Are the objections of we Star Wars fans to the prequels completely objective?

TB - I think your experience is very telling and that it is becoming more common.

I know that the kids in my family can't watch the OT (yet) because it is so slow to them and they don't understand how it fits - and there's no Jar Jar! When they get older I'm sure they'll learn to appreciate it -it's hard for people who worship ANH & ESB to accept those points of view.

 

And of course, we're still missing the most important piece of the puzzle - Episode 3.

We've now seen everything building up to Anakin's transformation, and the aftermath, but we've still to see the actual event that turns him into Vader.

I really can't wait

 

I said it on the E3 spoiler thread, and I'll repeat it here.
I've thought about this a great deal in my thinking time and have come up with many many answers to this very question.
However, everytime I try to post it, something comes up and the post doesn't get posted. But I feel this is the right forum and opportunity to post it.
Problem is, is that my points are so long that each one could be a thread in itself. So what I think I'll do is post each point seperately and discuss it before moving on to the second one.
My points will also be easier to digest that way.
Keep in mind, this isn't english class so they'll be in sloppy essay format at best, but try to be forgiving. But I'll start them soon enough and take both sides into account when I do.
I think you'll all find them rather interesting. Hope so anyway

 

First of all, let me just say that, no, I don't believe a lot of people view the PT objectionally. Either they give it too much praise or not enough. Why is that? Well in the following posts I hope to shed some light on that and give people something to genuinely think about instead of going 'nope nope nope, TWD, you suck!
Now, keep in mind I don't personaly know any of you and I don't have a degree in anything, but it's my belief that good advice/points can come from anywhere. Like, if the vilage idiot pointed to the sky and said 'I think I'm sick...' does that mean he's not sick just because he's not a doctor?
So, I only ask that you take a look at my points objectionally. Thanks
(bear in mind there'll probably be plenty of typos that I miss so as to not lose my train of thought. Be gentle)

POINT 1: The Technicalities (Acting, Directing)

The gripe you'll hear most often I think is about the technicalities of the PT. I'd like to take each aspect now and look at them.

Acting
A lot of people claim the PT acting 'sucks'. When asked why, they fall onto the copy/paste answer 'it's wooden'! That response takes no thought as it was supplied by critics and all one has to do is read it as say 'that must be it' without taking any thought into it.
On the flip side, a gusher could read by Lucas 'It's done in a certain style' and they could repeat that ad naseum without knowing what the hell they're talking about.
The fact of the matter is, very very few people here are actors or know anything about acting. Thus, they know not what they say when they critique it. They watch movies, and are told what's good and bad acting, thus, they think they're experts. This simple isn't so. That would be like me watching an accountant work and assume I'm a math wiz. Nuh uh. Doesn't work like that.
Acting, like any other skill, has to be learned and practiced. Which begs the question 'What is acting?'
Many of you have read my posts saying 'acting is more than just saying the lines real purdy.' I mean exactly that. Acting you become a character. You talk through the character. You have to turn lines on paper into a person some writer was envisioning.
There are levels of acting. One is where you're just on stage/set sqeaking out lines passably. Two is the most accepted kind where you say the lines and they sound good. This is where mugging and 'character parts' come in. You see that a lot and don't know it. Three is actually becomming a character. Giving a voice, motives, psychology, stance, posture, walk, expressions, everything you do is in character.
Many of you have heard the phrases 'stay in character', 'get in character' and the infamous 'what's my motivation?' and half of you have no clue what that really means. Why? Because they're tossed around like catch-phrases to make up for a sloppy performance. But with third level acting, an actor actually has to know why his character would do such things.
Hayden reached, I feel, third level acting in AotC. He became Anakin. 'His line delivery was wooden!' Was it? Look at his character:
Calm, serious mind
In complete control of his emotions
A warrior monk.
Why would someone like that be shouting of Yeehaws etc? The 'wooden' delivery is actually calm, measured delivery. But that's just for a Jedi. His character also has traces of:
Innocent boy
Darth Vader
So, he has to take his base Jedi character and combine elements from four different people. On top of that, Anakin's persnonality includes:
Arrogance
Strong love
Emotional
Anger
Hatred
Yearning
Anguish
Confusion
He's headstrong
So on top of the other two, he has to combine all of that with the polar opposite of controlling all of those feelings. Yet they also have to break through now and then.
His confession is when it all suddenly collapses on him and he let's it all out. How you can see it is in the eyes, not hear it in the words.
Natalie has self-confessed that she was miserable and selfish on the set of TPM. Yet you also have to look at he

