PT Should Lucas Have Done More to Ensure TPM Didn't Disappoint Some Fans?

I've been trying to come up with a response about the acting for this thread, but never mind. This says it. This says ALL of it.


Sent from my brain using thumbs.

 

I don't see it, either. There was never a moment in that scene where I felt the actors weren't sincere in their performance.

Okay, Lucas was going for a Victorian feel to his dialogue...I can see that. I figured that from the get-go. But the key problem to a lot of the acting in the Prequels is due to poor delivery of Lucas's lines, which ultimately falls on the director, again. If the lines were too awkward for the actors to say, then Lucas should have seen that and did something about it. Instead, he chose to make his actors portray themselves as if they were reading out of a comic book, which is pretty much what the scripts amounted to.

 

Um, if the movie fails to convey its point to a large section of the audience (which is undeniably true in the case of the prequel films), then it is the movie’s issue. After all, don’t just take my word for it. Let’s take the word of a man who saw more films in his lifetime than you or I will ever see:

Now you can’t seriously expect me to believe that someone as knowledgeable about film as Roger Ebert was unfamiliar with older styles of acting. He obviously agrees: the acting doesn’t convey the emotion. But I guess Roger was just too much of a dullard to appreciate the sophistication, subtlety and artistry of the prequel films. The problem isn’t that the performances are subtle. Look at Robert De Niro in TAXI DRIVER. Look at Al Pacino in THE GODFATHER films. Look at Jack Nicholson in CHINATOWN (as opposed to some of Nicholson’s later, showier and more grandiose work, such as THE SHINING or BATMAN). Those are subtle performances. Those actors manage to convey volumes with expressions and body language. The performances in the prequels are largely just flat.

As I’ve said, I thought Liam Neeson and Ewan McGregor were fine. But with those two (especially Neeson), we know that they’re great actors. It’s not hard for someone like Neeson to convey a sense of wisdom and quiet dignity. I’d seen him in SCHINDLER’S LIST by the time THE PHANTOM MENACE came out, so I know he can do some powerful stuff with just his expressions and body language. The scene where Schindler and his girlfriend are going horseback riding and witness the ghetto massacre, the scene where it looks like it’s snowing and he wipes it off his car and the audience realizes that it’s not snow, but the ashes of burned bodies, the scene where he and Itzhak Stern have a drink together (“Someday, this is…all going to end, you know. I was going to that we should have a drink then, but…”). Neeson does a fantastic job of creating a stark contrast between Schindler’s earlier callousness and his later compassion. Even the quiet dignity and wisdom is something he showed that he could excel at in that film, notably when he’s trying to comfort Helen Hirsch and when he’s trying to convince Amon Goeth that mercy is actually the strongest and greatest display of true power (“Power is when we have every justification to kill, and we don’t.”). He’s a great actor, and he doesn’t need George Lucas to tell him how to act. Compared to Oskar Schindler, STAR WARS was probably a breeze for him. So I knew going into the film that subtlety isn’t a hard thing for someone like him, and when I first found out about his casting, I thought that he was a perfect choice to play a wise Jedi Master. I never had any doubt that he could pull it off, and Neeson didn’t disappoint. I wish he’d been given a stronger character to play, but that’s not Neeson’s fault. The only thing Neeson seems to have difficulty with is crying scenes.

I also think McGregor really does do a good job with Obi-Wan. He effectively manages to show us the transformation of Obi-Wan from a rasher, more aggressive young man (notably during the final fight with Darth Maul) into the wise and kindly old sage that would eventually encourage Luke Skywalker to learn the ways of the Force and become a Jedi like his father. He manages to convey the powerful sense of heartbreak that Obi-Wan feels about the extermination of the Jedi, as well as the betrayal of the man he once considered his best friend. Frankly, I’ve always felt bad for McGregor because he really does a good job and he really deserved better films to be in. Largely due to McGregor, Obi-Wan is (along with the Emperor) one of the few prequel characters I can actually envision growing into his original trilogy counterpart. I don’t see Ewan McGregor in these films. I see a young Alec Guinness (especially in REVENGE OF THE SITH).

Portman’s performance is just flat, and sort of had this deer-in-the-headlights quality to it. Her default facial expression in these movies just seems to be awkward confusion, like she’s waiting for her director to help her out, and he’s not saying anything to her. Christensen does fine when he’s allowed to just sit and/or stand quietly or he has to shoot a menacing stare, but his line readings are just terrible. He really sounds like he’s trying to say the awful dialogue phonetically so as not to trip over it. “If. You’re. Not. With. Me. Then. You’re. My. En. Uh. Me.” Again, I attribute this to lousy direction and writing rather than to Christensen.

