I was terribly disappointed with the PT. I still love GL. Can these two notions not co-exist?

It seems that there are a group of people who defend the PT from any criticism whatsoever, in every single instance. They do not even consider the opinions of those who were disappointed as valid in any way whatsoever. They even seem to view those who were disappointed with the PT as not being ?real? fans, or something along those lines, etc. They seem to think that GL is infallible.

On the flipside, it seems that there is a group of people who utterly detest the PT and give it zero credit, as though it failed in every way possible. They seem to think the PT destroyed SW. They seem to think that GL has been exposed as a charlatan of some sort.

What I want to know is, is there a group of people out there that do not have such an ?absolute? stance about it all?

I was disappointed, and when I say disappointed, I mean TERRIBLY disappointed, with the PT. Yet I feel that GL should not be bashed beyond all belief for this. I think there are things in the PT that worked on certain levels. I still think Lucas is a genius and a heavyweight in the film-making industry. He gave us the OT. And Indy. Maybe I think the PT was a failure of sorts, yes. But it doesn?t mean that I think GL is a failure.

Are there other people out there who have these kinds of mixed emotions? Or is it that generally people are in one extreme camp or the other?

Because the people that make the most noise seem to be the extremists. I?m wondering if there is a silent majority out there, and that maybe, just maybe, the fanbase is not as extremely divided as some of these threads would indicate.

If you?re a ?mixed? guy, like me, I would love to hear from you. How do you feel about the saga as a whole, and GL as a filmmaker, considering your mixed emotions?

 

I personally love the prequels. Even better than the OT films. I do however feel certain things were missing and could have been done better. For instance, I went to see the new harry potter movie last night an certain scenes made me think "this would have been perfect in the PT films. If any of you go see the new potter film or have seen it I would love to know if you felt the same way. Tom Riddle for instance, reminded me very much of how anakin could have been shown. There is talk of the chosen one. Valdermort is spoke of as once a good gifted young sorcerer who dug into the dark arts. IT was told to him these are things not to be looke into because they are so powerful. There is a scene where the headmaster uses magic to produce a whirling flame fighting off and killing enemies with a beautiful dramatic score behind it. I couldn't help but picture palpatine doing this to kill hordes of jedi. It was very dramatic.

I have said many times that George wanted the PT to be sat morning matinees and he achieved but I can't help but wonder what things would have been like if he went for something like this potter film or something along the lines of Lord of the rings.I cry during good emotional films. Not just sad scenes but scenes of deep meaning. I never cried during the PT films One of my few regrets.


It is ok for you to be disappointed in the PT films. That does not make you a bad fan. I get called a bad fan for liking an defending the PT films all the time. You, like all of us are here an talking about what we like and dislike. All of us are fans who just happen to have different opinions. There are many things about the OT I dislike. My only gripe with the PT films is a lack of emotion and a lack proper connection of the dots to many things said in the OT films. Other than the last 10 mins I think return of the jedi is the worst of the six films.

 

I'm well aware that the prequels aren't great cinema, but that doesn't stop me from loving them any less. They represent a large part of my youth, spending free time here on the boards and sharing pictures and rumors with others who were as hopeful as I. Going to midnight shows with friends and dressing up, or in the case of AOTC, travelling to New York to attend the Tribeca premiere.

I've reconciled myself to the thought that GL is a master storyteller, but he can get caught up in the whirlwind of special effects and spectacle, and performance can suffer as a result. But still, they're Star Wars, aren't they?

 

I'm mixed. I'm the blend.

I was terribly disappointed in TPM when it came out, but slowly came around to it. It's now my favorite of the PT.

I went from liking AOTC to disliking it much. ROTS was good but flawed and I still feel that way.

But as for Lucas, the guy was and remains a true innovator in the technical side of cinema. I'm a huge fan of ILM's work and am really curious to see what Lucas comes up with after SW and Red Tails.

Grimlockbedi

A great book about all things Lucas tech is Droidmaker. Look it up on Amazon or download it for free here on the internet.

