Why was AOTC not loved by the public and media?

This thread creeps in this petty pace from day to day; to the last syllable of recorded time; and all our yesterdays have lighted fools the way to dusty death. Out, out, brief candle! These arguements are but a walking shadow; a poor player that struts and frets his hour upon the stage, and then is heard no more. It is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.

Mesa rikes Engrish class.

 

Ahem. Let the English class continue...

I'll have to fail you at this rate


It's appropriate for him to be screaming and mostly incoherent in the middle of a battle - he's a protocol droid. And, basically, he's talking mostly to himself.

So after his 'character development scene' at the funeral he reverts to his old persona in the arena scene ?
Except - you previously said he showed character development during the arena scene.
You're just flip-flopping now all the time, your arguments aren't making any sense.


It's not just that they parallel each other; the characters are also opposites. And since the trilogy puts forth the original (thesis - Anakin develops as a villain), and its opposite (antithesis - Luke has the same influences, but develops as a hero), and then combines the two (synthesis - Luke and Vader team up against the Emperor, for vastly different reasons) just like The Waste Land, I feel confident that this is a post modern film.

The problem there is that you're talking about all 6 films. Your contention was that aotc 'stands alone as an excellent example of postmodernism' etc.
And it still doesn't make it postmodern, just some character/theme rhyming.

Both are raised on Tatooine. Neither know their father growing up. Both escape Tatooine in service to what they consider a greater cause. Both are .... etc.

But one becomes evil the other not. So obviously they don't develop in the exact same way.

The Bible is more postmodern than anything else ever written.

Is anything in your world (not meant as an insult) not postmodern ?

That's for you to decide, of course. I'm sure Derrida's acolytes felt the same way when they were trying to discuss literature with him.

Oh brother ....


Well, Goldfinger, Blofeld, and Doctor Doom all recognize that they are evil. they know and take the time to recognize that they are comitting evil actions to further their petty desires. Anakin and Macbeth believe they are acting in the best interests of society in general by taking more power.

Well that's not how I saw it, I seem to remember Lady Macbeth badgering the guy into doing it for their own gain. But why is any of the above an indication of postmodern?
And you claimed that anakin and macbeth develop in exactly the same way, which they clearly don't.

btw - I asked before - don't you think anakin feels guilty about slaughtering the tuskens.?

Right. What I should have said was "I believe taht Lucas is showing us is teh development of the protagonist, whether he 'intends' to or not.

And that relates to Umberto Eco's quote how ...?
I mean you've now left out huston, Shakespeare etc. and that was the whole point of Eco's remarks
No offense, but you continually seem to be losing sight of your own ideas.


. Maybe it would help you to think of post modern as a way I see the film, not as something that the film is

No thanks and to be honest even after discussing it with you I really have no idea how you see the film.

. It is post modern because i see it as post modern (and it has textual elements that support that interpretation).

But you seem to think virtually everything is postmodern.
And how does any of all this prove your assertion that it "stands alone as an excellent example of postmodern storytelling". ?



g

 

Hmm, I'd like to say I see your points, but I think that you're deliberately being obtuse.

"So after his 'character development scene' at the funeral he reverts to his old persona in the arena scene ?
Except - you previously said he showed character development during the arena scene.
You're just flip-flopping now all the time, your arguments aren't making any sense."

Threepio's character is one that tends to make bad jokes while under fire. He knows when to be solemn (at a funeral, or when talking to Ewok children), and when to panic (arena).

"The problem there is that you're talking about all 6 films. Your contention was that aotc 'stands alone as an excellent example of postmodernism' etc.
And it still doesn't make it postmodern, just some character/theme rhyming."

Well, it stands alone when compared to other (non Star Wars) films. But since AotC negotiates its intertextual elements with the other Star Wars films, it is appropriate to discuss them.

"But one becomes evil the other not. So obviously they don't develop in the exact same way."

The end result is different - the stimulus is the same.

"Is anything in your world (not meant as an insult) not postmodern ?"

Yes. But something created by a collaborative effort is post modern (death of the author taken to an extreme - both Star wars and the Bible fit into this category).

"Oh brother ...."

I'm sorry to have to tell you this, but you aren't related to me.

"Well that's not how I saw it, I seem to remember Lady Macbeth badgering the guy into doing it for their own gain. "

The Witches gave him the idea before Lady M ever did. And he was the one who actually decided to commit regicide. Lady M couldn't kill for him; he had to commit the crime himself.