As I said, I have nothing but respect for Ewan McGregor. He manages to overcome these ridiculous obstacles that would’ve defeated many other actors to deliver a very good performance. I know he’s said that people have come up to him and harassed him over the problems the prequel trilogy had, and that’s not cool. He did a fine job under very difficult circumstances, and I think he deserves alot of respect for that.

With Christensen and Portman, I see actors who’ve shown talent elsewhere being overwhelmed by the weight of bad direction and bad writing. I really don’t blame them. I especially think the attacks on Hayden Christensen are particularly unwarranted and mean-spirited. He was given a terribly-written character to play, he had to deal with a director who doesn’t like working with actors and lines written by a man who admits that he’s a terrible writer of dialogue. So let me be clear- insulting Hayden Christensen is monumentally uncool. It really wasn’t his fault and he’s a fine actor. I give him alot of slack where these movies are concerned. I actually think it’s a bit of a shame that the intense hatred he received seems to have derailed his career. That’s not right. I mean, we don’t blame Samuel L. Jackson for his awkward, stiff and wooden performance in the prequel films. We know it’s a result of bad writing and bad direction. We know that Jackson is one of the most charismatic and engaging actors of his generation, whether it’s in his work with Quentin Tarantino or THE AVENGERS movies. I think it’s only fair to give Christensen the same benefit of the doubt.

 

Kuro Jesus Christ... I get it. You don't like it. MOVE ON.

You are clearly not interested with engaging with the material as it is, but instead with how you think it should be. I usually respect Ebert, but I feel the same towards his review, written after a grand total of 1 viewing of the film.

I do not understand why you people go to such lengths to make sure that everyone is just as unappreciative of the films as you are. This is the Prequel Trilogy forum. You know, for people who want to engage with the material as it is. All you've said is that it's failed your criteria. Great! But that doesn't enhance or engage the material in any serious way for the rest of us. I'm sure there is a better way for you to spend your time than to come on these boards simply to bash films because you are unable to enjoy them.

 

I probably wouldn’t bother except for the (removed, bashing users). It all conveys a tone of, “You were too stupid to understand it.” “It was too subtle for your simple mind.” “You just aren’t smart enough to be able to appreciate it and engage it.” The tone of it is clear- anyone who didn’t like the prequel films was just too stupid and ignorant to understand their brilliance. You’re entitled to that opinion but don’t be surprised if it rubs many people the wrong way…especially since the reaction to the prequel trilogy was heavily divided, at best. These were not films that were widely embraced and adored the way the original trilogy was, or the way that other pop cultural milestones, such as THE GODFATHER, JAWS, ROCKY, RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK, BACK TO THE FUTURE, TERMINATOR 2: JUDGMENT DAY, THE LORD OF THE RINGS and THE DARK KNIGHT were.

The criticisms I’m offering have been voiced by people far more knowledgeable about film than either you or I are. I think Roger Ebert knew a thing or two about film history and older styles of acting. He still thought the characters were flat and boring. And I think it’s indicative of a certain mindset that the opinions of someone like Roger Ebert are just so casually dismissed.

I really don’t care if you enjoy the prequel films. Enjoy them to your heart’s content. Nobody is taking them away from you. But at least try to understand that many people have legitimate problems with these movies and found them to be incredibly frustrating and disappointing.

Also, it’s kinda hard to move on when Lucas did everything he could to force the prequel trilogy down everyone’s throats (like by inserting Hayden Christensen into RETURN OF THE JEDI and then removing the original version from circulation). He refused to let people just ignore the movies and pretend that they didn’t exist. I can’t think of any other franchise where that’s happened. It’s easy to ignore the lame JAWS sequels and just enjoy the first film. It’s easy to ignore SUPERMAN III and SUPERMAN IV: THE QUEST FOR PEACE and just enjoy the first two. It’s easy to ignore STAR TREK V: THE FINAL FRONTIER and just enjoy the good STAR TREK films. It’s easy to ignore DIE ANOTHER DAY and just enjoy the good James Bond films. It’s easy to ignore THE HOBBIT trilogy and just enjoy THE LORD OF THE RINGS trilogy. It’s even easy to ignore INDIANA JONES AND THE KINGDOM OF THE CRYSTAL SKULL and just enjoy the previous films. But you really have to search in order to ignore the STAR WARS prequels and just enjoy the originals.

