If the Saga isn't perfect, where did it go wrong?

I understand why Jar Jar exists. He's the archetypical character that everyone overlooks, but is useful in the end. Good concept, God awful execution.

When I see Jar Jar, I see babytalk, gags meant for 5 year olds and annoying behavior. Please, let me know what I'm missing on that list.

 

The train derailment was the SE and changing Han shot first. That was the first derailment of the story.

 

The saga didnt go in wrong in any movie. It went wrong when all the "fans" started critisizing(spelling?) ervery little thing that dont matter like ewoks(which are actually my favorite characters),and Jar-Jar,and stupid lines. People who like the movies wouldnt say it went wrong. Sure its definitly not a perfect saga but you dont have to say it went "wrong".

 

The slide began in 1983:

(1983) ROTJ: Ewoks

(1997) OT SE: Greedo Shooting First, New Jabba Palace Song in ROTJ

(1999) TPM: Jar Jar, Anakin as an 8 year old, Too much Kiddie Humor, Jar Jar, ObiWan not finding Anakin

(2002) AOTC: Hayden is miscast, awful love story, no chemistry between Padme & Anakin, C3PO's one-liners during the Clone Wars

(2004) OT SE DVD: Hayden replaces Sebastian Shaw

(2005) ROTS: Anakin turning toooo quick, Anakin not being seduced by the dark side, instead being duped, Padme losing the will to live

(2007) Super Duper SE 30th Anniversary DVD: I'm sure there will be some changes which will drive some fans even more crazy!

 

You're right, because fans made these movies, not George Lucas.

 

It went wrong in the 16 year gap between ROTJ and TPM. This caused two problems:

1. Made Lucas out of practice when it came to writing and directing
2. The fans grew up and became more cynical and less forgiving of flaws than they had been with the OT

 

The test audience made these movies.

Then came the re-release of Star Wars in ?78, where GL included the ?power converters? line. GL has been ?tinkering? long before we knew what was going on.

 

I think The Phantom Menace stands out as a mark on the Star Wars filmic timeline that is highly problematic. Most generally, to me the film suffers in how distanced it is from the other five entries. The film really does seem better suited as a prologue rather than a true beginning. I think it was a poor decision to spend so much time developing Qui-Gon Jinn and Jar Jar Binks when ultimately these characters for all intents and purposes fall off the radar as main characters. As a result, valuable screen time depicting the relationship between Obi-Wan and Anakin is nowhere to be scene in Episode I. This leads to a choppy restart in Episode II, where it?s alluded to that the two are supposedly good friends that for whatever reason have serious issues simply getting along with one another. Anakin speaks of Obi-Wan both as a father and an unfair, unsympathetic educator, and yet Clones doesn?t have the time to slow down its narrative to display the basics of this relationship that could have so easily been portrayed in Menace. The same goes for Anakin when it comes to his character?s progression. The jubilant boy of Episode I is a far cry from the bitter, cynical, and oftentimes creepy young man of Episode II. This change could?ve been a lot more viable if we were given insight into the Jedi upbringing that so influenced his development, specifically his tutelage under Kenobi.

Furthermore, I think the overall product that TPM offers suffers from a severe case of identity crisis. On one hand, many elements are included that result in a particularly juvenile pedigree, including lil? Anakin, Jar Jar, and the light-hearted manner in which serious topics like slavery and military occupation are presented. On the other hand, though, the narrative is fueled by dense maneuvers like tax disputes, underlying political powerplays, and inherently flawed bureaucratic institutions that can?t help but stand the test of time. Some might say these opposing styles call out to the largest possible audience, but to many others the jump between the bubbly chortlings of kiddie-ville to the stoic Senate hearings is much too jarring for the film to flow naturally.

As a result, TPM presents an amalgam that leaves me wondering just how seriously I?m supposed to take in what I?m seeing, while all the while the film fails to present relevant material that?s otherwise rushed or non-existent in the latter two prequel installments.

 

The slavery issue is moved along throughout all of the prequels, and even returns in Return Of The Jedi. The episodes are light hearted movies because they're for the kiddies. You wouldn't want your children to see Watto beating Anakin and his mother and making them live in a cage. The issue of slavery returns in Episode II and III but what you have to realize is that the people of Republic don't see it as slavery, because the slaves themselves don't know they're slaves. And many fans do not see it as slavery, but the topic of slavery is in Episodes II and III.