"btw - I asked before - don't you think anakin feels guilty about slaughtering the tuskens.?"

Not guilty enough to never do something like that again under similar circumstances.

"No offense, but you continually seem to be losing sight of your own ideas."

See, now you're just making provocative statements without any real support behind them. How have I left out the Huston and Shakespeare? It's what i see in the film, after all.

"No thanks and to be honest even after discussing it with you I really have no idea how you see the film."

I thought it was clear. I see the film as a retelling of the traditional hero myth, influenced by the film noir genre, which has a post modern plot twist where the hero becomes the villain of the piece.

"But you seem to think virtually everything is postmodern."

Nope. The majority of film, yes, and better works of fiction in the last few centuries which push boundaries.

"And how does any of all this prove your assertion that it "stands alone as an excellent example of postmodern storytelling". ?"

Well, it sure isn't a simplistic piece of plot driven trash like other sci fi films in recent memory. The elements that make up the story redefine the boundaries of the film genre by making the villain a hero (a real hero, not just the 'protagonist' like in Scarface).

 

"The Star Wars fanatics are George Lucas's enablers. They are the ones who object to good humor because they prefer contrived seriousness to honest situation, they are the ones who have this absurd fetish for stupid characters like 'Jango Fett' and Mace Windu, they're the ones who love lame lines like 'Rise Lord Vader' even though Vader is strapped down....they've satisfied their petty obsessions and destroyed a trilogy."

That's the smartest thing that was said in this thread! I FORCED myself to like and care about the Fett family before watching AOTC. It took maturity for me to see that GL was selling himself to the hardcore fans for the PT. The OT ignited my love to cinema. It's thanks to the OT (and 20+ novles of the EU) that I'm a fan of Classic Hollywood, that I understand better cinematic expression from 20's motion pictures to nowadays. It's thanks to the OT that I've learned to especially admire 40's and 70's American films. It's thanks to the OT that I've learned how to be a TRUE fan of anything at all: Owning 46 Hitchcock films on DVD (my favorite director), watching ALL of Kubrick's work, Spielberg's work, etc. etc. PLUS, I read academic and professional articles about cinema and own many books that analize film to a depth most of you are probably not aware of. In short, I loooooooovvvvveeee cinema. And YES -- It's ALL thanks to Star Wars. But the PT, pardon me, has none of those elements. It's cinematically poor, and it's just the fan in me that enjoys them and spends hundreds of dollars per year on them. Damn you, GL!

By the way, I'm from Israel and there's a critic here (called Yair Rave) that says the same kind of things like I do: When he reviewed TPM and AOTC, he started by praising the OT to the sky, bashed the PT as much as he could and with as many tears as possible, and he concluded (paradoxically) with how much he can no longer wait for the next installment because the love of Star Wars is already imbedded in him from childhood. Think about it. Those of you who truly love cinema as an art form - seriously think about it!

 

I wasn't really interested in films (apart from the older Star Wars ones ) until I saw TPM - but it's greatness inspired me to work towards making my own movies, and AotC only reinforced that desire

 

I don't know what kind of films do you talk about. Could you elaborate a little? What kind of movies inspire you? How do you read/analyze/understand a film when you see it? Have you any knowledge of or academic background in the field?

 

"It's thanks to the OT that I've learned how to be a TRUE fan of anything at all: Owning 46 Hitchcock films on DVD (my favorite director), watching ALL of Kubrick's work, Spielberg's work, etc. etc. PLUS, I read academic and professional articles about cinema and own many books that analize film to a depth most of you are probably not aware of. In short, I loooooooovvvvveeee cinema. And YES -- It's ALL thanks to Star Wars. But the PT, pardon me, has none of those elements. It's cinematically poor, and it's just the fan in me that enjoys them and spends hundreds of dollars per year on them. "

I would say that the opposite is, in fact, true. The PT films are cinematically rich, with technical elements of modern filmmaking countered against and paired with a postmodern storyline. What types of academic work are you reading? Even if you do not like the storyline or characters, I don't think it is appropriate to say that the films are not well made. In fact, Star Wars shows just what potential an independant filmmaker has when he or she works with a substantial budget.