 

You mean, try to understand the criticisms that we have heard from the past dozen or more years? The same ones we find in every other corner of the internet? The same ones loudly insisted in our faces if we admit that we like these films? Yeah, those ones. And usually, they are from people that haven't actually taken the time to see if there's any hidden depth to what their criticizing. You are a shining example of this.

Sigh. Victim much? Wow. I am not calling you stupid. I mean, I wonder how well this aligns with my stated opinion of, "You just have to enjoy it with an open mind because if you go into it with skepticism, you will see issues with them." Does that sound like I am saying these films are of amazing intelligence that everyone will see if they open their eyes to it? No, it sounds like I'm saying it's a movie and if you enjoy it, fine, and if you don't, fine.

I can't be bothered to respond to a lot of the things you say because going through the laundry list of disagreements I have with them and explaining what is going on under the surface in the films would be pointless because you are not open to anything I say.

My perspective is that art exists; people exist with their own tastes; if a film falls within the range of your tastes, it is 'good;' if a film falls outside that range it is 'bad.' All you are telling me is that the film falls outside your range of tastes. There are ample defenses of the prequels for those whose tastes are open to them. For example, "Aliens vs. Predators 2: Requiem" falls outside my tastes. Most sit-coms do too. I could go on and on about how they are so bad for this reason or that reason, or I blame the writer for this reason, or I don't blame the actors for that reason; I could refer to other 'professionals' who share my opinion and everything would be hunky dory. But I don't. Why? Because the reason I don't enjoy those art forms is because of me. If others enjoy them, they enjoy them by their own reasoning. The see the things in it I cannot see. Perhaps if I wanted to I could be open to it. But since I'm not, I won't go on about it because complaining about art I don't appreciate doesn't enhance my life. Ideally, I could appreciate all works of human art. At present, I can't, but I won't go around showing off that I can't.

I mean, look at it this way. Why would I go into the OT forum to rant my problems with those films? Why would I expect anyone to listen to criticisms I'm sure they've heard a thousand times before? And wouldn't it be an extremely rude thing to do? No. It is good for people to enjoy what they enjoy, and to dig deeply in it together to find what resonates with them. This whole issue actually all comes down to deep things -- how you view your life, and how you want to live it. I don't want to live a life of disparaging things that exist. I want to live a life of appreciation; if I can't appreciate it, I try to let it go by. I heard that Christopher Nolan appreciates Michael Bay films. I am glad for that. That's the perspective I think would be good. Appreciation, and if you can't appreciate, let others discuss what they enjoy about it without critique. Perhaps there is beauty in Bay's films that I miss. Okay. I let others see the beauty and perhaps they can let me know the goodness of them that I am missing.

So no. I don't look down on you for not enjoying the PT films because you are just 'too stupid to understand them.' It's not personal. I think there is beauty and intelligence in the films. You do not. It resonates with me. It does not for you. That doesn't mean you are stupid, that just means you are a different person with different tastes and a different personality. So I encourage you to enjoy what you enjoy, and enhance that enjoyment with others who sees the beauty you see. But I would also encourage you to please stop pointing out to us all the times you cannot see the beauty; that is not the failing of the films, because clearly others enjoy them and there are good reasons why they do. It's about being right or wrong or smart or dumb. Just appreciate what you can in life before you die. And don't spend time dwelling on what you don't. Just my two cents, take it or leave it. Peace.

 

Yeah, this really does sound like you’re saying, “Well, if you actually put the effort into seeing all the hidden depth and beauty in the prequels, then you’d love them.” I wanted to like the prequel trilogy. I wanted to like the new set of STAR WARS films. I’ve even revisited them a few times to see if maybe I was missing something. Maybe I’d set my expectations too high, and if I went back knowing what to expect, maybe I’d like it. But I still found the characters to be uninteresting, the dialogue to be awkward and clumsy, the performances by Christensen and Portman to be very poorly-directed and the whole endeavor felt more like a cold, sterile and lifeless technical exercise than a grand epic three-part tragedy about the downfall of a great man (on a micro level) and the decline of a civilization (on a macro level).