 

The episodes are light hearted movies because they're for the kiddies. You wouldn't want your children to see Watto beating Anakin and his mother and making them live in a cage.

Which is precisely my point. A lot of TPM is specifically targeted towards small children, but in the same breadth you have a plot rife with layered politics and stiff bureaucratic jargon. For me, the two extremes clashed in a manner which was very much detrimental to the film?s overt method of storytelling.

 

For me, the two extremes clashed in a manner which was very much detrimental to the film?s overt method of storytelling

This reminds me of some other "clash" but in a manner that makes it amazing storytelling. Queen Amidala and Jar Jar look out the window (in Coruscant - political environment) and discuss about the dire situation at Naboo where the TF have taken control.

Jar Jar (the lowest denominator of his race in Naboo) inadvertantly gives a great idea to Amidala (the highest of her race in Naboo) that the Gungans have an army and would fight to defend their land. So Amidala decides that with the coordination of the two diverse races Naboo can be protected.

 

Well my point is that I forgot to make is that Star Wars appears to be a very light hearted fantasy film on the surface but there's really is a lot going on there for the grown ups, but it's in the visuals. A 7 year old child doesn't understand what corrupt capitalism is unless they're very advanced for their age. But it is there in the movies. The separtists are corrupt capitalist but Lucas doesn't harp on it because the kiddies would be left out. Come on Star Wars is for the entire family. The movie is to be shared. There is something for everyone in them. When I first saw TPM I didn't like it that much, well I did like the pod race and Gungans army coming out of the fog was cool, but what I really liked was the senate scene where Padme is being dooped by Palpatine and in that scene you have to ask yourself why does a corporation like the Trade Federation have representation on a government body. Well maybe it's because Lucas is showing just how screwed up the senate is with that visual.

 

One, why does the STAR WARS saga have to be perfect?

Two, why does anything have to be perfect?

Three, why is our society so obssessed with everything being perfect?

Four, why am I not surprised that someone would blame either ROTJ or any of the Prequel Trilogy movies for the "decline" of the STAR WARS saga? How typical.

 

I really love hearing these retro-impressions of Star Wars. Not that I agree that anything went 'wrong' necessarily by expanding the series, but I do think it is important to remember what Star Wars once was.

I love the idea of a self-contained A New Hope. No screw that, just call it 'Star Wars'. Where The Force is a metaphor for real-world faith and mysticism, not just a system of sci-fi magic. And Darth Vader was just an evil space lord with a laser sword. It didn't mean everything complicated that it means now. It really was just a space adventure, not a space 'mythology' and all of the heavy geek BS that goes along with that....

I love when the Star Wars characters throw out some line about the Imperial Senate or Jabba the Hutt, and in the context of the time when it was made, these lines weren't supposed to make sense! Now when some newbie watches these scenes (like my girlfriend) they think they are missing something. Will they explain it in the next movie? Is it explained in one of the books, maybe? No dear, it was just a crazy reference in what is supposed to be a fun space romp: How can you explain this in the context of "The Star Wars Saga", where all the silly dialogue garbage has been given a real backstory and meaning, too much for its own good?

Where it used to look like a fun revival of Buck Rogers, it now looks like Star Trek. A bloated universe of aliens with historical baggage.

But Alas, I'm a wannabe when it comes to that time period since I am a child of the 80s. I was first exposed to Star Wars through the One Last Time THX releases in 1995. You might say I am the last of the "untainted generation" since I became a diehard fan in the era before the Special Editions. But still, when I saw first Star Wars, it was the Star Wars Trilogy, and it was clear that Ben Kenobi was a liar from the start, since everybody knew that Darth Vader was Luke's father.

You don't know how cool Star Wars was as an old underground series in the early 90s though. No one in my generation knew of it unless they were hardcore. Pre-Special Edition, Star Wars was underground, lurking only in the minds of the previous generation and in comic book stores. How great it was to have this old, timeless movie being revived through the then young EU. Star Wars was from a great legacy and it was still going somewhere great

Then it all changed. We know what happened.

ROTS and the trilogy DVDs were neat enough that it helped reconcile the new Star Wars with the old. But it is still different now than it used to be. See, even I have my retro-impressions of Star Wars.

 

I agree.

We know that George has made comments about the OT story being spread out across the 3 films and a lot of it having to be filler. The juiciest bit in ROTJ was really the final act where Luke confronts Vader - the rest was fill so to speak.