 

You obviously don't know the definition of "cinematically rich" then. I don't know what is the extent of your knowledge in cinema but you should read books like "Hitchcock's Films Revisited" by Robin Wood, where a very interesting theory is suggested. The main idea in this theory is that you shouldn't care much about the content as much as you should care about what it implies. And the PT implies nearly nothing compared to the OT. You surely don't mean to argue the fact that GL put in the Fett family in the PT just to satisfy the fans. Well that was done on acount of the film's artistic integrity. Don't get me wrong, the film is very stylish! Production value is great in those film, and the design is incredible. From monsters to spaceships they all look great! But they only serve their own artistic value instead of serving the film's artistic value. Even John Williams work was great but GL edited it so bad into the movie that again, the music served only itself. And to think that Lucas' strong side was his ability to edit! God, has he changed since. Therefore, your comment on my liking/disliking the story or characters is irrelevant because that's a matter for tastes. I consider it my job to acquire as many tastes as possible so that I won't limit myself to genres or styles (I HATE it when people do that). But just because I like Jar-Jar or the Ewoks doesn't mean that the complexity of the PT's structure is impressive. Actually, it's almost an exact science: If you'd draw a model which represents the structure of the PT and another one which would descirbe the structure of the OT - they'd be as far off from each other as a straight line and a hexagon would be. And that really is a shame.

By the way, I myself am a film-critic. As such I know that people want to be entertained and don't want my film reviews to be "heavy" and philosophical. So it's hard to bash a film without being presumptuous and it's not easy to praise a movie to the sky without sounding as though I am being dishonest. Therefore, I avoid of writing lines like "not to miss" or "the best film of the year" or "Bad! Bad! Bad!". What I do instead is seperate the film's artistic value from "how will you feel when you are watching the film". That way, I get the crowd's attention and gain their confidence in my honesty and credibility. Same goes for the PT - they're alot of fun, but their artistic integrity implies nothing and its value is mostly technical.

 

You obviously don't know the definition of "cinematically rich" then.

So if someone thinks and feels the PT is cinematiclly rich to them then they don't know what it means?

because that's a matter for tastes.

Your right.

Me I like the PT I have enjoyed it. I also like the OT and LOTR. I also like Metal music. Not the kidn that is found on MTV mind you but the kind that is done by people who think about the music before the money.

I consider it my job to acquire as many tastes as possible so that I won't limit myself to genres or styles (I HATE it when people do that).

Yet there are people who will always do that. I really enjoy AOTC and I do have many different tastes. I mean really I like Fantasy movies and I like metal music. But I also like some comedy movies and a few Rock bands.

Note: Rock is different from metal.

 

"The main idea in this theory is that you shouldn't care much about the content as much as you should care about what it implies."

This of course flies in the face of my own critical opinions, where I believe that there is no such 'fixed' meaning that can be found in film. If the images and characters in a film are all signifiers of a meaning, then that meaning (the signified) is different for each person who sees the film. A film is always in flux, as the audience gains more knowledge and experience.

That should explain why I find the PT so rich. It is filled with images that all have shifting meanings for me, based on their relationship with the other films in the series. Yes, filmmakers like Hitchcock and Spielberg (and Huston, Reitman, Mann, Moore, et al) are great, but I find that some of their films become static over time.

"By the way, I myself am a film-critic. As such I know that people want to be entertained and don't want my film reviews to be "heavy" and philosophical. So it's hard to bash a film without being presumptuous and it's not easy to praise a movie to the sky without sounding as though I am being dishonest."

As a critic, you realize that your opinion is being given a certain amount of critical 'weight' which it does not always deserve. Not to be critical, but the process of interpretation is highly individual. Therefore, your opinion, while being well educated, is not always relevant to the audience you write for. I myself prefer the 'heavy' and 'philosophical'. But my critical opinion (not just my visceral reaction) really only applies to me.

 

Let me correct myself: When I said "You don't know the definition of cinematically rich" I meant MY definition of cinematically rich. He obviously read my previous post and saw that I wrote "cinematically poor" there, and that's why he defended the film by claiming it was "cinematically rich". I wanted to emphasize that he didn't understand what I was talking about and that's what I meant by writing "you don't know the difinition of cinematically rich". So, apologies everyone.

Once again, I never said the films were poor. They're very stylish but their stylish elements don't integrate the way they did in the OT - they stand on their own. Also, mind you that I also wrote that I enjoyed the PT very much. But I also enjoy roller coaster rides. While the OT was both a roller coaster ride AND a cultural event in the magnitude and philosophical value of Homer's Iliad and Odyssey, the PT was just a roller coaster ride. And no, there's nothing wrong with that.