At this point, the only prequel film I really could ever see myself revisiting is REVENGE OF THE SITH. There’s still a lot I dislike about that film, but it has some elements that I can enjoy. It’s similar to RETURN OF THE JEDI in the sense that when I revisit it, I make liberal use of the fast forward button.

Easier said than done with STAR WARS, and you know this. I wish George Lucas had taken the attitude of “enjoy what you enjoy”. Instead, he took the attitude of, “Look, I’m really really sorry that you guys made me a billionaire and allowed me access to unlimited resources and unprecedented creative freedom, but I don’t care if you like these movies. I want them to disappear off the face of the Earth.” Again, it’s pretty difficult to “just enjoy what you enjoy”, when what you don’t enjoy is plastered in there 20 years after the fact and what you do enjoy is taken off the market.

No one is taking the prequels away from you. But George Lucas did take the original trilogy away from us. And when we asked him to take our money, his response was that we needed to grow up and stop enjoying what we enjoyed because it no longer fit in with his grand vision.

 

I like how people come here to complain about the Prequel bashing, when clearly the topic expresses us to give an opinion on the subject matter. Excuse us for coming here, then.

 

Just watched the PT recently and, oh boy, did the actors do a hell of a great job delivering GL´s brilliant lines. They new exactly what Lucas wanted from them and they pulled it off beautifully.

 

That did come up and is talked about in "The Making Of Revenge Of The Sith", where Lucas and Ewan talk after each take where Obi-wan breaks down as Anakin is burning up. Lucas is doing his best to direct him and Ewan suggests a line change, which leads to another line change. The other line didn't end up in the movie, but it shows how they both recognized what was and what wasn't working.

"You are my brother, Anakin. I love you, but I could not help you."

To...

"You were my brother, Anakin. I loved you, but I will not help you."

And finally...

"You were my brother, Anakin. I loved you."

I think that's how it went. Might be off on the first sentence.

 

The PT dialogue was more clever than the mass opinion makes it seem, but it had it's weaknesses. The acting really depended on which actors, and how well they actually realised the implications of the story, plus what they could personally bring to the table.


Liam Neeson carries much of TPM; as many say, his character's presence is sorely lacking in the following films, seemingly intentionally.
Ian Mcdiarmid is crucial, of course always masterfully helping Lucas's dialogue sound quite intelligent. TPM is arguably my favourite version of Sidious/Palpatine next to the ROTJ Emperor. A convincing obvious contrast, yet if you look deeper there are many ironies exchanging between his two personas. Such as Sidious/the TF interrupting Palpatine's early holo-chat (with Amidala) with his own communications disruption. And Palpatine pleading to Amidala much later in the film "Stay here, where it's safe!" holding the irony that now Padme has called for a vote of no confidence, Sidious really doesn't actually need her there anymore... plus Coruscant is where Padme will have several attempts on her life in the next film, so it really isn't safer than Naboo in the first place.
Natalie Portman I like better than in 2 and 3, I didn't feel the same enthusiasm in those, just from my pov. Jake Lloyd does adequately with the role he is given, a simpler Anakin for a simpler era, but with some complexity beneath starting to bubble. Obi-Wan is underused and I much prefer him in ROTS, but Ewan is a pretty strong actor. And as others here have said, Pernilla August as Shmi was pretty overlooked back when the film came out. She helps the whole movie feel more tragic and epic.
Most of the smaller characters in TPM were acted professionally.

Personally I would mash a lot of elements of AOTC Anakin into TPM Anakin and vice versa, but this is nitpicking based mostly on my more lukewarm feelings for AOTC. Symbolically the PT character arcs are pretty strong, it's just a little uneven Imo. EDIT: To me the biggest difference between the PT and OT characters is seemingly more presence of a "higher power" in the PT somehow. I mean, the droids coming to Luke in ANH and starting his journey always felt like destiny and will of the force, but in the
PT things are a little... trippier? Like there is something we know, and are completely supposed to know, that the characters don't have a clue about, but if you did try to explain it to the characters it would probably be impossible to describe.

Revenge of the Sith for dialogue and acting I only find weaker than ESB, besides this ROTS is my top pick. ROTS is a really solid effort on most fronts, the attention to detail in it is quite astounding.

 

Just to expand on my edit above, the more predetermined aspect of the PT events does seem to revolve around the force's balance I believe.
I don't think without the "cursed" vibe and dovetail of the PT events can ROTJ truly be balancing.

 

The PT dialogue was more clever than the mass opinion makes it seem, but it had it's weaknesses.

