PT Criticisms of the Prequel Trilogy

Not to mention the guy's already lying about Anakin and Vader being two different people. Who's to say Obi-Wan wasn't stretching the truth a bit here?

 

Anakins not a psychopath hes just flawed. Shows remorse and cares about others. If he would have been totally good right up until the point he turned he would have became evil out of nowhere with no indication of him turning before. Which the bashers would still criticise.

 

Exactly. As early as TESB, you wondered who was telling the truth about things, Vader or Obi-Wan. Once the father stuff was confirmed in ROTJ, I think it was safe to assume Ben was fibbing a bit. I always saw it as a white lie. Of course, when the scene was filmed Anakin and Vader were not the same person. I think it still worked well.

 

Which film was this in?

 

"The Clone Wars".

 

So.....not in any of the actual Star Wars films, then.

 

The Clone Wars movie that Sinister is referencing was released theatrically, so you could argue that it's an actual Star Wars film.

 

So this is another of those catch-all criticism thread thingies?

Okay, then. Let me just throw out one complaint that makes me clench: disposable baddies, cannon fodder.

I'm referring to complaints about battle droids posing no threat to the Jedi; with the corollary being that there is "no tension" and "no reason to care" about anything happening on-screen.

That's a really interesting one in light of the stormtroopers in the OT and the Orcs in LOTR.

Stormtroopers are barely any more lethal than battle droids (which kinda seems to suggest a continuity of in-universe incompetence), bumbling around, bashing into things, and constantly missing targets from five feet away, even after firing a hail of shots. The opening sequence in the original movie even has fun with this idea when it shows C-3PO and R2-D2 traversing a stream of laser bolts, as they cross a corridor in the captured blockade runner, without incident. Then there is the Emperor's rather ridiculous boast to Luke in ROTJ: "An entire legion of my best troops awaits them." Er, really??? I mean, I can kind of let them off, since the stormtroopers do at least pose some threat (like battle droids), and there remains something vaguely sinister about them the whole time (though I think the prequels have artfully added to this: thanks to AOTC's creeply cloning plot and the strange beauty of Kamino intertwined with Anakin's unsettled sleep and lustful pursuit of a fertility queen). Plus, they do put the heroes on the run, and tend to only face them in small(ish) numbers; while more effective TIE pilots and Imperial bureaucrats hound and herd off Rebel forces threatening the dominance of the Empire. Stormies are still outrageously lame marksmen, though.

Peter Jackson's LOTR really takes the biscuit, however. While the Orcs might moderately disgust as snappy, snarling beasts somewhere between zombie and wild animal, they're constantly set up as tenpins which the virile heroes make light work of. It gets to be pretty bad in TTT where Aragorn "tosses" Gimli into a packed walkway of them then jumps in himself; and then there's that bit of Legolas shooting perfect arrows as he surfs down rocky, bumpy steps on a shield (!). This campy madness goes on for goodness knows how long, until the heroes mount a retreat but then re-appear for one last stand later that morning (where there are still an impressive number of Orcs toiling in battle outside), only to be capably assisted by Gandalf, who promptly arrives with Eomer and his merry men, who all slaughter the poor buggers en masse (while genocides are implicitly condemned in AOTC: the other big fantasy movie that year where the protagonist slaughters a tribe of nomads in rage and a mage-like figure arrives to save his compatriots with a big army from the sky). In ROTK, things reach farce-like proportions, when an entire ghost army makes tidy work of thousands of hapless combatants, possessing the rather neat trick of immortality. As silly as the Ewoks made the stormtroopers look in the final chapter, they at least had the upper-hand in geography, and they weren't invincible.

I'm not sure I should even bring the painful rag-doll physics of "The Hobbit" movies up. People complaining about unwarranted CG action jamborees should have those movies in their targeting reticles at all times.

What is people's excuse, exactly, for accepting a cavalcade of silliness in other films, but condemning the same in the prequels? And why is it rarely noted that the battle droids represent a minimal threat for the Jedi, because their targets are Jedi? Not that I'm trying to bat away the "lack of tension" accusation: I'm just saying it's fun to see powerful heroes make light work of targets that might otherwise pose some difficulty (for the non-Jedi kind).

And there are some further caveats:

i) Battle droids do task the Jedi and other forces in large numbers. Lucas shrewdly shows them in larger numbers in climactic battle sequences in TPM and AOTC where casualties are inflicted (though not drawn huge attention to).

ii) Battle droids are not the only sort of droid. There are Supers, Destroyers (a quite deadly kind), and a mixture of other droids in battle -- based on crabs, spiders, vultures, et al. -- that do bring significant trouble onto the other side.

iii) The focus of the movies is manifestly not on Jedi getting pinned down and constantly risking life and limb in droid engagements. That might be a small element sublimated into a wider storyline, but the frivolous nature of such encounters (generally) also thematically undergirds the Machiavellian plotline: the constant sense that there are more serious evils at work.

I think it's fine that people point these things out. A bit more nuance and consistency might be nice, however.

 

I'm not sure I've seen this as much of a complaint, actually. I have seen the complaint that the droids (and their demise) are used for comic effect.