 

I like the PT (and the OT), but I wouldn't call myself an "absolutest." I think Lucas is a brilliant storyteller and idea man who sometimes struggles in getting all the broad strokes of the story into a scene by scene narrative. Visually, his compositions are top notch. I could pick out any number of freeze frame shots from the PT that stick with me in a manner that no other modern SF/F adventure films have managed to replicate. As for my thoughts on the Saga:

- Star Wars (A New Hope): very fun, very charming. Admittedly, I don't canonize this film as many other fans do, though. Leaves me wanting a bit in terms of hitting some more mythical notes, but overall it's brilliant for what it aims to do.

-The Empire Strikes Back: a (and likely the) masterpiece of the aforementioned SF/F adventure genre. The only entry of the cycle I consider a "great American film."

- Return of the Jedi: the Luke/Vader/Emperor plot line is epic. The space battle is still a technical marvel, however, a beautiful retread is still a retread. Overall this is my pick for the weakest Star Wars film, although I can still sit down and enjoy it for what it is.

- The Phantom Menace: an odd beast if there ever was one. In terms of pure visuals it's one of the most striking films I've seen, while in other stylistic areas it has a tendency to feel not quite right. Overall I think this film works as colorful adventure that manages to convey some deeper themes than many might not expect from the "surface wrapping."

- Attack of the Clones: Probably my favorite prequel. Hayden and Natalie aren't hitting Ocscar-worthy notes by any means, but overall I disagree with the widespread hate for their performances here. I consider this a fun film with some clunky passages, some utterly brilliant ones, all strung together in a manner that really captured the Star Wars essence for me.

- Revenge of the Sith: once again I'll have to disagree with the seeming majority here. Overall, this was my least favorite prequel. Certain scenes are as good as anything Lucas has ever directed, but the whole film never really came together for me.

 

I'm inclined to place Lucas alongside Herzog, Malick, Spielberg and Nolan--my four favorite living directors--but he's flawed in a way the others aren't. By his own admission, he's no actor's director, nor has he the instinct to expunge his barely-serviceable dialogue and allow his beautifully rendered scenes to speak for themselves. A shame.

With that said, it hurts to hear so many disparage Lucas--throwing around "hack" designations and analogies to Charles Foster Kane. I feel in many ways he's grown as an artist. I find his PT output more satisfying and intriguing than anything in Star Wars and Return of the Jedi, and hope that as was the case with Kurosawa, his crowning achievement will come with old age.

 

The performances in THX1138 and Graffiti are just too good for me to believe he's not good with actors (just because he didn't give them extensive directing doesn't mean he's not savvy about performances). And even in Star Wars 77, the acting is very underrated-only through a lot of work could you arrive at a point where the acting in that movie (and consequently the whole thing) could work at all, which was then refined even more for Empire.

The trouble starts in Jedi because that's when Lucas decided that stuff was just less important than just getting the plot explained and over with, OR less important than conveying his various Important Ideas. Jedi, the Young Indy tv show and the Prequels are all some combination of over-explaining or a lecture about something. It doesn't even matter if the lecture is sound or insightful or true. My hope is that Red Tails will be different, although I don't know how extensive his actual involvement in that is. I still like the guy a lot, I just can't reconcile this notion of him as a "maverick", experimental artist with 30 years of sequels, recuts and toys. It's kind of an insult to somebody like David Lynch who has repeatedly turned away from obscene amounts of money to do what he does.

 

It's simple: George Lucas was seduced by the CGI side of the Film. He ceased to be George Lucas and became Darth Special Edition.

