures of the human intellect and masterful explorations of the human condition. Yet all this academic reverence really came later. Another example of how something can be popular, but not always seen as especially lofty. Time, again, has to work its magic. This is not a prognostication where the prequels are concerned; I'm simply indicating that some things aren't really elevated into a higher tier until decades, or even centuries, later. In our contemporary context, it seems that some people's estimation of the prequels has actually gone up since the release of TFA; which may -- or may not -- be a sign of things to come. I just love the idea that popularity is some monolithic, open-and-shut thing; and how it is used as a battering ram to beat down people with a different/non-conformist/heretical view.

 

No I wasn't saying that at all. Being popular doesn't diminish the merits of any art. In any way. What I said was, popular art like a commercial movie is designed to be popular. To successfully entertain a mass-audience. So while on an individual level all that matters is that person's opinion, we can also measure "artistic success" based on the proportion of the audience who like the movie, & the degree to which they like it. Without that, how can any broad conclusion be reached at all? How can we separate Norbit from the Godfather? Or Battlefield Earth from The Dark Knight in terms of how successful they are in entertaining their audience? After all it would be easy to find individuals who think Norbit is a masterpiece & The Godfather is rubbish. The answer is to look at large scale polling & review aggregates. Then you'll see which of those movies was/is more successful. Not successful commercially, successful in their goal of entertaining as much of the audience as possible. In other words, it is a popularity contest. That's popular art. We can do the same with the SW movies. There's extensive polling of those movies, including here in our own forums.

The conclusion you reach from that is up to you. I'd say the voting on a polling site like IMDb indicates that The Dark Knight is a far more successful movie in its artistic intent (which is to entertain & to be enjoyed) than Battlefield Earth. Tens of thousands have rated the former an average of 9/10 & the latter 2.4/10. You might say "yeah but 2414 people rate BE a 10/10. Their opinion counts just as much as anyone. Art is subjective". To which I'd say you're completely right. But that's taking the issue down to the individual level. Which is always subjective. Looking at the bigger picture & the intent of each movie, TDK was/is a far better product of entertainment than BE.

 

I think that that just about sums up the way you see these movies; which, to me, is very sad, but there it is.

Are you trying to conflate the PT's level of acclaim and general appeal with "Battlefield Earth"? It sure looks like it; and you wouldn't be the first person with a visible presence on this forum to do that.

The prequel trilogy is obviously better-regarded -- and much more focused on; and a greater source of nourishment for many -- than BE. Curious that you appear to be pretending otherwise.

And TDK, in my opinion, shouldn't have been given such a low certificate. It's a rather bleak and sadistic film, IMO; too real-world, too adult for young hearts and minds. I think it was only given a PG-13 rating so that Warner Bros. could maximize profits. So I don't buy your comparison.

Why do I care what a great rabble of people think about some Star Wars movies, when a man like Donald Trump is actually running for President and a 2014 Gallup poll shows that more than 40% of Americans believe God created humans 10,000 years ago?

Mass opinions are often wrong (or at least a little screwed up); mob opinion is wrong almost by default. Your rhetorical ambushes don't sway me. And it's 2016. Let me know when I can start talking about my opinion of these films, and not those of a mindless bloc I must constantly pay tribute to.

 

I don't personally. I like plenty of movies that are unpopular with the majority. Yet when it comes to popular art, ie blockbuster movies I realise it's not all about my opinion. They exist to entertain & be enjoyed by as many people as possible. If a movie didn't work for me yet I can see the vast majority of the audience rated it highly as far as I'm concerned that movie is a success.

No I'm not, & I think you know that. I'm explaining a principle that can then be applied generally. I'm also using extreme examples (Godfather>Norbit) to clearly highlight the point. Of course the Prequels aren't near the levels of those bad movies. Yet when 2 movies in any series fall dead last on almost every single poll & metric for that series, that is significant. It's true of say, Nemesis & The Final Frontier in the older Trek movie series. Of a View to a Kill & Die Another Day among the Bonds. It's also true of TPM & AotC in SW. That's not bashing, it's just the way it is. And this ultimately provides the answer to this thread. Why are the Prequels criticized? Bcs alot of people don't like them. How many people? Too many compared to the others.

