PT What do people mean when they say the Prequels lack 'heart and soul'?

I on more than one occasion I have read people on the internet say that the Star Wars Prequel Trilogy all lack the 'heart and soul' of the Original Trilogy. I never really understood this line of thinking. What do people mean when they say that the Prequel movies are 'souless'? What makes a movie have or not have a soul to begin with?

 

I think what they mean is that some people couldn't get invested in the characters the same way they could with the OT characters, thus leading to the feeling of "soullessness". Also, I feel like this is going to get merged with the "Why are the PT films criticized" thread.

 

The only people who say that are the ones who refuse to look for it.

As good as the original trilogy is, I truly believe George Lucas put more "heart and soul" into the prequel trilogy. If you trace all the work and thought put into it, it is really easy to tell it was a labor of love.

I would say that a movie is without heart when it is created poorly. You may find the plot riddled with holes, or cardboard characters, or little detail. If you watch the prequel trilogy, it is undeniable that every single shot was jam-packed with detail and every minute was gearing towards not only the plot of the movie, but the arcing plot of the trilogy, and even more than that, the master arc plot of the entire saga. It is incredible how airtight this six movie epic is.

And as far as characters go, George hit the lottery when he make the original trilogy. Vader, Han, Luke, Ben, Leia, C-3PO, the list goes on.

It would have been so easy to duplicate those characters into the prequel trilogy, cuz they work, and that is what a lot of people wanted. But that would have been without heart. Instead, George takes the leap to create entirely new characters, fleshing out Obi-wan's youth, designing the cautious renegade Qui-gon. Padme who is simultaneously politically correct AND a firebrand amazon! Is Anakin Luke 2.0? No! He is still Darth Vader, but as a real person. He is the embodiment of the trilogy as the republic falls to darkness, so to does Anakin Skywalker fall to the dark side. He is a real person with insecurities and feelings.

Let me outline for you the prequel trilogy some fans wanted. The one they claim would have had "heart and soul".

For three movies, Obi-wan and Anakin gallant around heroically without any inner personal conflicts, just outer. Then at some point, Anakin turns into a sith juggernaut killing everybody and instilling fear. The reason for this turn is unknown.

Honestly when you hear people talk about a prequel trilogy that could have been, this is what their vision boils down too. A lifeless cut out of the events. But what we get instead is that, and with so much more.

The prequel trilogy has more heart and soul than 99% of films ever made in my opinion. A masterpiece.

 

Well, I got invested in the characters. So I guess it's all about how we connect to the films that define heart and soulness?

Nonetheless, yeah. Now that I think of it, I believe it should be merged...

 

I wouldn't say 99% myself, but I do agree that they have more heart and soul than most modern sci-fi and superhero movies that I know of and perhaps more than The Force Awakens in my opinion...

 

Calling the Prequels soulless is similar to people years ago calling 2001 and Kubrick "soulless" because it's not of an average level of communication.

It's a stereotype that sadly, seems to be a definition of others, especially artist/filmmakers.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Hmm...

I feel like this is more of an intimate level of conversation rather than pairing it up with that thread.

The "Soul" isn't just some criticism to be tossed around. It's a subject that connects all inhabitants, which implies for deeper and in depth talks.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

You know, every once in a while, a post comes along...

Bravo, bravo, bravo!!!!!!


These are such beautiful paragraphs:

I would say that a movie is without heart when it is created poorly. You may find the plot riddled with holes, or cardboard characters, or little detail. If you watch the prequel trilogy, it is undeniable that every single shot was jam-packed with detail and every minute was gearing towards not only the plot of the movie, but the arcing plot of the trilogy, and even more than that, the master arc plot of the entire saga. It is incredible how airtight this six movie epic is.

It would have been so easy to duplicate those characters into the prequel trilogy, cuz they work, and that is what a lot of people wanted. But that would have been without heart. Instead, George takes the leap to create entirely new characters, fleshing out Obi-wan's youth, designing the cautious renegade Qui-gon. Padme who is simultaneously politically correct AND a firebrand amazon! Is Anakin Luke 2.0? No! He is still Darth Vader, but as a real person. He is the embodiment of the trilogy as the republic falls to darkness, so to does Anakin Skywalker fall to the dark side. He is a real person with insecurities and feelings.