 

for me lucas is a storyteller who simply chose the medium of film as a tool to tell his stories. all of his films are very personal - thats what i like about him the most. he was an anthropology student of course, and im fascinated by this side of him more than anything else. i feel some identity with this - its the reason his films are the way they are and why i love them so much. so my judgement of him is never dictated by the qualities of his movies but the quality of his stories. to me, no better story has ever been told than star wars 1-6 and thats why i respect him. i believe the respect for an artist and the quality of his art should go hand in hand. so i can understand why people who now dislike his movies also dislike him as a filmmaker. but in truth i think the title of filmmaker undersells him. we can argue all day his proficiency for writing screenplays or directing - like anybody, he's better at some aspects of this than others. what bugs me is that his status amongst the greats has been dictated by expectations. and few would have lived up to the expectations of 1999 or the prequels in general. what nobody could see in 1999 was how uncompromising GL was and is. its one thing i admire about him to some extent. he has the freedom (earned solely by himself) to be uncompromising. and what i mean by that is not the theory that "he doesnt have to listen to anybody" or "he's so successful he's surrounded by 'yes' men" because these are clichés and without proof. what i mean is that he did not buckle under the weight of a massive fanbase, the majority of whom wanted something different to his own vision. perhaps he was unsighted as to what the majority of the audience wanted but he never compromised his view that star wars should be a saturday morning serial adventure and of a tone akin to that of the movies he grew up watching.

without wanting to sound perverse, star wars is clearly some sort of love-letter to himself as a kid - to the kid in himself. they reflect what he loved as a kid. believable acting and cutting edge dialogue are hardly the traits of these kind of movies, so i find it funny when people seem to think this is what star wars should involve. it may be better to them if it did, but it wouldn't be better to george. this might make him seem selfish, but who cares? fundamentally all writers and artists create things that appeal to them. what gets me about the criticisms of the PT is this idea that many of the perceived flaws were accidents. the Vader "nooooo" bit for example. i have to admit, i would have personally done it differently but i respect GL for not buckling to make it be something he didn't think it should be. we may view vader as a cooler-than-thou, ruthless bad-ass. but GL doesn't. and its his character. who should have the final say? us? dont be silly. do people, average everyday viewers of the sw movies, really think they have a better eye for acting and detail? it seems that way to me. some might but im sure the majority dont. there are three possible conclusions. either GL is 1) a terribly lame filmmaker who has yet to grasp and appreciate the simple aspects of his field, such as dialogue and performance, or 2) he is a filmmaker who understands these aspects but does not care for them, or 3) he understands them and cares for them in equal measure and has opted for a more deliberate, classical, less off-the-cuff style within the context of the SW world; going against the popular trend of those seen in other films of the same generation. whether it is justified or not, any impartial observer would surely conclude that it is either the second or third of these or a combination of both.

we should remember that GL is more often than not a fan what is romantically correct, not literally correct. some seem confused by this notion. Anakin's more muted reaction to his limb being severed in AOTC than that of Luke in ESB is a good example of this. perfectly intentional and 100% what lucas wanted it to be, yet perceived by a vast majority of people too obsessed wit

 

Sorry, I'm a bit lost with this. What do you mean by American film? isn't Star Wars is a film tied to no nationalities? it is set "a long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away". its not a story about Americans or about America and it is not even solely produced by Americans. it was shot in England for a start, with a majority of British crew and actors. its not even a "Hollywood" film. its an independent film.

One of the things i love about SW is that it is tied to no nation and to no religion. to start labelling it in such a way is wrong i think.

 

Well, for one thing you'll note that I used quotations when I used the phrase, so obviously I wasn't intending for the "great American film" label to be taken too officially or literally. Mostly I meant that it is American in the sense that Lucas is an American, Kershner is an American, Ford et al. are American, it was distributed by a major American studio, helped jump-start the franchise-mania method of filmmkaing that is such a huge part of American pop culture today, etc.

That's not to say that ESB/Star Wars hasn't made a huge impact on other countries, but at the end of the day I think it's safe to say that Lucas's creations are obviously not considered Japanese films, or Chinese films, or German films, or Australian films. They're films made by an American director - hence American films - that have made a huge mark in many places not limited to the U.S.

