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

Sorry, did I use the word blinded? I honestly don't recall but I don't think that's something I would do. An apologist means a defender of someone's legacy, it's not an insult and isn't intended as such.

What would I be an apologist of, btw? How do I lack self awareness? (Honest questions.)

And isn't the thread about issues people have with the prequels? I tried to state some reasons I didn't like them, that's all. If I've misunderstood and it's more about debunking reasons people shouldn't dislike them I'm sorry.

 

Thanks for your thoughts. I think Star Wars established itself as very accessible popcorn fantasy. People seem love to hate Darth Vader from the first moment they saw him, for example. ANH has fairy tale elements, and many characters are archetypal. So I think it's at least fair for some people to expect the same kind of accessibility (common sense) from the PT. It's clear GL was going for something different, the PT is a tragedy more than an adventure story anyway, but in popular movies you have to try to meet your audience half way. As the protagonist we're supposed to like, Anakin should be broadly likable, and there seems to be quite a division here in fandom. So to me there is simply a communication breakdown there. No one doubts Luke is the hero in the OT, even if he is whiny at times. When you have more divided audience opinion, it isn't necessarily fair to solely blame the audience.

 

Because they can't move past three decade-or-more-older movies they (claim to) utterly and completely despise.

 

Well, 2 decades or younger would be more accurate, don't you think?

I never said I utterly despised any PT film, though I can't speak for everyone.

The thread is about reasons people don't like the prequels. If one is going to start a thread like that, isn't it acceptable for those who don't like them (or dislike certain elements) to respond truthfully to that question? Is praise the only thing acceptable on a forum where people are supposed to discuss ideas and criticize and praise freely?

 

I've shown more than a few prequel haters clips from James Dean movies and every single one of them agreed that Hayden Christensen's performance was extremely similar. They just didn't like James Dean or Hayden Christensen's style. Believe me or not, this is my personal experience.

The primary reason James Dean is a screen legend while Hayden Christensen did not become a particularly successful actor afterwards is due to a variety of ultimately unquantifiable factors. They rose to prominence during very different eras of cinema with very different audience tastes and expectations; James Dean died at the height of his career while Hayden Christensen had to go on dealing with unfairly scathing critical appraisals arising largely from the aforementioned differences in the style of acting that critics and audiences find fashionable today compared to in the 1950's; and Christensen also had to struggle with typecasting issues arising from being cast in a freaking Star Wars movie, a major factor which James Dean never had to deal with (again, largely because he died at the age of 24). This latter factor, typecasting, is an issue which Mark Hamill was hampered by as well, which is why he never went on to do anything as remotely as high-profile, successful, or well-regarded as his role as Luke Skywalker, regardless of how much of a cult following he may have for his cartoon voice-over role as the Joker (or do you think his relative lack of success in Hollywood is evidence that he's also a terrible actor?).

I don't think Hayden Christensen is as good an actor as James Dean, either. I think he's about as good an actor as Mark Hamill, which is to say that he's a decent actor who was perfect for the role he was cast in, but was probably never destined to be considered one of the all-time greats. That said, Christensen has at least one other dramatic, on-screen performance that a lot of people seem to find pretty good, even great (his work in Shattered Glass), so I don't think it's a tenable argument to say he lacks any sort of acting chops. I think it actually tends to lend support to my view that he was just never given a fair chance.

 

I believe that's your personal experience, no hard feelings.

I believe Life as a House was pretty well-received critically, in fairness to Hayden. And the burden of playing Anakin is substantial -- that's a lot for a young actor to deal with, so I don't wish him any ill will, nor have I ever. I just didn't enjoy his performances in SW. YMMV .

 

I love the 'I know' moment though! Irvin Kirshner thought it was a great line because Han, the rogue, instead of being vulnerable, has to gain the upper hand in the relationship. We expect 'I love you too,' that's what GL had scripted, but we get something unexpected and a bit rude. But people have different expectations, at least that's one thing we can agree on in this thread.

 

No offence, but that's only one definition of art; I could give you others. And if people defend Lucas here, it might be because they actually value his art, mightn't it?


And as for this...

Is that a sincere thank you? Between you calling prequel fans here "apologists", liking a post that repeatedly calls the prequels "awful", and claiming you have "different metrics for quality", I'm hard-pressed to find much sincerity there; but okay.