Honestly when you hear people talk about a prequel trilogy that could have been, this is what their vision boils down too. A lifeless cut out of the events. But what we get instead is that, and with so much more. The prequel trilogy has more heart and soul than 99% of films ever made in my opinion. A masterpiece.


Again, bravo, bravo, bravo!!!!!



Of course, soulfulness is difficult to capture or define -- how does one, for example, compare Monet to Picasso, or Bach to Liszt?



Beyond that, I struggle to add to what you wrote above. Great post.

 

The tonal differences create a very different feel from the OT. As for the other critiques, yeah, that other thread. When I first saw this my immediate suspicion was someone trying to troll up controversy esp with such a similar focus to the other ongoing criticism threads. I'm glad to see the OP responded, though, rather than dropping the bomb and going silent like the other OP did!

Edit: Also, I would argue that soullessness and general critical critique are two different things. When I call something soulless, it's because it was made for the quick and easy cash grab with no regard for the art of the film itself. Myriad sequels fall under this label, as do some films I absolutely loathe, but for instance, my most hated film in recent years, Batman v Superman, isn't soulless... it has soul, just the kind that's going straight to metaphorical movie hell for undermining the quintessential elements that make Batman and Superman who they are.

Soulless, to me, is cookie-cutter plug-it-in blockbusters. Jurassic World. Avatar. Transformers 2+. The Last Airbender. Battleship. Pixels. Heck, any Adam Sandler film of the last decade plus. Fan4stick. The Friday the 13th and Nightmare on Elm Street remakes. the Robocop remake. Most remakes, really...

 

It's good that you've asked this specific question. If you'd said "Do the Prequels lack heart & soul?" we'd have a potential ****-storm of a debate on our hands. Even hardcore PT fans should be able to simply answer why others hold this view. Given the years of discussion about it.

I'd say that opinion is based on:

A perceived lack of chemistry between the actors & therefore the characters. Many people just didn't detect a great bond between the characters, in the same way as some other films. The OT or TLOTR may be examples where friendships & relationships seemed more powerful & genuine. It was expected that we'd see a strong friendship between Anakin & Obi-Wan for example. What many perceived were two people who barely got along. More like co-workers who annoyed each other. The romance between Anakin & Padme is famously something that alot of people didn't buy. Whether it was down to acting, direction or writing or a combination of all three is debatable. It's also debatable whether these things are issues at all. We should note however that this view is supported, somewhat by many of the cast who called the acting wooden or flat. Anthony Daniels went as far as to call the whole PT "cold & pointless". Bit harsh there. Yet if some of the performances were wooden or flat that can go some way towards the audience not relating to them. Which can result in a movie that lacks "soul".

The volume of digital animation. The perception by some people was that the movies had an overly animated look. Computer animated at that, which to some continually removed the feeling they were watching a real & tangible world. Even many of the supporting characters looked animated to some people & to them it was difficult to get a "soulful" feeling from a computer animated character. Perhaps particularly in those early days of CGI. We've also heard from the cast how difficult it was acting across from imaginary characters, perhaps also at times with minimal direction. This could've added to the rigid/stilted/wooden/flat feeling that some people perceived. What this adds up to is that the Prequels failed to reach alot of people emotionally. They could admire certain things about them but those movies just didn't make them "feel". It's no surprise that an often cited exception to this is RotS, & that's the Prequel that's consistently the highest rated.

Obviously none of these explanations are objective facts. They're just points of view. The don't need to be refuted or countered. It's a feeling that many people had & it's as valid as those who felt the opposite. If anyone did find that the PT had soul then they're lucky. They get to enjoy the PT far more than those who don't feel that way.

 

Which would explain why these same...people say that TFA has the "heart and soul" that the prequels lack: cookie-cutter characters (including a generic kick-butt, unflawed, neo-feminist protagonist we're supposed to think is a "gutsy" choice for the main character simply because she's female) gallivanting around heroically, no explanation given for Kylo "Whiny Brat" Ren's turn and decision to kill his dad, bells and whistles letting us know every moment we're supposed to laugh or sniffle, a heavy reliance on nostalgia and a blatant pandering to the demands of the noisiest malcontents on the Internet.