 

no but they're movies for all nations/genders/races/religions, made by people of all nations/genders/races/religions. and the distribution is by 20th Century Fox, now owned by australian Ruper Murdoch, and at the time of ESB co-controlled by a spaniard. and thats only the distribution - its not the financing of the film so even that isnt all that important. 20th century fox have distributed a lot of british movies. its hair-splitting but just because the director is american shouldn't mean it is considered an american movie. return of the jedi isnt a Welsh movie. right now i'm watching 'The Right Stuff' - a movie which is undeniably American. anyway, i know its not a massive thing but i was curious to see what you meant. sorry for diverting the thread.

 

It was a casual classification based on the facts of the films' conception and development. Just because you call something "an American film" doesn't mean you're saying "look away, this isn't for you, limey."

 

i never implied that it would. as i said, i've no issue with a great film like 'The Right Stuff' being classed as American. I enjoy it and appreciate it and don't treat its assigned nationality as anything hostile. i will though object to the observation, however casual, that an independent movie which was produced in multiple countries, with a crew made up of technicians and actors from multiple nations, set in outer space, devoid of nationalities and known cultures is "a great american film", because its falsely associating and implying the film's success to be a nation's success. i'm not sure anyone would be so quick to call it a "terrible american film" were they to hate it. ESB is not, as far as i'm concerned, an American film. i would have this opinion regardless of my own nationality.

i dont want to make a big thing of it, but i couldn't let it pass without comment either. personally, i dont think any film has really a nationality, though i've no problem with one being classed by such a thing, if there's some proper justification.

 

Why not? I consider Terminator Salvation to be both terrible and American, hence it's a terrible American film. Ditto the new Trek.

Anyways, this is turning into a major derailment, so I'll say no more other then you might want to get to altering this Wikipedia page, d_arblay, lest someone gets away with "implying the film's success to be a nation's success."

 

well neither is Wikipedia a wholly accurate or reliable source of information, nor is the link you gave me addressing the film we are debating. there is a key difference between the two films - ANH is not an independent movie.

 

I've referred to TESB as one of the great American films, as a way to suggest it's the only installment I'd conceivably put on a Top 100 list. (In comparison, I'd designate ROTS and ANH as great genre films, but couldn't possibly place them in the company of The Apartment or McCabe & Mrs. Miller.)

 

I think the Star Wars saga is a high watermark for movies, unmatched and rarely even approached by what passes for "great cinema" these days.

It's not that they are perfect, it's just they do so much right that any shortcomings are easily overlooked.

I certainly have no problem with people who think they could have or should have been better.

I just think that it is what it is, and you can spend your time celebrating it for what it is or lamenting it for what it's not. I think one's time is much better spent celebrating it for what it is.

 

I'd argue the opposite.

ANH is a great film, period--the ultimate homage to nostalgia. In its historical context, a brilliant confection that was responding to the times and the contemporary cinema in which it was released; divorced from this, still the ultimate post-modern pop art film of the 20th century, a fusion of myth, fairy tale, pulp literature, comic books and B-movies of all sorts. Aside from its plenthora of innovations and cultural significance.

ESB on the other hand--a brilliant sci-fi-fantasy/franchise piece, a terrific take on the genre in a manner that is as adult and serious as many have always hoped but never seen delivered, a great expansion and enrichment of the world devised for Star Wars and a work rivaled perhaps only by Peter Jacksons LORT trilogy.

Star Wars is the cinema masterpiece that was culturally relevant for the way in which it referenced, turned upside down and re-invigorated the cinema that had come before it in a way that was culturally relevant and technically revolutionary. ESB is just a really, really well told sci-fantasy film that expanded on what SW had already done.

 

I think it's very possible for the two notions to co-exist. I was disappointed with the PT overall, but really enjoyed aspects of it. To me GL is a brilliant man - a visionary who reinvented cinema and had an amazing ability to get something dome against the odds. As a film maker, I don't think GL is the same man he was in the 70s and I think that's reflected in the two very distinct trilogies. That's not a criticism of the man. It's just reality. As we get older, our priorities change and we go about things differently. I get the impression that in the early days, he was making films because he was inspired by them at a given time, whereas now he's very much into the big picture, particularly his legacy as the teller of the great single story of Star Wars.