The basic fact is: People have different tastes and like different things in different measures. Everyone processes art (and, in a sense, chooses what they regard as art) in their own way. Still, to prequel fans, there seems to have been a lot of ignorant slander directed at Lucas over the years for his various decisions; and, based on some of the rhetoric that has been advanced and some of the sentiments that have been promulgated, prequel fans have felt compelled to counter the negativity in various ways (perhaps, at times, getting too snide, or a bit too rambunctious, for their own good). However, it is a little tricky to hear of you telling us that the thing is "to try to meet your audience half way", when you go around calling fans of something you dislike -- people, in other words, with a different opinion -- "apologists". Such a term, whether you see it or not, is both condescending and carries with it seedy, even ignominious, implications. At the end of the day, you're simply left with the "different tastes" factor; people liking (and finding value in) different things.

The proper follow-up (or insight) to that remark of Han's, in my opinion, doesn't actually come until about two-thirds of the way into ROTJ; when Leia returns the word gesture. While many people seem to look at Han's remark as having a "bad-ass" quality to it, I tend to look at it as Han not wanting things -- for the both of them -- to get too "mushy", as he earlier says in Echo Base, in front of others. He tries to spare himself and Leia the torment; giving the scene a believable ounce of human dignity. That, and, in my opinion, Han has unresolved anxieties pertaining to Leia; an idea conveyed visually, in my opinion, when Han gives Luke a long stare as he walks away on Echo Base. At that point in the story, Han hasn't got it all straight in his mind what Leia's feelings are to Luke, and vice versa. Note how Han acts a little petulantly toward Leia in the Ewok village over her clamming up and having just had a conversation with Luke ("Could you tell Luke? Is that who you could tell?"); only letting his doubts fully go when Leia tells him that Luke is actually her brother at the end of the Battle of Endor.

Now, as for the switch itself, between "I love you" and "I know". It could be argued that Lucas wanted to depict a classical love story, but went with the on-set alteration/substitution, ultimately, because he knew, deep down, it was a better fit in that situation. In other words, he knew that the Han-Leia story wasn't quite the sweeping love story he wanted; and his buckling on that issue makes a concession to that very fact. However, the desire was still there in Lucas to one day depict such a thing. Enter the prequels. Now he could have his sweeping, star-crossed lovers; and he could make it a forbidden union, at that, during a time of political crisis and looming war; in a soon-to-be-vanquished "Golden Age". Put another way, the "I love you" needs to be sincere when it finally comes; it needs to make sense in that world. Along with all the other aspects of the love story. In my opinion, it all works perfectly; particularly as Anakin and Padme's love story is, from a certain point of view, a mosaic of stolen moments; in other words, romance-squared. Much -- in my opinion -- like these movies in general.

 

I know they value his art. I value some of it too, and I also value your right to defend it. Alongside it, others have a right to respectfully criticize elements of the art or Lucas' methodology that they dislike. I get that not all Prequel detractors are respectful, but I have been consistently civil. And the title of the thread is 'why are the pt films criticized(?)' I think that means criticism is fair game.

Yes, it is sincere. I think it's alright to criticize art and to have different judgments of it than other fans. I am saying 'thank you' because we are exchanging ideas in a civil manner. Civil doesn't mean we agree on everything. It means we listen to others and have a polite exchange even when we disagree on very fundamental matters.

Do we have the same definition of 'apologist'? The Dictionary.com definition is 'A person who makes a defense in speech or writing of a belief, idea, etc.' It really doesn't carry a value judgment with it one way or the other and I can't see how it is an insult. You and others have a position or positions that you defend. There are plenty of apologists for certain things I agree with completely, just not here. Am I correct in thinking you think Lucas did everything perfectly or nearly perfectly? That simply makes you by definition a Lucas apologist, or if you prefer, a Lucas defender.

Even if I call the prequels awful, that is not a comment on the fans or their value as human beings, other than that I disagree with their taste. There is difference between criticizing art and criticizing people.

I'm out of time and there's not much point in continuing the conversation about Han/Leia, etc. '...it all works perfectly...from a certain point of view' - I can agree to that.

 

Criticize away if that's what you want to do. I do find constant criticism a bit perverse; and a little tiring to see. But I'm not stopping you.

Right. Well, for the sake of fairness/clarity, I feel I should just remind you that you liked the following post:

Civil????

Straight away, it begins by accosting unnumbered prequel fans: "How do you not see it?" Then, "they aren't very well made movies", "they are awful", "the awful love story", "the bad performances", "poor job", and last but not least, "there is literally an endless supply of criticism for these movies."