 

The newer films are as artistic as the older ones, if not more so.

 

The classic trilogy didn't spawn an expansive online community like the prequels did.

If anything, the prequels are more a cultural phenomenon than the classic trilogy was.

 

This of course flies in the face of my own critical opinions, where I believe that there is no such 'fixed' meaning that can be found in film. If the images and characters in a film are all signifiers of a meaning, then that meaning (the signified) is different for each person who sees the film. A film is always in flux, as the audience gains more knowledge and experience.

That should explain why I find the PT so rich. It is filled with images that all have shifting meanings for me, based on their relationship with the other films in the series.


I'm glad that my post received a serious reply from you. Anyway, to reply to you:

Ironically, I'm with you on this matter: The meaning that derives from each character is individual to each person. It can be proved by analysing Kubrick films, where you can clearly see that there isn't a single couple of persons in this world who can agree about the interpretation of a Kubrick film, whether they liked it or not. They're as different, as they're faces differ from each other. That's why I agree with you about the PT: I also find the images very meaningful and rich. But it's done in such a spelled-out way that it exists all in the script and production design, while all Lucas did was film it! Granted he supervised the production and decided which object goes where, etc... But it was done on a technical level, and eventually when GL gathers all the material in the editing room, his editing choices are purely arbitrary. I always knew, for example, that the factory sequence in AOTC didn't serve the film much (actually, it had no purpose at all, IMHO). But I was shocked to find out in the DVD that it was the idea of some guy in the visual effects department who merely thought it would "cool" to add such a sequence! A WHOLE Star Wars sequence originated on the whim of a computer expert! The OT used to be 100% Lucas!! (even when it was directed by somebody else) These films should have this perfect musical flow that the OT had (or any other good film), but instead - They were a series of chopped-up fun sequences, and it can be proved by the arbitrarity of the way John Williams' perfect score was scattered all over TPM and AOTC. So, yes - I had a ball at the theatre 3 years ago. But it all came down to a general image that isn't as rich in texture as was the OT, that's all. And that's why the PT can't be the cultural phenomenon that the OT was.

And by the way - inserting the Fett's into the PT was a purely "MacDonald'sish" marketing move. There's just nothing to argue about that. The equivalent of such a move would be bringing Greedo's son into ROTJ to avenge his father's murder by cutting a deal with the empire to bring him Solo - or something like that. You know what? If fan reaction to Greedo would have been as high as it was to Fett, Lucas would probably bring Greedo's father to AOTC instead of Jango, and then alter ANH so that Greedo speaks English, and that would match the fact that clones and stormtroopers speak English. (or worse - he could alter the OT so that stromtroopers would speak Rodian ) I know I sound like a basher, but really - I'm not! I love every Star Wars movie. It's just that decisions like that (the Fett family) which make me think less of the PT, in artistic terms. The only part of me that loves the Fett's in AOTC is the fan in me, not the cinephile. And if you all look deep down inside yourselves you'll see that it's also the fan in you that likes this stuff. And again - There's absolutely nothing wrong with that. It's just not "pure cinema".

As a critic, you realize that your opinion is being given a certain amount of critical 'weight' which it does not always deserve. Not to be critical, but the process of interpretation is highly individual. Therefore, your opinion, while being well educated, is not always relevant to the audience you write for. I myself prefer the 'heavy' and 'philosophical'. But my critical opinion (not just my visceral reaction) really only applies to me.

That's why I acquire all those taste

 

The classic trilogy didn't spawn an expansive online community like the prequels did.

If anything, the prequels are more a cultural phenomenon than the classic trilogy was.


Has it occured to you that you had no internet at home during 77'?

Also, during 97-99, Star Wars had a HUGE online community, proabably the BIGGEST a film ever had then.

 

I love the fact that there are people here who take this seriously. Thanks for the kind words.

"I always knew, for example, that the factory sequence in AOTC didn't serve the film much (actually, it had no purpose at all, IMHO). But I was shocked to find out in the DVD that it was the idea of some guy in the visual effects department who merely thought it would "cool" to add such a sequence! A WHOLE Star Wars sequence originated on the whim of a computer expert!"