 

Kudos to you TWD, very well written. I couldn't agree more with your view on Natalie Portman and Hayden. Very good points.

 

Yes, TWD, very well done.



I think a perfect example of what should have happened (for us bashers, o' course) is the Indiana Jones trilogy. Everyone had their part to play, and played it well. Indiana Jones is just as much Lucas' property as Star Wars, but for some reason Lucas felt the need to play all the parts in that metaphorical play.

Basically, Lucas embodies "the story." Lucas had the idea for a gun-toting archeologist, and he put the idea out there for others to help him bring his idea to life. Likewise, Lucas first thought up the galaxy, far, far, away, and then enlisted people to bring it to life. And then he (unfoundedly) decided he no longer needed much help.

Just because someone has a story in mind, it doesn't entitle them to call themselves masters of writing, publishing, and book-binding. They just know the story.





Personally, I think McCallum has been OK, except for his constant spin-doctoring and penchant for the f-word in public.

 

Well thank you, you two
I'll try to have the next part up tomorrow.

 

"I cant help feel that we fans (and the critics also) are simply failing to take into account that we saw the OT as children, and we can never truly return to that sense of wonder. Is the PT genuinely inferior to the OT, in any objective way?"

I despise this rationalization for the inadequecies of the prequels, and I am so tired of hearing it continually regurgitated.

I saw the original trilogy when I was a kid, and loved it. Yet, the original trilogy entertains us with a sense of wonder without insulting our intelligence as viewers. My parents loved it as well.

I was 12 when Return of the Jedi came out, and I remember thinking :"Man, are those Ewoks stupid."

The acting, while not of Oscar caliber, was genuine, heartfelt and sometimes above what one would expect for a sci-fi movie. Mark Hamill is convincing in his role. Carrie Fisher is convincing in her role.


Jake Lloyd, Hayden Christensen and Natalie Portman are not. At all. Their wooden monotone deliveries seem to be done so mechanically that it rips you right out of the moment.


Children are not stupid. They don't need comedy delivered as clumsily as Jar Jar Binks, or creatures as silly and unbelievable as the pod racers, or stories explained to death. Give them the benefit of the doubt.

I would not have cared for The Phantom Menace when I was 8, but I did love A New Hope. The difference is the latter is a good movie for all ages, and the former a bad movie for all ages.

 

TWD:

I am definately one of those who thinks Portman's performance is "wooden" as you mention. Some nice points there by the way. I personally put the blame for that on Portman, not GL (well, most of it. Yeah, the dialogue doesn't help). To put it in perspective, I thought that Hayden did a great acting job, and like you mention above, his character, and GL's dialogue seem more responsible for what people see as a wooden performance (IMO).

Hayden has fire (which he needs, considering he's DV, the Tusken slaughter was fantastic). Although the dialogue was not to my liking, when he told Padme he loved her, I felt it. When Padme addresses the subject, I don't feel a thing. I don't "get it." She just seems bland, un-emotional, and boring to me. I'm not really interested in her character, and if she goes the way of the DoDo in Ep3, I doubt i'll be upset. And i'm not convinced that it's simply the character and the dialogue that caused that. The dialogue in the OT with Han and Leia wasn't spectacular either, but their performance makes those scenes some of my favorite from SW.

The Picnic

 

You should really polish that up (formatting, spelling, etc.) and submit at as an article to TF.n. Very insightful.