The poster may have gotten that last part right, but the implication, partnered up with the way they chose to begin their post, is that prequel fans are being stubborn/dense/blind (take your pick) for failing to see the obvious. That, to me, is a little bit rude. They go straight for the jugular and commit blatant ad hominem right from the start. But never mind.

It's more for the negative connotations that orbit the word. For example, the definition that pops up on Google is, "a person who offers an argument in defence of something controversial". The example immediately given underneath is, "an enthusiastic apologist for fascism in the 1920s" -- pretty icky, in my view. Jumping across to The Free Dictionary (which I normally use and is a popular site), the top definition given is, "A person who argues in defense or justification of something, such as a doctrine, policy, or institution"; and when you scroll down, the first (and only) definition with an example reads, "a person who argues to defend or justify some policy or institution; "an apologist for capital punishment" -- capital punishment, yikes. So not an altogether rosy term.

Even your Dictionary.com definition, at the bottom, refers a reader to the entry for "apology", which lists the following four definitions, in order of appearance:

1. a written or spoken expression of one's regret, remorse, or sorrow for having insulted, failed, injured, or wronged another:
He demanded an apology from me for calling him a crook.
2. a defense, excuse, or justification in speech or writing, as for a cause or doctrine.
3. a dialogue by Plato, centering on Socrates' defense before the tribunal that condemned him to death.
4. an inferior specimen or substitute; makeshift:
The tramp wore a sad apology for a hat.

All also skewing to the negative; except, perhaps, the third definition, which I rather like. It does seem that the prequels have been seized by the geek-media and put on trial, as it were, much like Socrates in Ancient Greece. And, like Socrates, it seems they are (at least, to a prequel fan) potentially rather critical of the status quo, creating discomfit in others, and asking one to look within; or, to sum it up with a maxim attributed to Socrates from his trial, "The unexamined life is not worth living".

But yeah: apologist. Not a particularly kind term. Maybe a back-handed compliment; but more antagonistic and combative, overall, I think. Apparently, "fan", which itself derives from "fanatic", isn't good enough when it comes to Lucas/PT people. Let me know when the world shifts to "Beatles apologists" and "Rembrandt apologists", won't you? Sorry, that's a bit snide; but I hope you catch my meaning. The term seems designed, when used in movie board discussions, to put fans on the back foot, unfairly tarnishing them a certain way. But we're not apologizing for corporate or political malfeasance, unjust legislature, or social barbarisms. Personally, I think the term needs to be reserved for more serious moral and ethical stances.

When you throw around a term like "apologist", or complain that the forum is loaded with Lucas defenders, you are implicitly criticizing people, in my view -- all for having a different perspective about a bunch of movies. That's not so cool. Apart from that, I agree.

 

Wouldn't labeling someone an apologist denote there is something that NEEDS to be apologised for?

 

"How do you not see it?" That -- to me -- is a form of ad hominem; the term isn't just an analogue for "name-calling". As I tried to explicate above, prequel fans were being goaded and attacked by implication they they're dense or overly stubborn; maybe even blind. It is accosting, accusatory rhetoric. That same user then continued: "They aren't very well made movies – particularly the last two. They are awful." Is that really a civil concatenation? I maintain that it isn't. Yet you liked their post and now defend them.

I don't need a lecture on etymology or morphology. Words don't just mean "different things"; they interlink and carry different meanings and connotations at different times. It wasn't sophistry to link apolegetics to definitions of the word "apology"; the entry that you cited (on dictionary.com) does that very thing.

Well, C.S. Lewis was a Christian apologist -- plain and simple. That is a more appropriate use of the term, in my opinion; as Lewis was defending a particular creed and doctrine (a doctrine, it might be said, that has been historically allied to oppression and bigotry of various kinds). It is rather inappropriate, in my view -- or certainly impolite -- to go around calling fans of a piece of art "apologists", given that the label is often now commonly used (as I think I gave a sampling of in my last post) as an epithet for people defending disreputable political movements like fascism or dreadful practices like capital punishment. I don't particularly like that association, personally speaking.

Oh -- hang on. I twisted the meaning; or the people/person who assembled those definitions did? Please make up your mind. I think I can honestly say, for the record, that I did not twist any meaning, but simply presented dictionary-based evidence (after you did exactly that) for why the word "apologist" might be seen to provoke discomfort; and to provide some sense of why it might be considered provocative in general.