ANH and most of TESB have a lot more going on - character development included.

I feel that there is a lot more fill in the PT as a whole. ROTS in my opinion has the most pace cause there is a lot more story going on and less fill in then TPM and AOTC.



So maybe what went wrong is trying to make 6 films when maybe only 4 were needed???

 

Sort of an absolutist approach here, isn't it?

I mean, isn't there anything in between a perfect film (no such thing)
and something being wrong or flawed?

 

There is nothing perfect under the sun. With film it's a subjective matter of taste just as in all artforms.

 

If Star Wars was truly made for 5-10 year old`s then wy Does

* Anakin, Luke, Mace, Dooku get their hands(Head) cut of?

* Owen and Beru become big nasty burned skeletons

* Palpatine torture Luke for "several minutes", and torture Mace to death(Possibly)

* Vader torture Han and Leia(of screen)

* Anakin murder children

* Anakin burn to crisp on screen

* Vader strangle people to death.

* Maul get cut in two

* a certain cute blu Jedi get shot in the back several times

 

Thats why Star Wars Episode III is rated PG-13. The others are only PG and were still intended for kids.

 

PG is not intended for kids. G is intended for kids. PG is primarily intended for teens and adults. Kids can watch, but 'parental guidance is suggested'.

Also, not everything in Asherak's list is from ROTS.

 

Star Wars is a fairy tale and fairy tales have always been violent.

* witch tried to cook Hansel alive

* witch stuck a knife into Aslan

* wolf ate grandma

* wolf attacked pigs

 

I don't think that the Star Wars saga is perfect -- or that such a thing is possible. I've loved the Star Wars films since I saw the original film when I was four (and got my first figure, Chewbacca, for Christmas in 1978). Now, at the age of 31, I still love all of the Star Wars films.

But they're not perfect. I appreciate the films at a much greater depth now than I did as a child, but I also see the flaws more clearly. And, of course, there are things that I would have done differently -- but I think that almost anyone would have such thoughts.

The original film, Star Wars (not Episode IV: A New Hope, but plain old "Star Wars") was an amazing film unlike anything anyone had seen before. It captured the imaginations of a generation of children and young adults. It was a fun and exhilerating fairy tale in space. Characters in Star Wars alluded to characters not seen in the film, such as Jabba the Hutt or The Emperor, but it was essentially just to provide a sense of history and scope to this galaxy. Star Wars works brilliantly as a stand-alone film. Of course, everybody wanted a continuation of the story, but it didn't need one.

Yes, Lucas had written a large amount of material that was never used in "Star Wars," but the film was already a condensed version of his original story treatment(s). Many of the worlds that Lucas dreamed up -- a city planet, the city in the clouds, the forest planet of the Wookies -- were left out because he wouldn't be able to create those environments. The ultimate showdown involved the infamous ground battle between the Wookiees and the Empire, and the attack on the Death Star. The Wookiee battle was axed, and the Death Star battle was the climax of this first -- and at the time, I'm sure it was believed to be the only -- film.

(I'm not sure how accurate it is, but my fiancee gave me the book The Cinema of George Lucas, and it mentions that much of the action in Star Wars was intended to take place on the Imperial city planet of Alderaan, but restrictions of budget and practicality led Lucas to move all of those scenes to the Death Star.)

I don't believe that there was really any more to the story of Star Wars circa 1973-77. There was a collection of ideas, characters, and locations that wasn't able to be used in "Star Wars," but I don't believe there was any concrete plan for the future adventures of Luke, Han, and Leia -- if there were to be any. There was likely not much more to the backstory than what is revealed in the film and in the Star Wars novelization, which has a 1-2 page Prologue briefly summarizing the "unassuming" Senator Palpatine using the mechanisms of galactic commerce to manipulate events and eventually declare himself Emperor. At most, the idea of Vader being Luke's father was an idea that Lucas was toying with at the time, but it is equally likely that he didn't really come up with the idea until writing The Empire Strikes Back. Annikin (to use an older spelling to refer to Luke's father) and Vader were both friends and likely students of Obi-Wan, who fought at his side in the Clone Wars. Vader was seduced by the Dark Side, and helped the Emperor hunt down and destroy the Jedi, including Annikin. Obi-Wan injured Vader in a duel on the lava planet (the idea does seem to have been around since this time), and Vader was mortally wounded, being force to don the suit.