 

I don't like the popularity contest explanation, because it crumbles under box office numbers. I think films and other mediums are better suited to critical analysis. Sure, sometimes popular opinion matches critical reception, but not often enough to be a predictor of quality. Otherwise, the Bayformers franchise doing as well as it's doing makes it a de facto masterpiece...

 

Box office attendance is a result of marketing as much as the entertainment value of the movie. Ratings, polling & acclaim is the best we have as a credible measurement IMO.
& again, that's just about the big-picture success of each movie. Nothing to do with individual tastes.

 

I tend to agree. Aggregate ratings of both general audiences and critics are generally the most reliable gauge. It's the rare film where I don't align (within a certain degree) with Rotten Tomatoes or Metacritic results.

 

Hmmm...



I agree that the PT is not as good as the OT. But that isn't much of a criticism. The OT is the greatest action-adventure trilogy ever made. It would've been nice if the PT were as good or better but that was always a monumental task. You certainly don't have to think the PT is better to be a PT fan. It's not a competition, though many fans love framing it that way. I'm a fan of both even though one has more problems than the other. Even so I've watched each prequel countless times & I'll watch them countless times more. I have long phases where I'd much rather watch a PT movie than the OT, mainly bcs I smashed the OT movies as a kid. There's enough great stuff in each prequel to make them more than worthwhile entries in the Saga.


Darth Downunder, Oct 30, 2015, 4:12 AM

http://boards.theforce.net/threads/...original-saga-discuss.50034401/#post-52815849

 

&...what is the point of that Cryogenic? You've posted that complete with bold-face, underline & multi-colored font. As if you've caught me out on something. As if I've been inconsistent. I'm at a loss though. How is that in conflict with anything I've said? The above refers to my own personal opinion of the SW movies. We've been talking about broad appeal & success, where mass polling & aggregates are relevant. You've gone way off track here. This is the latest in a long line of recent examples where you're more interested in talking about other members rather than the thread topic.
Nice to see you keep an archive of my posts though

 

Perhaps it reads better if I isolate those parts I highlighted and write them out sequentially?

- I agree that the PT is not as good as the OT. But that isn't much of a criticism.
- The OT is the greatest action-adventure trilogy ever made. It would've been nice if the PT were as good or better but that was always a monumental task.
- You certainly don't have to think the PT is better to be a PT fan. It's not a competition, though many fans love framing it that way.
- There's enough great stuff in each prequel to make them more than worthwhile entries in the Saga.

I found that post, some moments ago, at random. I was actually running a Google search, tied into this board (but not this discussion), and I clicked to view a thread which came up as one of the results, read through it, and there was that post. Seems you just post that much, DD.

I considered it relevant because of the way you switched this discussion from the context I was obviously writing from, that of art being a personal thing, to your hang-up with populism and popularity and audience approval in general. Yet, in that older post, you flatly assert "it's not a competition", despite just saying, "in other words, it is a popularity contest", in this one. Equally, your other remarks, in that older post, are constructed from a similar vantage point that I was arguing from in here, until you steamed in and started banging the drum for the importance of mass opinion and said that "a bigger picture analysis is also needed".

Almost looks like you've become steeped in this resident PT critic persona or something in the last year. But in any case, I'm amused that you disputed my sentiment that liking/disliking the prequels comes down to personal focus, while you were earlier sticking up for them, telling people it wasn't a competition "though many fans love framing it that way", and rounding out by declaring they're all "more than worthwhile entries in the Saga".

 

Cryogenic, you're just conflating arguments, mashing quotes together & generally adding 2 + 2 & coming up with 5. In the context of the discussion a year ago I said "it's not a competition" bcs the ridiculous thread I was commenting in was titled "Prequel Trilogy is Much Better that the OT. Discuss!". That thread was locked within one page, as it should be. Just bcs I said "it's not a competition" in the context of that particular thread doesn't mean I can never make any kind of comparisons ever without being a hypocrite. In fact in this conversation I've been speaking generally about popular art & commercial film-making. Looking at what those movies are trying to achieve on a mass scale & measuring their success by that. "It is a popularity contest" means (as I explained) that blockbuster movies are designed to entertain & be "liked" by as many people as possible. That's clearly different to "competition" between movies within the same Saga. There's nothing wrong that point & there's no inconsistency at all between my comments here & back then.
Explaining why the PT gets more criticism than the other episodes is not making it a competition. It's having a rational conversation that's relevant to this thread. What you should do is calm down & drop the attempts at "catching me out". Stick to discussing the topic of each thread & give the crusade against others a rest.