I also think that...maybe, just maybe, a point is being missed in terms of the comparisons you make with LOTR, particularly. I think part of the problem is that...claims are made about the intellectual value and artistry of the PT. As I've said in other threads, if someone were to argue that, hell..it's a bit jagged narratively, it's all a bit silly really but, just go along for the ride - visually its stunning, it's entertaining in a very visceral way.....If someone argued that I'd say. mkay.

But that isn't what is generally argued. It is argued as a complex political story, with a deep philosophical message (some odd conception of 'grey morality'...or some such); or as some visually loaded, symbolic piece of cinematic art.

In other words, I think they may be judged on the issues they are because of the pretensions they appear, and some of the movies' fans appear, to have built for themselves.

 

The bad guys are always great shots against anyone but the main protagonists and awful shots in battles with them. Check westerns, Sci fi, etc. That's not a problem. The bad guys usually aren't devices for slap stick, corny dialogue, or robot-like voices impersonating 1930's gangsters. That is unless the movie is a comedy or made for children. I cannot stand the battle droids in the PT to be honest and not because Jedi cut through them easily.

 

Slapsitck? When are they ever used for that? And how many lines do the droids actually have? I'll admit the Super Battle droid voices in ROTS are bad, but the droid voices in TPM and AOTC are pretty chilling in a monotonous sort of way.

 

It's been made in one form or another for years. Plinkett also makes a deal out of it in the RLM videos; which, as you know, many PT bashers give their backing to.

Well, it can be all of those things, and it can still be something more. What stops Star Wars being a fun ride and "entertaining in a very visceral way" and also being imbued with complexity and depth?

Again, how is this stuff, and the former stuff, mutually incompatible? I don't see that it is.

This reads like you're -- again -- saying that people have to choose between depth and fun.

But I know what you're really saying...

That you're unhappy with these movies, first and foremost, and that you feel that claims of depth and complexity are a sham.

Sorry, but there are some deep themes being explored in the movies, Lucas does draw from classical art (not just low-brow cinema) and even makes the movies (especially AOTC) look like paintings, and there are any number of pertinent historical references woven throughout.

Then you have the symbolic openings and endings of each film, which certainly suggests some potent allegorical ambition on Lucas' part, and they are quite beautiful to behold in and of themselves. Not to mention the rich interplay of story/visual elements: elaborate costumes, fight sequences, framing of the lovers, slapstick intertwined with serious political machinations, etc.

And that's without getting into all the clever mirroring and chiastic criss-crossing between the different entries, not to mention the quality of the cinematography, music, sound design, etc. Whether the man hit his target or not, he was at least looking to express himself in a fairly grand way.

You can still choose to regard it all as a big mess, though, if you really want.

 

You argue my point very eloquently. The thing is, you want to have it all ways. You want to point to other films and say..'see, they're the same'...without acknowledging that those movies have no real pretence to be some deep philosophical 'cinematic art-work'. In other words.... they aren't asking you to take them seriously. When you ask someone to take your work on some 'serious' level then, you should be prepared for it to be judged on that basis, not on the basis that it's just an expansive fantasy romp.

 

Say what? Last time I checked, LOTR ran away with seventeen Academy Awards, and was nominated for thirteen others. People have brayed on and on about what an "obviously superior" work of cinema those films are to Star Wars, and the prequels in particular, and acted like they're pretty much untouchable, with said Oscars and the fact they're based on a work of literature -- in this case, a respected work of fantasy literature -- being used to wall them off from criticism. They also earned near-unanimous critical acclaim and still occupy a high position on the IMDb Top 250 (9th, 11th, and 16th places, for ROTK, FOTR, and TTT, respectively). In short, on multiple levels, they are well-regarded.

Yet their depiction of Orcs as dominoes to be knocked down (and brutally murdered) by the "good guys" in all three films, with the good guys (Boromir aside) barely earning a scratch after taking on entire battalions of them, and even bragging about their kill counts, passes by without comment. While the Orcs might seem threatening in large numbers (like battle droids), they are easily felled by the toughest and noblest of the heroes in the story (Boromir, of course, struggles with his loyalties); and they are, indeed, felled, again, and again, and again. It is, as noted, sometimes even passed off as a joke, when the heroes kill them, and whatever threat they pose seems entirely secondary to the fact that they are simply too mindless, too animalistic, too crude, to ever really get the better of the indomitable, august, magnificent, courageous -- and always morally-pure -- heroes.

Star Wars has the right to be considered a pretty profound "cinematic art-work", in my opinion, because it successfully syncretizes many disparate elements together, telling a poignant and vast story, which blooms out in the telling, as it goes. That and it does have a fairly broad-brush approach, while subsuming more subtle ideas into both the smaller moments of each film, as well as encoding them into larger patterns and motifs, which you need all six films to fully perceive. I regard its lively canvas as fairly arty and deep, myself.

 

True, it was marketed as "Star Wars: The Clone Wars" and was produced by Lucas, who gave his approval to that.

 

Wait what?