 

I disagree. I don't think Lucas had four movies worth of storylines written. I don't believe that Lucas had a longer storyline that he broke up into three parts when he made the first Star Wars. He had a story called "The Star Wars," and he had to discard many ideas because they would either be impossible to too expensive to commit to film. Somehow, over the last 30 years, according to what Lucas says now, those disarded ideas and story bits have become a storyline that he "envisioned from the beginning." I have the utmost respect for Lucas as a writer, director, and filmmaker, but I call BS on that issue. The backstory that eventually became the prequels was probably more well-developed than ideas of possible future adventures, but I'd be extremely surprised there was more than a page or two worth of backstory at the time.

Luke searching the galaxy for his long-lost twin sister and the two of them ultimately confronting the Emperor isn't really three more films worth of storyline. Luke's function in the story after ESB became to return his father to the light, rather than to fight the Empire.

I didn't really find ROTJ's storytelling rushed. It was more than once Han was rescued, there wasn't a great deal for Han and Leia to do. The main drama of the story was the Luke/Vader confrontation, and everything else was essentially fluff. And probably even more than Han and Leia's roles in the story, the phoned-in performances by Carrie Fisher and (especially) Harrison Ford really undermined their role in the saga.

I disagree about "kiddie-fication" of the saga. Even kids who were 4 or 5 years old when they saw Star Wars were already 10 or 11 when ROTJ came out. Everybody grew up 6 years in between films. We could have had the cast of Star Wars composed mainly of "little people," which was an idea that was considered at one point.

Because seven-foot tall men running around in furry costumes and grunting is immeasurably more "mature" than three-foot tall men running around in furry costumes...

Said "teddy bears" in ROTJ were actually about to roast our heroes alive and eat them. The character of Chewbacca was originally inspired by Lucas' Alaskan malamute. The only real difference between Ewoks and ROTJ and Lucas' original (more primative) idea of the Wookiees is their height. I fail to see how one is any more "cute and kiddified" than the other.

Lucas originally envisioned a massive battle on all fronts, with the Wookiees engaging the Imperial forces in the forest, while the rebels attacked the Death Star in space. I guess he always really liked that idea, and how he could pull it off without the compromises he had to make in ANH. Early drafts of ROTJ had all of the Luke/Vader/Emperor action taking place on Had Abbadon (Coruscant), while the rebels led an attack on the two Death Stars being constructed i

 

It was successful enough to build Skywalker Ranch and ensure his independence.

I've never seen merchandising as Lucas's primary motivation behind any aspect of his films. Seriously, if the original Star Wars were released today, critics would be slamming it because the Death Star trench run was obviously designed to sell the video game. I don't think Lucas lost any creativity after ESB, but I can see him being very burnt-out after the production of both SW and ESB. During ROTJ's production, he also adopted Amanda, and the fact that his wife left him later in 1983 suggests that there may have been a lot of issues going on in his personal life.

The SW prequels seem to share a bit in common with the Harry Potter books and films. The first installment in each series presents the point of view of a roughly 10 year-old boy, and could perhaps been seen as being aimed for a child of that same age. The readers/viewers are growing up as the series progresses, and each installment in the series becomes darker, scarier, more violent, and far less appropriate for young children; Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire is rated PG-13, if I'm not mistaken, and Prizoner of Azkaban was a lot darker and scarier than either of the first two films.

TPM was light hearted and kid-friendly because it was the world as Anakin saw it at the age of 9. The tone of the film reflects the Republic "before the dark times," and reflects Anakin as an innocent, kind-hearted little boy. And it provides a start constrast to the tone of ROTS. TPM needed a light-hearted tone, as anything else would have been inappropriate artistically.

I think this argument is totally irrelevant. The feature film landscape is completely different than it was in 1977-1983, and any direct comparisons are likewise irrelevant. The low price and accessibility of high quality home video systems, and the flood of big-budget blockbusters render any such comparision useless. I'm a huge SW fan, but I'm unlikely to see the film in the theatre multiple times when I know it's going to be out on DVD in six months -- I'll spend my money on seeing a film that I probably won't buy. Star Wars was also 25 years old at that point; the fifth installments of Spider Man or Lord of the Rings (I know it's 3 parts, we're talking hypothetically) would probably not dominate the box office either. People who are not Star Wars fans do actually get sick of it. Anticipation for the SW prequels was generally centered around Episode I (the first SW film in 16 years), and Episode III (we finally see Anakin turn evil, and it is the final film that wil