 

"I think it's because the first one was sort of a stand-alone type movie. Then came ESB, which established that this will indeed be a saga. At that point, the speculation and hype build to a point where nothing can really be satisfactory."

What do you mean, "nothing" can be satisfactory?? Of course it could. How about a quality fantasy film?

Not one with Ewoks, Jar Jar Binks, Jake Lloyd, Dexster Jettster, Natalie Portman, Two Headed Pod Announcers, Hayden Christensen, Boss Nass, Paulie Shore or Earnest.

 

TWD:

Sorry, I don't think you made a post with many valid points.

"The fact of the matter is, very very few people here are actors or know anything about acting. Thus, they know not what they say when they critique it. They watch movies, and are told what's good and bad acting..."

The problem with your whole post, TWD, is that you make a critical fallacy in the art of the debate: you set up a straw man. You attempt to speak for those with whom you would debate.

You claim that no one but actors can validly criticize acting...so I hope for the sake of your argument that you act, because that is exactly what you do in the rest of your post.

Regardless, it's a ridiculous argument. Can no one but artists validly criticize art? No one but musicians validly criticize music? That's asinine. I've watched hundreds and hundreds of movies by this time in my life, and I believe I have a valid voice in what good acting is. I don't simply parrot what others tell me, as you claim laymen do. I judge performances by what I deem to be realistic and moving portrayals of a character. True I may not know how to DO good acting...but doing and identifying are two different things.


"Many of you have heard the phrases 'stay in character', 'get in character' and the infamous 'what's my motivation?' and half of you have no clue what that really means. Why? Because they're tossed around like catch-phrases to make up for a sloppy performance. But with third level acting, an actor actually has to know why his character would do such things."

Anyone who has a mild interest in film knows these terms, TWD...you're not really making as much of a revelation as you might think. How hard is it to understand that a successful actor has to become their character and understand that character's motivations for their behavior? We get it.


"The 'wooden' delivery is actually calm, measured delivery."

Your opinion. I see a lack of emotional depth, even in scenes where he supposedly loses control of his emotions. Portman, as well.

If you think being an actor gives you authority to tell the rest of the world what good acting is...take a look at your industry. There are PLENTY of professional actors who have no clue what good acting is. Attempting and mastering an art are not one and the same. Painting a velvet Elvis does not an artist make me.

And if you think these two put out quality performances for their trade, you have a long road ahead of you...unless, of course, you get cast in a Star Wars film!


"The job of the producer is not to question the director's every step just because you don't like it. That's a good way to get an opinionated butthole fired if anything. A producer only gives an opinion if asked."

I'll give you a little insight into my field...as I'm am editor and producer. A producer can be whatever the production demands. He's a facilitator, but he can also be a collaborator. That's what Kurtz was and McCallum isn't. McCallum is a yes man, while Kurtz helped craft Star Wars and sometimes demanded another take to get the shot right. The "bounds" you speak of are set by the filmmakers and production companies...they're not set in stone.

 

Cracking post, TWD


The Picnic,

>>>Although the dialogue was not to my liking, when he told Padme he loved her, I felt it.

Strange, as he never told her he loved her...

 

You know which scene I mean.

The Picnic

 