 

I'm not saying I agree with this, but people may think that the originals are more character driven while the prequels are more event driven. I do think that the prequels do more telling than showing, however, it has great character arcs. Possibly the complex locations, CGI and action takes away from the emotions of the prequels.
It is possible that some people believe the prequels are soulless because the trilogy ends on a dark note, while the originals go from light to dark to light. Just some theories. My own belief is that the prequels are more about events than emotion, and this is reversed for the original trilogy.

 

Everyone has their own point of view on what constitutes as "heart and soul" for them. Everyone's heart and soul is different, and the things they feel there are different. I personally have always identified with Anakin's journey the most out of all the characters in Star Wars, by far. From the beginning, Episode I, to the ending, Episode VI, I always experienced the Saga from his point of view and found the most "heart and soul" in it. Far more than, say, in Luke.

 

In my opinion they are just admitting they don't understand the movies when they say stuff like that.

 

Kenobi1138 This is certainly the best answer I've read so far! Well said.

I agree that all the six Star Wars movies made by Lucas, not just the PT, are much more engaging than the majority of block busters released these days, which are, for the most part, brainless flicks or like fast foods. Well, at least, that is how I feel today towards movies released these days...

 

Or it never clicked with them as much as the OT did.

 

It's not one to begin with. It's a subjective statement. Why do some people say that? Can't answer that since I don't share the sentiment.

 

This is an accurate assessment. Although I'm sure there are a couple other reasons some regard the prequels as lacking 'heart and soul,' I think a large portion of it has do with its style of presentation. And this directly relates to your Kubrick comment.

In 1970, legendary Soviet director Andrei Tarkovsky responded to Kubrick's film 2001 with these comments:

Now, as 2001 is now a strongly revered film, we can see the value in Kubrick's work. So it is clearly not "lifeless" for many, many people. But this is not really about 2001. This critique, made of the type of technological filmmaking (using models and/or CGI to create exotic environments, and feeling 'fake' as a result), has been criticized ever since it's earliest manifestation -- even in 2001, often revered as the greatest use of special effects in history. The critics against this style are not new, so it's not new for people to dislike that about Lucas' approach either. But does Tarkovsky stop there? No he does not. He goes even further.

Another strong rebuttal to what is now considered one of the greatest films of all time. A very similar argument has sometimes been leveled against the prequels, and against Star Wars in general. If it can be said about 2001, surely it can be said about Star Wars.

Tarkvosky later remarked that he viewed Kubrick's film as "cold and sterile -- unnatural." He went on to make the [quite good] film Solaris as a response to Kubrick's film.

Now, aside from the fact that I admire and enjoy both Solaris and [especially] 2001, and both are influential, why do I bring this up?

Two reasons. First, it is a common critique of a certain style. And what style is that? On the one hand, it is a style that embraces the technology of its day. This I have covered.

More importantly, however, it is a style based firmly in a documentary-based approach in filmmaking. This is something that both Lucas and Kubrick share in spades, and we know for a fact that Lucas was very heavily influenced by Kubrick's style. Lucas likes to shoot all of his films -- from his earliest student abstract documentaries to Revenge of the Sith -- in a very stable, unobtrusive style. You can even notice this in 1977's Star Wars. It's an ever-present aspect of his filmmaking style.

The style got a bit more dynamic in both Empire and Jedi but Lucas made sure to select directors who shared his overall perspective in filmmaking -- one, his filmmaking instructor, and two, a filmmaker with a lot of experience in shooting stage plays (which proved quite important for the most powerful sequence of the film -- the Vader/Palpatine/Luke scene could almost be done as a stage drama).

When it came to the prequels, Lucas returned to his traditional style, although I personally think that he actually directorially loosened a bit more up for the prequels (especially Clones and Sith) when you contrast those with his first 3 films. The major problem here is: the style of stable, documentary-esque filmmaking that people like Stanley Kubrick, Ridley Scott, and George Lucas embraced was no longer in vogue in cinemas. It was a callback already by the time of the 80s; by the time of the very late 90s and early 00s it was downright quaint and out of touch with modern audiences. Simply compare The Phantom Menace and The Matrix. There is no comparison. You can clearly tell the style of grounding of each directing team, and one was decidedly more in-step with the times and more fluid and 'cool' than the other, and it was not The Phantom Menace. (As a side-note, JJ Abrams had to tone down his usually frenetic style just a bit for The Force Awakens just to fit within the margins of the saga -- you can watch JJ's filmography and it's clear as day. It shows just how much it's integral to the style of the series. Even toning it down, JJ's style is still the most frenetic of the whole series.)