The OT dialoque was also more clever than the mass opinion makes it seem, but it also had it´s weaknesses.

 

Just wanted to say even as someone who likes the PT I completely agree. Being critical of the PT doesn't mean your bashing it and people shouldn't take stuff like different opinions so personally. Same thing goes with the OT, if someone doesn't like something in the OT that doesn't mean their trolls.

 

I would also point out that when Lucas did the same style with ANH (and that carried over to both TESB and ROTJ though maybe not as strongly with different directors) that at that point it was only a few decades away from that sort of style being more prevalent. The general audience was still exposed to it from those movies being viewed more frequently due to the few channels on TV. By the time of the prequels add another couple of decades plus Lucas going even further into the past in acting style as well as even by then the viewing of movies of the past had become far more niche in the expanding TV universe.

There is a great quote from Lucas specifically on the love story in AOTC and the acting style he very deliberately and with forethought and planning used. I don't have it now but I'll get it later.

Well this is the subjective part as always isn't it?

I think that HC and NP are simply terrific. They are constantly good and often knock it right out of the park. The AOTC fireside scene is really rather awesome in it's conception and execution. Arguably one of the best dialogue based scenes in all 7 movies so far.

I don't disagree that the PT actors should have to be held to a higher standard in principle due to the overall far greater level of difficulty of their parts. I really haven't gone too in-depth to it on a movie by movie character by character basis. Obviously in terms of the lead casts between Anakin, Padme and Obi-Wan then add in on a film by film basis with Qui-Gon, Palpatine and others like Mace, Dooku, Jango the overall character depth of the PT is wider.

Again from your comments about HC and NP you simply don't agree that the characters should be the way they are and as Lucas wanted them to be. I would say then your problem isn't with them but what Lucas wanted and what they did deliver to him.

I can't fathom this idea you put forward that the films don't give NP anything to do. To me if I apply that logic to CF in the OT and DR in TFA then if NP has nothing to do then the other two females heroes by comparison do nothing at all in their respective films.

NP gets far more to do on an impact character level in both driving not only the story and plot but also the characters around her. In particular Anakin who is the main character. In comparison the other two are dragged around by the story that surrounds them. Rey is particularly useless in that harsh respect (which I don't agree with anyway but am using as a point of reference in comparison to your assertion).

Leia's actual character impact on Luke is next to nothing in the OT save for plot reasons. It doesn't really effect Luke and what does (her being his sister) is not because of Leia being Leia but being his sister. Actual meaningful scenes between them are next to zero. Only worse is Han who also has basically one actual impactful scene from ANH.

I get that some fans don't like the writing and direction. I love the writing and direction. I can say with no problem it's excellent and I never had much of any problem with any of it anymore than I ever had with any of the other films including TFA.

I find TFA to be the weakest movie by far but then again it's also not one directed or produced by Lucas so it doesn't really fit well with the others. They are trying to make a new style that sort of wants to be a bit like the OT but isn't really that but like TFA itself it wants to be a remembrance of that but also wants to be what Star Wars never was and that is modern. So we'll see how it develops. The thing is of course that each movie really is going to be from a different director with different styles and no real oversight from an artistic perspective like Lucas for 6 movies.

The trouble is that (and this is actually the great thing about the PT) is that they reactions are all over the place so trying to make it any one thing in terms of the acting and style is difficult. The above that you talk about is certainly a major factor from everything I have gathered over the years from fans.

In terms of TPM it was that "wooden" and not overtly demonstrative style ala TFA that cause trouble for some. The formal acting style as such is part of the formal world actually in TPM with politicians, Jedi, etc. This does not apply in-world to Anakin or other characters like Watto who are very emotional.

In terms of Anakin in AOTC he is by far the most emotionally wrought character in the entire saga but even that causes problems because now he is too emotional and in the "wrong" way. He is 19 like Luke and Rey when we first meet them at this point and he is not being what fans expect of their young heroes. Well actually he is in that he is open and honest in his emotions but people are used to this meaning that it's only positive attributes that should be brought forth not ones that show that all is not simply going well. A bit of frustration is fine but look at how great 19 year old Luke and Obi-Wan got along. How come Anakin can't get along the same way? Luke has a crush on Leia but he doesn't pursue her (even by the time of TESB set years later) while Anakin is in pursuit until Padme says it can't happen. Then he becomes friends with her like Luke to Leia and only when Padme makes her love pledge does he enter into the relationship because she allows it. This is something that those who don't like the set-up always overlook. They use that ridiculous 'stalker' angle which actually applies far better to Han in TESB (they don't like to talk about that).