Thurkon

1) Your post comes off more like you feel like I'm talking down and condescending to everybody. I'm not.
I do act, and have received formal training from an informal source. I won't divulge much more of my personal life on a public message board however. So yes, I do think I know what acting is and have performed as such.
Anyone can be a critic like you said. But it doesn't matter how many films you watch, that does not make you an expert. I can't watch a gymnast a hundred times and claim to be an expert gym critic. I don't know what all the skill entails or why. That's the problem with being an armchaor critic, you'll know the what, but not the why.
So, if you're positive that you have no qualms with the character and just the performance, how would you prefer the complex character of Anakin be performed? That's an honest and fair question I think. You were unhapy. Improve it. But the trick is you have to stick with all the character points I listed. If you change one of the character points, then the qualms with the character afterall. You'll notice Luke acted much the same way in RotJ and the other Jedi spoke in the controlled voice. So, explain what you'd prefer.
How hard is it to understand that a successful actor has to become their character and understand that character's motivations for their behavior? We get it.
Well I'm glad you do. However, I don't think many people did considering some of the messages I've recieved.
However, I gotta admit, I thought you insinuating that I'm a lousy actor because I liked the acting in 'Clones was a tad beneath the belt. I explained why and I don't think I'd be able to pull off a perfoamce as well as Hayden's. Mine would be more publically recognizable. However, I'd miss out and not bring out a lot of character points I feel. It's a tricky part.
However, as I'm sure you feel like (this is what it sounded like to me anyway) that you feel I was taking potshots at everybody, I can understand a few potshots at me. But my intentions were not potshots.
The "bounds" you speak of are set by the filmmakers and production companies...they're not set in stone.
So what you're saying is the bounds are flexible. What if Lucas or Mc Callum himself put certain bounds on the role of producer for the PT? So that Mc Callum's role is not to question why, but to just keep the production moving and to promote it?
Then, he's yet again just doing his job.

Durwood
After I've completed all of my points, I might do that of they show interest.

Everybody else, I'm glad you liked it! And yes, I'm even glad to those who didn't, and told me why
Again, I'm not claiming to be an expert in anything. But I feel my village idiot simile still stands as plenty valid.
What I mean is, instead of reading it as me trying to change your minds, read it as points you may or may not have considered.
Part two will be up later today and I've decided to focus that one on the SFX.
Hope you all like it, and if you don't, I hope you're like thurkon and lemme know.
Just remember, I'm really not out to offend anybody and if I do, I appologize in advance.

 

"I think some people had expectations, whether conscious or subconscious, about what a STAR WARS movie "should" be. When these expectations weren't met, they became upset to varying degrees. It's as simple as that."

And what about those that didn't? How can undefined expectations and unknown "varying degrees" be simple? Do you think Star Wars fans are that simple?

Say what you want about age being a factor, but I still love watching the OT after all these years. If anything raised my "expectations" about what Star Wars films should be like, it was better Star Wars films. (I suppose you love every film in the Saga "equally", with no favorites?)

(On second thought, don't answer that. I probably wouldn't believe you anyways.)

"It sucked. I couldn't believe I used to enjoy this. It was not what I expected. Can you see my point now?"

I felt the same way about the "Deep Space Nine" DVD's. I was so stoked to rent them, and then realized that they just weren't what I remembered them to be. They just didn't have the "staying power" that the OT had.

"Nothing to do with quality, everything to do with what they wanted the story to be."

What if they are talking about the "quality" of the story?

I guess it's a crime for someone to think they could do a better job.

"RE: The other two points-how can a characters age be "bad"? How can a character's amount of dialogue or significance to the story be "bad"?"



*shakes head*

" but those expectations (regarding Anakin's age and OB1's role) are strongly based on the OT. I don't know if Lucas told that (I think so), or just a rumour, but I clearly remember I saw somewhere that Anakin was meant to be 15 for awhile, but Lucas decided him to be younger at some point, because of the greater emotional effect, and also that Qui-Gon was originally OB1, but Lucas felt this character should be an older Jedi instead. So, if it's true, originally even Lucas himself thought the same thing the fans 'expected'."

Thank you, Shaakrider.

"I am definately one of those who thinks Portman's performance is "wooden" as you mention. Some nice points there by the way. I personally put the blame for that on Portman, not GL."

But Natalie, Hayden, Ewan and Samuel are Great actors! I love all the other stuff they've done. Hayden in "My life as a House", DAMN!!!! is all I can say. If he were allowed to show those emotions in AOTC, then I would be convinced!

I guess my problem is that I compare the PT not only to the OT, but the actors' performances in the PT to their performances in other films. The only actor who really "fits" his character is Ian McDiarmid/Palpatine. His character is supposed to be restrained and subtle (otherwise, his secret could be exposed.) Everyone else is only using (or allowed to use) a portion of their known ability, and their interactions seem to occur in a vacuum. The PT just smacks of script-recitation and "talking heads" to me.