It's reminiscent of Beckett's transcription of Joyce for Ulysses. When Beckett mistakenly put in a response to someone at the author's door, Joyce told him to leave it in. Bricolage, at its finest.

"The only part of me that loves the Fett's in AOTC is the fan in me, not the cinephile. And if you all look deep down inside yourselves you'll see that it's also the fan in you that likes this stuff. And again - There's absolutely nothing wrong with that. It's just not "pure cinema"."

I'm not sure I agree. It gives us a history for Boba Fett, which helps develop his character. When young Boba is holding his father's helmet, that image helps show that, in addition to the psychotic manning Slave 1's guns, that Boba loved his father as well. But again, these are just 'interpretive' differences.

Oh, and i have to agree about the internet playing a large part in the development of the fan community.

 

I love the fact that there are people here who take this seriously. Thanks for the kind words.

You're most welcome. There's nothing I disrespect more than disrespect, and since you showed none...

It's reminiscent of Beckett's transcription of Joyce for Ulysses. When Beckett mistakenly put in a response to someone at the author's door, Joyce told him to leave it in. Bricolage, at its finest.

You don't REALLY mean to compare such a classic case with the simple intention to provide the FX department with something to chew on! Tell me why should the factory scene occupy 10 minutes of something that should exist on a mythological level. (and I really MEAN mythological - I believe that people will still watch these films in a 1000 years from now)

It gives us a history for Boba Fett, which helps develop his character. When young Boba is holding his father's helmet, that image helps show that, in addition to the psychotic manning Slave 1's guns, that Boba loved his father as well. But again, these are just 'interpretive' differences.

Your comment is very cleverly written. Alas, the "psychotic manning" you referred to was introduced also in AOTC, therefore Boba didn't NEED to be elaborated had he not been introduced there in the first place. Also, your comment didn't solve the arbitrarity problem - Lucas could have chosen to develop a young Greedo and show us how besides his psychotic manning of bounty hunter affairs, he loved his father. But Lucas didn't do that becuase Fett sells better, and a whole bloodline of Fetts sells best.

 

Your comment is very cleverly written. Alas, the "psychotic manning" you referred to was introduced also in AOTC, therefore Boba didn't NEED to be elaborated had he not been introduced there in the first place. Also, your comment didn't solve the arbitrarity problem - Lucas could have chosen to develop a young Greedo and show us how besides his psychotic manning of bounty hunter affairs, he loved his father. But Lucas didn't do that becuase Fett sells better, and a whole bloodline of Fetts sells best.

Lucas came up with the idea of connecting Boba Fett to the stormtroopers long ago. Putting Boba Fett into the prequels wasn't strictly necessary and he admitted that if Fett hadn't been such a fan favorite, he probably wouldn't have done it. But he didn't pull it out of the air just to please fans.

Your Greedo analogy is faulty. Greedo was never connected to the stormtroopers. So if he'd been popular and Lucas had inserted him into the PT, then it would have been purely because he was popular.

It's weird how on the one hand, Lucas is assailed for not caring what fans want, and on the other, he's assailed for putting Boba Fett in the PT partly because he's a fan favorite.

 

Lucas came up with the idea of connecting Boba Fett to the stormtroopers long ago. Putting Boba Fett into the prequels wasn't strictly necessary and he admitted that if Fett hadn't been such a fan favorite, he probably wouldn't have done it. But he didn't pull it out of the air just to please fans.

Your Greedo analogy is faulty. Greedo was never connected to the stormtroopers.

It's not faulty because I was speaking hypothetically in cinematic terms. I wasn't saying that he pulled Jango out of the air, I'm only saying that it would have been CINEMATICALLY equivalent had he chosen to pick a young Greedo - hence, the arbitrarity of the PT.

It's weird how on the one hand, Lucas is assailed for not caring what fans want, and on the other, he's assailed for putting Boba Fett in the PT partly because he's a fan favorite.

That's a paradox which Lucas has created himself. He has turned into a businessman, and he chooses to do only what would incite the maximum reaction - positive or a negative one, as long as it opens sale opportunities. Now don't get me wrong - I'm not saying he doesn't care about Star-Wars. I'm sure he loves the films and believes in them. But like every other ruler of an empire (NOT an empire in a bad meaning), he wants to stay on top all the time, and that's why his choices are business-oriented. To remind you, Lucas's early pictures were avant-garde, not pop culture.