 

As long as you like some of Lucas' other works, of course it can. I can't stand the latest Harry Potter film, along with GOBLET OF FIRE; but I still like the franchise as a whole.

 

To all, thanks for your thoughts. I enjoy discussing the saga from this perspective and in this manner.

ChrissySnow21 I have not seen any of the Harry Potter films, but I hope to maybe catch the one you mention in order to view another director's take on similar themes. It sounds like it worked well. And I too, wonder what things would have been like had GL used the story for the PT 'as-is' but also more heavily concentrated on the acting and human aspect of it all. It's one of the things that makes me sad about the prequels. The story is so great and the tapestry is so rich, but IMO the acting and human elements just do not meet the high standard of the backdrop. And I just totally wish they had, because it would have been a masterpiece, I really believe that.

Along these lines, Ambassador Cara Jade also notes:

And I agree with the sentiment, but wish it ALL would have been there, for a total-package type experience.

ShaneP my opinions of the PT films pretty much match yours. I too have come around somewhat to TPM, and have cooled on AOTC. ROTS, I am mixed. Will look into Droidmaker if I get the chance, thanks for the tip.

ezekial22x, a very succinct and IMO on-target summary of some of GL's strengths and weakness:

drg4 I too am dismayed, although I have to admit I myself went through a period of being "upset" (for lack of a better term) with GL right after TPM and AOTC. But despite being upset (or whatever), I never felt like I was 100% ready to write GL off entirely the way some had done. The prequels weren't horrible. GL has an impressive track record without the PT anyway. And the PT, with all of its failings as I see them, still demands attention and praise for a variety of things. These types of issues are why I don't fully understand the persistent 'GL absolutely sucks now and forever and always has' business (despite the fact that I didn't love the PT).


d_arblay I hear what you are saying, but for me, I disconnect with looking at it the way you do at the broadest conceptual level:

While I agree with you on a storytelling level (i.e. GL is a master storyteller and the story behind the saga, every single chapter of it, cannot be beat), my satisfaction with his work on the PT films does hinge on their success as movies. I experience them as movies, and I can't view them through any other prism. So if the story is awesome, but other things lack, I am disappointed.


Gary_Buchenara I agree on most points.

DRush76 your analogy works for me.

 

Hey, I love the saga as a whole; even if I prefer to watch the PT more than the OT. I find it sad that so many fans are incapable of appreciating the entire saga and its story.

 

I definitely consider myself someone very much like you. But, say ONE THING negative about the PT and you're labeled a 100% basher extreme.

I was terribly disappointed in the PT as well. The only thing that bothers me about GL are his decisions regarding the OOT. They are what made him who he is today. How can he simply turn his back on them, calling them UNFINISHED? Maybe I'm mistaken, but aren't finished movies the ones we see in theaters? I would think an unfinished movie would be sitting on a shelf somewhere. I'd love to see them released properly on DVD and BluRay someday. Call them the foundation series or something catchy like that. Lucas is good at marketing, that's for sure.

 

just because a movie is contractually tied to a release date with a studio doesn't neccessarily mean it is always finished before that release date. a film is finished when the director is happy with it or happy they have done everything they possibly can to get it to match their original vision . there's nothing wrong with a director going back if they get the opportunity, saying "look, this is what I really wanted. i couldnt get it at the time for various restrictions." we know lucas was never as happy as he could have been with ANH, even at the time.

i think there is pehaps a case to be made for him not tampering with ROTJ and ESB, as he didnt officially direct those movies, even though they had to match his vision. but as far as i'm aware, Kershner gave his blessing to make alterations, and I doubt Marquand would have minded too much. they all suffered the same technological restrictions. i'd argue that if your belief is that old movies should not be tampered with once released, i'd go as far to say that they shouldn't be restored, digitised and cleaned up etc. i don't know why its considered so abhorrent to visually alter a shot here or there or add a scene as long as they dont entirely alter the story or the genre of the film.