 

Exactly!!! It's the easiest and most direct way to explain what is meant by an apologist when it comes to the Prequels. That the thing that is being apologized for was wrong or did something wrong. In this case, the Prequels are bad, so those of us who stick up for them are being apologists because we are sticking up for something that is bad, hence being an apologist....

Example, when a parent apologizes or makes an excuse for their child's behavior in public, they aren't apologizing because the child's behavior was good, they are apologizing because the behavior is considered bad. They are being an apologist for their child's bad behavior...

What I find interesting about these discussions is how some on the side of criticism of the Prequels have taken on this sort of moral high ground all o a sudden, as if they are now the victims of mean Prequel Fans. I find this interesting because it seems that some people seem to forget what they say or write on other websites, or social media can be seen by us here, especially because we run in the same circles because of the content. However, here they realize that there are rules in place where outright bashing is not allowed, so they change how they go about criticizing the Prequels to stay within the rules.

Now I am not going to use specific people as examples for fear of violating the rules here and engaging in a personal attack. There is a/are person(s) that have participated in this very thread that outside the JCF, where there are less strict rules on bashing, has had extremely nasty things to say about the Prequels and the fans of the Prequels. However, here, they adapt their stance to the rules of these forums and come across as civil.

There was another instance on the StarWars.com Official Face Book page where I was reading comments left for a post pertaining to the Prequels, and there was one person that stood out not because he was just being nasty towards the prequels and the fans with vulgarities but because his avatar was very familiar. Come to find out that he was a member of these forums and the avatar he was using here was his Facebook profile pic of himself. However here, when he was posting in the Prequels section again, very civil, outside of the these forums, the true colors shone through.

I have had similar experiences on Disque conversations where you see people with the same avatar and name that they use here, being more "free" with their words.

I bring this up because as I said, it seems that lately the routine is that those that are critical of the Prequels are playing the part of the victim against us mean and nasty Prequel lovers.... Just an interesting observation I have made over time....

Edit: Hell we have even seen some people in other sections of these very forums where the no-bashing rule is a little less enforced be more expressive of their hate about the Prequels, than when they come in this part, they aren't as nasty...

 

Seems like a case of double standards to me to object to the term apologist as a description of groups of PT fans, whilst the terms haters and bashers are commonly used to describe PT critics in this forum.

I also don't really get what you're trying to say with this little anecdote about a specific person, that may or may not have said nasty stuff on other forums. How is this relevant to PT critics in general or to the discussion of the films? Does the fact that a specific person is vulgar somehow reflect on the whole group? We play the victims, but in reality we're perpetrators, is what you're saying? Because a person or persons behave badly on other forums, PT critics in general no longer have a right to object to bad behaviour in this forum?

 

Well this is getting way off track.

In any case, this is not what ad hominem means. I'll let him speak for himself about whether he wanted to cast aspersions on anyone's character with his first statement (it speaks to me of incredulity more than anything--he doesn't get why people like them -- fine, his opinion. If all we have on here are our opinions, as you say, then let people have theirs) but most of what he said had to do with the films themselves and things he found lacking. Very appropriate given the thread title).

Read the wikipedia entry on apologetics if you want. It seems you may want familiarize yourself with the etymology. Historically it has been used for religion and philosophical discourse. (It's about defending anything, it's lost the connection with apology proper ages ago and doesn't imply that something needs to be apologized for -- it's just means there is debate and discourse.) That's the common, historical understanding of the word. Your points about apologists being commonly associated with fascism or capital punishments are paper thin.

Thin associations do not evidence make. Did you know those connections would be there before you looked them up? If you, did that's fine. But it seems to me they come primarily from your unpleasant encounters with other SW fans or Prequel haters in particular. So if you're going to insist on a certain association of a word, at least let me do them same, to wit: my point about Lewis that I like him and I view him to be an apologist and it's not an insulting term to me. I did not intend it as such.

My question is, is there anything at all in the Prequels and/or Lucas's work on them that is open to criticism? Are you okay with calling yourself a Lucas and/or Prequel defender?

 

There is a tradition of apologetics which goes back over a thousand years. And I happen to agree with what some apologists have said and don't view the term negatively.