Interlinked it's also very clever together.



My name is Anakin.



That name has no meaning to me.

 

Well, financial success doesn't make the original title a fallacy and this thread gave dozens of great examples to support that. But you're the boss.

 

Great post. I'd like to share my thoughts and experiences regarding this.
What you've said is a perfect example of someone understanding where the director is coming from and enhancing the material by appreciating the art.

And I suppose that was my main objection to some things earlier in this thread, that I should now clarify. I do believe informed discussion is worthwhile, and informed criticism is less beneficial but can, under the right circumstances, be as worthwhile as informed discussion. It is simply that so little of the criticism these films encounter enhances the discussion in much of a meaningful way, and it does not enhance the appreciation of the art itself.

I guess what I mean is that it's sort of like with Shakespeare -- if I came into a room of scholars who study Shakespeare, and I told them I didn't like how Shakespeare ended King Lear; they would simply take that as my opinion (which is fine), but if I am thinking that I am contributing more than my opinion, that is where I'm wrong. To the scholars engaging in the material, my saying 'I don't like how Shakespeare did this' or 'I don't think this worked' is next to worthless because it doesn't engage with the material, it just reacts to it. In the same way, if I went to a painting gallery and said I don't like the painting or how the artist applied the colors, that'd be obviously my opinion. It would be considered more revealing of my own tastes than of the painting itself. It would not -- and should not -- be considered an objective judgment of the quality of the painting. Such a thing does not exist.

The problem here is when it gets to be popular mass media. Suddenly everyone has an opinion, and some opinions flock closer together and more loudly than others. The more people, the more confidence people have that it is right. The louder they are, the more it is perceived as true. And since it is easier to find a problem with something than to step outside of one's own comfort zone and appreciate it in a new light, negative opinions are catered to more. And, bit by bit, the closed attitude exhibited by the 'judge' of literature or painting, as above in example, becomes heralded.

Slowly over time there is an unspoken -- or sometimes spoken -- criteria and judgment applied to these things, eventually creating the illusion that the popular art itself is separately, actually good or bad. The ratings system, the thumbs up or down, everything in our society is conditioned to move towards this. In this way, people judge art and, without meaning to, they limit themselves into a small category of appreciation by neglecting the rest. Whatever doesn't fall into one's tastes are seen as external errors or mistakes of the art, and even if those things were put there intentionally, this is either dismissed as the flaws of the artist or they are ignored entirely. In this way people keep themselves shielded from new ideas, new experiences, and new art. It is a comfortable state, and it is pretty impervious to any attempted changes from the outside.

Unfortunately, I know this too well, because for a while I was taken in by this view of art. During that time, from my comfortable arena, I was convinced by RLM and the rest, unquestioningly, and without looking for anything deeper, I banished the films to the easy category of 'bad.' That was very convenient. Like fellow bashers, I wouldn't have to expand my horizons or question my assumptions to enjoy those films. I could just conclude that I knew enough to know what was 'good' and 'bad,' and dismiss them. In this way, for several years I was very unappreciative to the prequels and the rest, and I got an inside look at how that thinking works amongst those who have it.

Slowly I opened up again, first to the soundtracks, then to the films themselves. And bit by bit, the unique vision of the films, the artistry of them, and the thought put into them eventually did win me over, in tandem with my widening appreciation of other art forms. Finally I rewatched them entirely with an open mind and they won me over totally as they had on first viewing years ago. Then as I learned more and more about the production and the themes embedded in them, my respect increased. Until now, I enjoy them about as equally -- though differently -- than the OT. I am glad I gave them another look. And it makes me sad when I see how so many will not, because I am pretty sure I know what mindset it's coming from. Unfortunately the attitude towards the PT I am criticizing is simply a symptom of a much larger problem, one that is beyond the scale of this post for me (or pherpas anyone?) to tackle.

"In the beginner's mind there are many possibilities,
but in the expert's there are few."
-- Zen Master Shunryu Suzuki

In any case, that went on far too long and delved into personal experiences, but I just wanted to say I enjoyed your post and I appreciate that you are open to the experiences and insights the films can provide.