Back on topic, shouldn't you of all people understand & relate to people's criticism of Eps 1 & 2? Do I recall correctly that you struggled with those movies for a while? That they only grew on you over time? Maybe you can elaborate & relate those struggles to us. What were your issues with those movies, if you did have some? Might help shed more light on this thread question.

 

It's not as different as you're protesting. Let's keep this nice and simple (because we know you like it that way):

You said, a year ago, in another PT thread, "it's not a competition", and even added, "though many fans love framing it that way". Those are your exact words. But since then, with this thread being another proof, you're very into this idea of constantly maligning the prequels with respect to other blockbuster franchise movies, and even game for repeatedly putting down Episodes I and II next to III and the other episodes of the saga.

Have you got training in law, DD? You could probably convince a master scientist that "up" is "down, and "left" is "right", if you kept at it. You seem to have ducking and diving, and bobbing and weaving, down to a fine art. Yes, we could pretend that the context of that other thread was entirely different, but that discussion and this one, and all the other ones you've kept having, aren't so estranged. Do you want to play the films off against each other and keep shaming I and II, or don't you? I think, what you're really trying to say is, that other thread is an aberration, and this is now the "real" you -- do I have that right?

I'm not trying to catch you out any more than you love engaging in innuendo, subtle concern trolling, arguing points to death, alluding to former threads, and trying to bring a discussion to a halt and hinting that a thread should be closed when you personally feel a topic is beneath you or you've gotten the last word in. Carrying on the way you do, expect a bit of playful payback, every once in a while. Sorry, I just couldn't resist.

Yes, I was more critical of all the films in the past; and I and II I criticized the most. I was a bit more of a jumped-up fellow back in the day (okay -- so not much has changed), and I made some comments, and conducted myself in some ways, that I regret.

What happened, when I joined in 2005, is that I was particularly taken by and obsessed with ROTS. It was Summer 2005, after all. Then, the DVD came out, and some of us started discussing the movie in a fabulous set of "Chapter By Chapter" threads; which I adore to this day. Of course, I made some critical comments in there, skipped over a few threads (for one reason or another), and what I did say wasn't nearly as detailed or always as incisive an answer as I might attempt now, were such threads to be run again. But it was fun to do (and I'm glad to have archived those threads before any content was chopped off). However, being so into ROTS coloured my perception of the other films (more than I realized), and it took me a few years to warm up to the others again. All five. Being so drawn into the charms of ROTS and the dramatic power of the story, not to mention the flow of the imagery, made me forget how "staccato"-like the other movies are (ROTS isn't immune to this characteristic, either). I was unknowingly on an ROTS high for a couple of years; or more. I probably still am. There's a little part of me that still says ROTS is better than the others by a country mile; and is the only Star Wars movie that really matters. But that doesn't mean I think the rest are junk or anything; it's more a measure of how ROTS captured my soul (in both the lighter and Dante-esque sense of the term) and "changed" me. It really did something to my brain. Some of us on TFN were discussing this recently. ROTS burnt a hole in our consciousness; and we're not sure how.