I don't post on any other SW forum or Facebook or anywhere else about SW. I am a pleasant person and my goal is to discuss, not provoke anyone's ire. We all have biases, in discussions like these it's impossible to be purely objective, but I'm not pomo enough to think we shouldn't try to communicate. But let's be honest about our biases. I don't think a lot of the Prequel stuff works, some of you think it works perfectly. You can be defender or a detractor, an apologist or a critic (or perhaps categorist? if we were to try to co-opt the ancient equivalent).

 

How you "view" the term is not an excuse in not understanding how the term has been used in specific conditions. Preference and Ignorance are not an excuse.

The term Prequels Apologist, within the Star Wars fandom, has been used as a derogatory term to explain a certain part of the fandom. It is not a neutral term or one that has it's roots over thousands of years of "apologetics". It is a specific term with specific meaning and specific implications when it is used.

One of the fundamental flaws of humans is that we tend to see ourselves differently than how others see us...

Very similar to Padme's quote from AOTC:

"All mentors have a way of seeing more of our faults than we would like."

Not saying that I, or anyone else here is your mentor, but, the relationship between Padme's quote and what I said above is what is important.

I personally don't care if someone calls me an Prequel Lover, Lucas Defender, or an Apologist. I wear it like a badge of honor. Where it starts to get into a slippery slope is when there are inferences made that because I, or anyone else for that matter, like the Prequels, well than that means there must be something mentally wrong with us. Which has been said to us outright and indirectly many times over the years and even very recently in these very forums.

While you did not say those things, (others have), as Cryogenic pointed out, your terminology you used, or the terminology you are aligning yourself with, has a very distinct flavor to it that many of us have seen before.

 

It doesn't seem to be mentioned in any forum rules that I could find. Nor have I heard it used before. How are you going to welcome new members to the forums that agree with you who might happen to use the term because it's commonly used in the rest of society to mean something neutral to positive? You guys are playing semantic games and it doesn't wash. I never said anything about anyone's mental health either, sheesh.

 

First of all, if you are going to reply to me, the one thing I ask is that you actually read my posts. I never said you said anything about mental health. It is a fact that I stated:

See that? Reading comprehension is very very important...

Now, if we want to chase this rabbit all the way down the rabbit hole. In my POV, you are the one playing on semantics, that you seem to be oblivious to the idea that something can have different meanings within different communities. For example, I, as a white male here in America, cannot walk into an African American community, and drop the "N"-word! Where as some of the African-American community can, because it means different things when different people say it. Whether you agree with that or not is irrelevant because it is the way it is. I a straight male, cannot walk into a LGBT event, and start calling people "Q****s", where as someone from that community can. Once again, whether anyone feels it is a double standard or not, is irrelevant because the same words means different things from different people. So to me, you are being very obtuse in regard to your ignorance of the usage of the term Prequel Apologist.

If we are to be honest, I can't believe that you have never heard the term Prequel Apologist before, but, that's just me and my view on people in general. I mean it is one of the prevailing terms used when someone wants to discuss a certain aspect of the fandom:



https://www.alternatehistory.com/fo...l-apologists-dominant-on-the-internet.285284/

https://1upculture.wordpress.com/2016/09/12/star-wars-rise-of-the-prequel-apologists/

http://www.avclub.com/article/star-wars-franchiseeven-prequels-work-weird-genius-228337

http://amazingatheist.tumblr.com/post/112802590211/whats-the-worst-star-wars-prequel-apologist



http://www.kuriositas.com/2013/04/star-wars-prequel-apologist.html

http://www.funnyjunk.com/channel/****ing-starwars/Prequel apologist/XRDoLKE/

http://www.digitalspy.com/movies/st...-rian-johnson-is-a-prequel-trilogy-apologist/

http://chentheirken.deviantart.com/journal/Time-to-Destroy-a-Prequel-Apologist-654730906


Need I go on?

 

No need. The best we can do is agree to disagree. Cheers.

 

What don't you get it? They look rehearsed. They don't look like a fight, but rather a mutually agreed upon demonstration.You have to believe what you're seeing or it takes you out of the movie.

Pus, there comes a point when more does not equal better. More spins, flips, etc., It just gets so anti-climatic.

 

Oh, no!







FACTS.

 

they look rehearsed to you....ok, fair enough. But to me so does just about every fistfight scene I have ever seen in a movie. Especially when one person (usually the protagonist) is taking on more than one person and all the others stand and wait for their turn to get their arses handed to them. Why is it so reprehensible when it is done in the PT?

 

Removed.