Obi-wan isn't holding Anakin back, Lucas is.

"Hayden has fire (which he needs, considering he's DV, the Tusken slaughter was fantastic)."

While I am not condoning more killing in the Tusken scene, this is a great example of Hayden finally showing some steam, and then.........WIPE! All gone!

Carrying his mother's corpse and talking to her grave was great, but in the next scene he becomes whiny with Padme again. There's too much rollercoastering to show the "gradual" changing of Anakin into DV (who does not whine, BTW.) He's slaughtered an entire village, and starts bawling about Obi-wan. On top of this, Padme still falls in love with him. Incredulous, just incredulous. It would have been more realistic if he hadn't told her, and let this secret boil inside of him. Then there be some real source of anger, and Padme would mistake this for Anakin "chomping at the bit" of his Jedi boundaries, and developing some endearing feelings for him. For Padme to fall in love w

 

I think the point (if TWD will allow me)

Something like that, yes
And even though you don't seem to agree with me, I'm glad to see you get the idea where I'm coming from.

BTW, I know I said I'd have part 2 up, but this weekend was rather busy with barbecues and pool parties that I didn't expect

 

Aww..

TWD, just 'cause you're always wrong, doesn't mean I don't agree with you.

[C3PO] from time to time. Oh dear! [/C3PO]

 

>>>>but those expectations (regarding Anakin's age and OB1's role) are strongly based on the OT. [...] So, if it's true, originally even Lucas himself thought the same thing the fans 'expected'.

Righty ho- so if a character's history is revealed to be different to expectations set up by previous films, even different to what the creator had in mind at the time, it's intrinsically bad then?

ANH: "He betrayed and murdered your father..."
ESB: "I am your father..."

By that reasoning, wouldn't that direct contradiction make ESB the worst film ever?

Of course not.

 

"it's intrinsically bad then?"

In and of itself, no. It's how the change is done that makes a difference.

Some people didn't like Spiderman's new "webshooters" in the movie, but I thought they made sense. On the other hand, I didn't like his wall-climbing ability being based on spines. I thought the "Skin adhesive" idea from the comics was better, though this wasn't a huge difference for me.

ANH: "He betrayed and murdered your father..."
ESB: "I am your father..."

By that reasoning, wouldn't that direct contradiction make ESB the worst film ever?

Of course not.

Certainly not, because the potential "plot-hole" was explained away quite well. However, if Obi-wan said something to the effect of "Hey, I was drunk at the time!", how would you feel about that line then?

See what I mean?

 

I would say it's in keeping with Obi-Wan's character of being a drunkard
AotC, the ANH Cantina... the guy has a problem. That was why his saber in ANH kept shorting out. It had to double as a flask!

Part 2 umm yeah...
I haven't had much time on my hands lately.
But it is in the works if anyone's still interested.

 

"Part 2 umm yeah..."

That_Wascally_Droid - "This is the second part you're looking for"
MeBeJedi - "This is the second part I'm looking for"

That_Wascally_Droid - "You're still interested."
MeBeJedi - "I'm still interested."

 

>>>>Certainly not, because the potential "plot-hole" was explained away quite well. However, if Obi-wan said something to the effect of "Hey, I was drunk at the time!", how would you feel about that line then?

True, but we're talking about Obi Wan's screentime and Anakin's age in TPM- my point is that while, like the twist in ESB, they weren't what were expected, that doesn't make them intrinsically bad.

 

Alrighty. Just for you MBJ
Dunno when though cause I actually want it to be good

 

I think that one of the major subconcious reasons as to why many people don't like the prequel trilogy as much as the original trilogy, is becuase during the prequel trilogy, George Lucas has moved away from the 'used-universe' feel of the classic trilogy.

In the prequel trilogy, everything is too fresh, bright, new, CGI, etc...

Personally, this doesn't bother me, as I appreciate the gradual change in the Star Wars civilisation, however, I can see how this could affect the perspective of some people.

What do you think?