What were my issues with I and II, in particular? Well, I found parts of them perfunctory, I suppose; and a bit jerky and cold. I probably still feel this way; but the effect has attenuated over time. Sometimes, in fact, my brain flips a bit, and I see ROTS a little bit that way, while enjoying the more open-ended nature of I and II more than I used to. In fact, if you view them backwards in your mind, you can look upon AOTC and TPM as remakes of ROTS, with the tragic aspects more sublimated into the furniture. In the past four or five years, I've really become quite addicted to the poetic structure of the movies. A word I seem to have used a lot is "discursive". I do think, much more than I used to, there is something digressive and delightfully knotted-up about I and II; but I can never put my finger on the particulars. As my friend and intellectual brother Pyrogenic has started saying, it's sort of like ROTS was actually designed to be watched first, and Lucas' experimental streak shines through more in this "Retro Order" construction. ROTS, in other words, is meant to be more crowd-pleasing, overtly dramatic, arch, and operatic. Then you go backwards and discover the foundations of the myth in II and I. Episode I, if you've ever noticed, has a bright palette and a lot of outdoors-y scenes, is given a regal tone, and feels very polished (Lucas spent the longest time working on it). So, in some ways, it's like you're meant to view it last, as the secret crown jewel -- the lotus jewel -- of the saga. Over time, I've become really drawn to the more "esoteric" side of the saga. I honestly love the innocent, lush, fable-istic feel of TPM a lot, too. And Jar Jar. The movie has a surprisingly realistic texture to it, in my opinion; yet, in terms of its raw boldness, it is also the most unlikely installment of the saga. So, paradoxically, by initially loving ROTS a lot, and still being hooked by it, the other movies have gradually opened up to me.

I'm quite comfortable with where I am with these movies today. In fact, the severity of the detraction these films have received (and still receive) has only made me love and respect them all the more. I keep seeing more to them; and other mainstream movies miserably fail to measure up. At least, in my opinion.

Even if I made similar statements at the time, I know, looking back, I couldn't possibly appreciate how visionary the prequels are, compared to the way I look at and feel about them, now. I was not prepared for how much depth and beauty I would, over time, find in them. Of course, you have to be willing to seek it -- and your mind constructs it, in part, as you go. "You mean it controls my actions?"; "Partially. But it also obeys your commands."

I'm not kidding when I say Star Wars gives me a mystical feel for the universe. I was probably more atheistic -- no, I know I was -- just two or three years ago. I've gone more towards a sort of "gnostic agnosticism" since then. I'm glad for these movies; glad to have lived through the making and release of the prequels; glad to have been part of the early conversation about them; glad for George and his talent and his unique interpretation of the world through the incredible personality and structure of his art and this unique vision he brought into the world.

 

Weird Aussie law. Strictly kangaroo courts.

Up is down Cryo. I live on the upside-down part of the world remember

Sounds exhausting.

No the other thread isn't an aberration at all. I stand by my comments. We don't need threads that pit each film or trilogy against each other. Turning it into a childish contest. This discussion on the other hand is far more constructive. It doesn't need to be about the OT at all. I've barely made reference to the OT.

Anyway, the rest of your post was excellent. Thanks for such a detailed & thoughtful response. Pity I can't give you a half-like since you still insist on analysing & commenting on my posting history. An overly generous full-like it is

 

Ha! Nice pun. I actually have Dual Citizenship: I'm British/Australian. So I may come and join you.

I'm beginning to think, quite seriously, that that's why the camera pans up at the start of AOTC. Lucas switched production to Fox Studios in Sydney for Episode II.

It also starts with a "boomerang" ship (a highly appropriate shape, I'm sure you'll agree, for an intensely visual, metaphoric, return-laden series like Star Wars).

You tell me, DD. You tell me.

Actually, I'm sort of with you on that one. I've always cordially disliked seeing any of the films ranked against one another.

Compared, yes. Ranked, no.

And note: any.

I still think you're trying to wall off the OT and the PT, a bit, however, rather than saying the PT can't be dissected and slandered; which might be a firmer stance. Or, you're wanting to compare the PT against another standard, like presumed (or maybe what you consider to be measurable) popularity. I think this board is big enough for many sorts of comparisons; no matter what I think of the particular ones being made.

I'm part-journalist. I like to delve a bit into backstories and retrieve earlier textual mounds that people have left scattered about.

But, like I said, I also found that post by accident. And you did write it in public, and not too long ago, in a galaxy not too far away, after all.

Anyway, thanks. Half-likes disguised as full-likes also gratefully received.

 

Q: Why Are The PT Films criticized?

A: Because there is just so much to discuss and dissect on every level of visual and musical storytelling that resonates with the characters, story, the situations and interactions in terms of the multi-layering of the imagery and symbolism.