 

TPM hype was ridiculous. MTV UK ran daily bulletins about it. Lucas had zero control over the hype train - the media went CRAZY over Episode I. Rumours, speculation, hype was far beyond anything TFA ever experienced. That's what hurt TPM the most. Expectations went through the roof and then the atmosphere.

No matter what the movie contained, it could never meet the wild hype and expectations set by the media. It was going to fail, no matter what.

 

Well, not really fail. But it would disappoint a portion of the audience.

 

Now for that quote from Mythmaking: Behind the Scenes of Attack of the Clones



So Lucas knew exactly what he was doing and was quite happy with how it turned out full well knowing that it simply wasn't going to go over with some people.

 

Strange that the cast don't agree, esp re TPM. Neeson said they were all quite wooden in TPM, McGregor thought it was flat & disappointing & Portman said "everyone" thought she was a horrible actress after that movie. Then there are all of the Razzie awards for bad acting. How do you explain such a gap between these two positions?

That may affect the initial response but it's had 17 years to be re-assessed. History hasn't been kind. The 3D reviews for example in 2012 were even worse than the initial ones. It's almost always dead last in fan polls, unless AotC beats it to that position. We can't still, after all these years blame expectations for its poor status. Look at movies like The Shining, Blade Runner & even ESB. They started out with poor, mixed or merely good reviews & have become known as classics. Same thing could've happened with TPM. It hasn't.

 

I just took a quick pick on this thread, looked at the latest posts and...



But to whoever is interested, I'm going to give my two cents.

To answer once again the question of this thread: "Should Lucas Have Done More to Ensure TPM Didn't Disappoint Some Fans?"

No. An artwork or whatsoever, doesn't have to answer to the fans' requirements. In this sense, one can think what he wants about the prequels, he can love them, or describe them as "infanticide". Lucas has proposed something in his name, with its vision and his approach. When he made the original Star Wars from 1977, there were no expectations and requirements from the public or a fan-club. Nobody wanted to do it back then. Lucas followed his own vision as he did when he was making the prequels (for the best or the worst), he didn't follow the requirements of a fan-club or wanted to please the public. The best example of what I'm saying is a popular group of musicians: when they are composing a song, they are not doing it by following the requirements of their fans or in order to please the public, they are doing it because they want to do it.

The fans (myself included) do not have to be reassured: the "creative" people must be able to offer them a new approach, something innovative or even out of their comfort zone in order to surprise. After that, it's up to the public to hate it or to like it, this is the normal course of things.

However, where things have heavily derailed in all of this story, for over 15 years, is that, not only fans, but also critics and people in the media, have used the fact that TPM, and the other prequels, have disappointed many, or some, to attack Lucas' credibility and success. It's one of thing to critiscize a movie. But then, using the fact that a movie disappointed some to attack the person, its personality and its success, and using sentences such as "Lucas betrayed the fans and the people who made him famous" or "he's a greedy corporate scrooge"? The worst is that many people are now disowning Lucas in order to defend the interests of Walt Disney who is proposing nothing more than a return to nostalgia in order to flatter the most embittered of the fans...

 

I've promised myself to exit this thread [as I don't think it is really going anywhere productive], but I'd just like to say that if what you say is true -- I am, in this instance, supposing it is and giving you the benefit of the doubt, as all three actors have expressed that they were pleased with their work and would love to return to the universe -- sometimes artists do not have the best view of their own art. Fritz Lang hated Metropolis. Mike Judge hated Office Space. Stanley Kubrick hated Spartacus. Franz Kafka tried to have all of his books burnt. Francis Ford Coppola has real mixed feelings about The Godfather, saying he only did it for the money and not for art. Every member of The Beatles tried to later distance themselves from the band. Gustav Holst didn't have a high opinion of The Planets, and Pyotr Tchaikovsky hated The Nutcracker. Ingrid Bergman and Humphrey Bogart said they considered their work on Casablanca to be just another movie job. Sean Connery loathed James Bond and his work involved in it. Mark Twain came to revile Tom Sawyer, and Goethe disowned The Sorrows of Young Werther.

You get my point. A work should be judged subjectively beyond the opinion of the creator or artist themselves.

 

Also, the quotes about Lucas' dialogue not being great would also apply to Harrison Ford and Alec Guiness, who bot bemoaned the dialogue.

Which is perfectly understandable, considering that there are very few films series with this type of dialogue, with lots of formality, and old fashioned styles of talking, with lots of made up words like the names, and concepts.