I agree with Cryogenic about the orcs in LOTR. They are cannon fodder, but, that is not uncommon is fantasy/sci-fi stories. The heroes are often superior fighters, with the power of good on their side, so they indeed alway seem to beat up on the endless hordes the antagonist sends their way. You can see movies/tv shows like The Matrix, Guardians of the Galaxy, Avengers, Battle Star Galactica, The Rambo Movies, Almost every arnold schwarzenegger movie etc etc. So hordes of inept bad guys being thrown around rather easily by the good guys is nothing new to story telling.

However, since it is LOTR that has come up in the conversation, I take issue with the bold part of your reply to Cryo. LOTR has "no real pretense to be some philosophical cinematic art work"? There is a definitely a deeper philosophy at work in the LOTR trilogy. One that jumps out of the book to even the most layman of layman's like myself. The message comes across strong in The Two Towers, that man can no longer hide behind excuses, that the world of men needed to stand up and do what's right. Throughout the Trilogy, books and movies, it is mentioned many times how it is man's turn to rule and defend (middle) Earth from evil. The elves were leaving, the dwarves had no interest anymore, as did the rest of the non-humans of middle earth. So it was man that needed to step up and take his rightful place as protector and champion. It is no coincidence (from a narrative standpoint) that it was man that was most susceptible to the power of the one ring. It is no coincidence (again from a narrative standpoint) that the Nazgul, the Ringwraiths were all men. Man had to face himself and his own failures and faults in order to ascend to the position of protector in Middle Earth. Mix that with various other sources of mythology, motifs, and allegories, and you have a pretty deep philosophical take on what man should be doing, and how to go about doing it.

That is why when I saw TTT in the theater, I nearly **** myself when P. Jackson went for such a cheap Hollywood moment and brought elves to Helms Deep. Yes it was a great cinematic moment, meant to get the audiences adrenaline going in readiness for the coming battle, however... It ruins what the Battle of Helms Deep symbolizes in the book. That being Man's first trial against evil. It was a trial for man kind and man kind alone that Jackson, imho got wrong.

So there is no need for cryo to acknoledge that the LOTR movies and books have no real pretence to be some deep philosophical 'cinematic art-work'.
Because IMHO he would be wrong to do so.

LOTR is very much like Star Wars in it's deeper meanings and tones...

 

I'm still curious of the sequence of events Palpatine claimed took place to the senate that caused him to even execute this order. One would think not all of the Jedi generals were in league with a conspiracy, especially their padawans.

For a sequence of events I imagine Palpatine claimed that first Mace Windu and a few other Jedi masters tried to assassinate him and get control of information needed to control the clone army. Palpatine was able to make an emergency call to the 501st legion to assist him and eliminate the treasonous Jedi. He orders the Jedi temple locked down and all of the generals arrested or detained until an investigation can be ascertained. None of the Jedi generals comply with orders to stand down, fight back, and are killed by clone troopers innocently defending themselves. The clones occupy the temple, they are attacked by the Jedi, and an enormous battle breaks out there and starts a fire which gets out of control and kills many of the Jedi. All surviving Jedi order is outlawed and replaced with the new Imperial order of inquisitors.

The Jedi created an elaborate conspiracy to gain control of the clone army and to use it to hold the senate ransom to form its own Force led oligarchy or junta. They felt this was needed to win the Clone Wars.

 

I don't know if anybody has pointed this out but PSYCHOPATHS DO NOT FORM EMOTIONAL BOUND WITH OTHER PEOPLE if Anakin was a phsychopath he would not even have tried to safe his mom let alone avenge her.

 

But...Anakin didn't form emotional bonds, he formed attachments, which were based around a notion of himself with appendages (other people who serve a purpose in his life). His world view was dominated by himself. He had no problem turning on Obi-Wan, for example, nor even - when it came down to it - Padmé.

Oh...and people with psychopathic tendencies can and do form emotional bonds.

 

Really? Because I thought you needed empathy for that kind of stuff.

 

I don't know that I'm in the "Anakin was a psychopath" camp, though I wouldn't want him running my kid's summer camp.

For some sociopaths, what they think is love is really possessivness of a "trophy". The object of their "affection" is really the object. I see this every so often in my professional, usually between men and women divorcing where the latter would be deemed attractive and the former engages in absolutely terrible and devious behavior through the divorce. Since I know the dynamic well, I can only offer, that's not what I see in Anakin. I don't think Lucas was going for psycho or sociopath.

 

Well psychopaths are not the same as sociopaths.

 

Sure. Overall, I don't think Lucas was bogged down with the DSM IV (or whatever version then existed). Anakin was a good guy who chose the dark side. How Lucas executed that concept is maybe more open to criticism.

 

I don't think it's really a matter of opinion on whether Anakin is psychopath or sociopath because he is clearly isn't. He has empathy which is one thing that doesn't make him any of those things. Like I stated before Anakin is not someone you can just place a label on as there is so much layers there. And I think that was Lucas intent I am sure he was not trying to portray Anakin as a psychopath.

 

My only real criticism, or rather something I felt missing was a more thorough explanation of the Sith. I think in TPM there was a need for a little history lesson, ala Ben's talk about the Jedi to Luke in ANH.