Something being constantly criticized is actually a great thing the only problem is for those who decide to use it as vehicle (as with the prequels) to try to justify their own dislike, despise or outright hatred.

I have been criticizing them for many years now and having a great time doing so. In fact I was never anywhere near into Star Wars until the PT came along. I watched and enjoyed the OT by itself but from afar. With the PT creating the backstory and changing the way the OT works on so many levels now it too was even more interesting to watch.

The PT effects the way all Star Wars is going to be looked at. The OT can't be seen the same way. TFA is by it's very structure is based on the same underlying theme that Lucas used for the prequels (which actually was already present in the OT it's just that no one noticed it as much and when they did it was written off as being simple repetition).

Now of course that is true about how TESB effects ANH and ROTJ effects the first two movies.

The difference is that they were then unified into a whole story in itself and the stories that came before it then were expected to fit into their pattern. Which of course they didn't for some people.

While some people assorted and adjusted the OT together for whatever reason they decided they couldn't do the same for the PT. Why exactly varies.

So in terms of criticism so much comes down to what the individual wants and will accept as being "real"

As we know for some people they truly believe that the acting of the PT is "wooden with hollow relationships"

http://collider.com/george-lucas-star-wars-7-new-trilogy-consulting-split/

These are the kind of comments that get under people’s skin because you can see Lucas still pushing the blame onto the fans for not properly receiving his movies. If it weren’t “about the spaceships” then why do the prequels fill the screen with spaceships and throw an ungodly amount of other visual effects wizardry at the screen? It’s disingenuous to say it’s about family problems and then give your actors wooden dialogue and hollow relationships. I don’t mind that Lucas wants to stand by his movies rather than admit defeat, but he makes it sound like he had some deep family drama waiting for us if only those pesky fans didn’t misunderstand Star Wars.

Others look into it a bit deeper and don't necessarily disagree but look at the movies for the story they are telling as opposed to the ones that were wanted:

http://moviepilot.com/posts/3650686

The "wooden dialogue and hollow relationships" were explained, if not excused, from the beginning in both commentary and the press. Superficially, at last, Lucas made the prequels as a far too literal homage to the cheap, quickly-made science fiction movies of the 1950's. Another excuse for the "wooden dialogue and hollow relationships" might be that if the prequels' underlying story took place in the real world, you'd essentially have three movies whose central characters grew up and lived as warrior monks that go out of their way to avoid being part of and participants in the larger, mainstream world they try to protect.

That suggests characters who are so culturally and even socially isolated within a strict and fairly exclusive group that their attempts at relationships with people outside of the group are naturally going to awkward and ill-fated. Despite his growing resistance to Jedi rules and scrutiny, someone like Anakin is naturally unprepared to deal with relationship complexities not inherent to those within the group BECAUSE of that group's philosophies and restrictions. Whether entertaining or just annoying, it goes further in explaining Anakin's childish reactions and behavior than fans give it credit for because they didn't like how it manifested onscreen .In contrast, Luke is pretty much grown before even hearing about the Jedi, then learns his skills courtesy of more balanced teachings from Yoda without having a Jedi Council to basically run his life.

So these are but two approaches of criticism. The one is more about worrying about Lucas while the other is more about the actual movies.

For myself on a pure first reaction level I had no problem in the least with the characters. I found the characters terrific and the relationships full and satisfying. The dialogue was just that. Dialogue. The obsession some people have with dialogue (especially regarding Star Wars) is truly amazing to me.

I mean it's not a TV show. As it happens over time I have found out the dialogue of the PT is actually quite spectacularly done only not in the way some people look for because for them the story is carried by dialogue in a way that is so important for them that I just don't see in the movies.

When kids were coming out of SW in 1977 the last thing they were talking about was the dialogue. Them and anyone else.

 

I think most people were just disappointed by the lack of sand and trees. Too much CGI Tatooine and Naboo and I didn't like how they can use the Force to throw stuff. It wasn't real enough and it turned SW into pure fantasy instead of the realistic gritty universe about the evils of leaving your good Ole farmland like the classics.