 

But he discovered the secret of blending both deep AND popular art - hence the gigantic fortune and absolute creative freedom he now has

 

It's not faulty because I was speaking hypothetically in cinematic terms. I wasn't saying that he pulled Jango out of the air, I'm only saying that it would have been CINEMATICALLY equivalent had he chosen to pick a young Greedo - hence, the arbitrarity of the PT.

I'm still not seeing how it's the same. Picking a young Greedo would have been purely to please the fans, because he never planned to connect Greedo to a major plot point in the PT. He had planned to connect Boba Fett, from the time Boba Fett was conceived as a character.

That's a paradox which Lucas has created himself. He has turned into a businessman, and he chooses to do only what would incite the maximum reaction - positive or a negative one, as long as it opens sale opportunities.

That's part of his motivation, but I don't think it's all of it.

Now don't get me wrong - I'm not saying he doesn't care about Star-Wars. I'm sure he loves the films and believes in them. But like every other ruler of an empire (NOT an empire in a bad meaning), he wants to stay on top all the time, and that's why his choices are business-oriented. To remind you, Lucas's early pictures were avant-garde, not pop culture.

Yes, he admitted that he's become the very thing he was trying to get away from. It's ironic that, in order to become independent of Hollywood, he had to take on the very same profit-oriented tactics that Hollywood does. (Much like Oedipus ended up killing his father and marrying his mother while doing everything to avoid that fate.) He had to make money or he wouldn't be able to support his production company.

However, and I'm not trying to cast him as a saint here, I don't think profit is his sole motivation. Otherwise he'd have tailored everything about the PT to be as crowd-pleasing as possible. He didn't. He made some choices that he knew would be unpopular, but which he thought best served the story.

 

But he discovered the secret of blending both deep AND popular art - hence the gigantic fortune and absolute creative freedom he now has.

Once again, it's a matter for tastes whether it's deep or not (I think it's not). Nevertheless, the idea that he could have chosen Greedo instead just as easily, and then modify ANH for him to speak English and then say in the making-of documentary that it is now closer to his "original" vision repels me.

 

I'm still not seeing how it's the same. Picking a young Greedo would have been purely to please the fans, because he never planned to connect Greedo to a major plot point in the PT. He had planned to connect Boba Fett, from the time Boba Fett was conceived as a character.

You don't understand what I mean when I say "cinematically equivalent". So I'll put it this way: The analogy IS the same because Lucas could have easily decided that Boba would have been the archetype for the clones while conceiving his character just as much as he could have decided that Greedo would have been the archetype for the clones while conceiving his character - hence, the arbitrarity. I can't spell that out more, hope that makes you understand my meaning.

By the way, Boba Fett got his NAME when his action figure was manufactured for ROTJ (it was in the trivia of Star Wars: Behind The Magic, so that's official info). You wanna tell me that an unnamed character was chosen to be the clone archetype during ESB??? Don't fall for those marketing tricks, please!

 

You don't understand what I mean when I say "cinematically equivalent". So I'll put it this way: The analogy IS the same because Lucas could have easily decided that Boba would have been the archetype for the clones while conceiving his character just as much as he could have decided that Greedo would have been the archetype for the clones while conceiving his character - hence, the arbitrarity. I can't spell that out more, hope that makes you understand my meaning.

Not really. When conceiving the character of Boba Fett, Lucas did consider tying him in to the stormtroopers. He didn't do that with Greedo.

By the way, Boba Fett got his NAME when his action figure was manufactured for ROTJ (it was in the trivia of Star Wars: Behind The Magic, so that's official info).

And this is significant...how?

You wanna tell me that an unnamed character was chosen to be the clone archetype during ESB???

No, Lucas is saying that he considered tying him in to the stormtroopers when he invented him, which by the way was before ESB.

Don't fall for those marketing tricks, please!

What marketing tricks?

 

Don't forget, Walt Whitman tinkered with 'Leaves of Grass' many times after it had been originally published but before his death. An artist has a right to their own work, after all.

I have to agree with Shelley. If all Lucas wanted was to please fans, he would have had a film with less plot and character development, and more lightsaber combat. Or Lucas would have released the original versions of the OT, rather than the versions he wanted fans to see.

As for the Boba/Greedo debate... Yes, Lucas could have used Greedo rather than Boba. But trying to analyze his intentions leads us into the realm of intentional fallacy. Lucas might have used Boba as a bridge between the series because he liked the character.