Point being -- that documentary style is an unobtrusive style, which is good when the director wants you to soak in everything and get a stable, global view of the picture, but sometimes people prefer a less detached attitude in their films. For some people it can feel 'cold,' 'lifeless,' 'lacking heart and soul' -- which is why many directors no longer use it. Some directors themselves, like Tarkovsky, don't care for it. Even look at documentaries today compared to documentaries of the old -- it's all there, the change that has happened. Formerly documentaries used to be so detached as to be boring to some viewers. Today, they are as frenetic and engaging as possible. The pendulum has swung.

So, it's a combination of two things -- the technological style to emphasize unfamiliar environments (through models and CG), and through a very unobstructive, old-fashioned, documentary-esque style of directing that is no longer in vogue today. Add on top of that some things like older styles of acting, older styles of dialogue, and so on and you can see that our old George does not make it easy on himself! I happen to enjoy what he does, and I wish there were a lot more of that style in both cinema and television today. And I could go on at length about this. But from 2001 to Revenge of the Sith, I think there is a continuity of criticism against this type of film, and it's even more out of fashion (or, unique) today. Personally, as I've said, I always felt engaged in Lucas' directorial films -- all of them (love you, THX!) -- so I think it's just a style that suits some people and doesn't suit others. It seems that a heck of a lot of people still enjoy it though. Just my two cents.

2001

Star Wars

Barry Lyndon

The Phantom Menace

2001

Attack of the Clones

A Clockwork Orange

Revenge of the Sith

----------
It's worth noting as well that Lucas' affection for Kubrick's films was not one sided. Kubrick remarked himself to a French newspaper that he enjoyed Lucas' work on American Graffiti and Star Wars quite a bit.

As a side-note, here is an excerpt from an interview with Spielberg about Kubrick's filmmaking -- I think to some extent these remarks apply to Lucas' similar style, and the strong emphasis on visual storytelling, which pairs up with the docu-style quite well:

"When you look at all of his films, even though they all have one thing in common, for me, anyway, the craft is impeccable. Every film he's ever made, the craft is impeccable. The lighting, the dolly shots, the crane moves, the zoom-ins on Barry Lyndon, the framing, the lighting, the hot windows as backlight. There's the compositions. The exact compositions. You had to hit your mark precisely to please Stanley so he'd get his painting, the painting he was putting on canvas for you to appreciate. It had to be perfect. His choice of lenses, his Steadicam work in latter year films, impeccable. The best in history. Nobody could shoot a movie better than Stanley Kubrick, in history.

That was impeccable, but the way he told stories was sometimes antithetical to the way we're accustomed to receiving stories. And I think sometimes Stanley just did that because he didn't want to be like everybody else and he had a very specific way of telling a story. It's not that he wanted to show off – “I'm so different than you.” But he said, “Why does every story have to be told the same way?”"

 

[Don't want to side-track too much, but I just wanted to mention this as I just remembered. Lucas paid his fellow filmmaker [and influential teacher] Kubrick a direct reference -- and I'd like to think, a certain thank you/tribute to his stylistic brethren -- very plainly at the end of ROTS. Lucas even fessed up to it. And I suspect "Polis Massa" is a little linguistic play on "Moonbase Alpha," Space: 1999's popular take on 2001's base below. Just posting as a continuation of what I said above, for those interested in this little tidbit. ^.^]
2001

Revenge of the Sith

 

They mean the song, "Heart and Soul". Not heard once in the PT. Not one scene of Tom Hanks and Robert Loggia playing a giant piano.




But seriously:

I've found that when people say "heart" and "soul", then often mean things that make them feel good inside, things that make them feel warm.

Well, the PT is about someone turning into Darth Vader. It's not really a warm and fuzzy story.

At the very least, the PT goes for heart...a broken one. It goes for soul...a twisted one. It doesn't aim to make you feel good or warm, but uncomfortable and pained. YMMV on how well it succeeded. From pov, it was a total failure. It needed to more firmly establish good, warm feelings first, it needed to show the heart before it broke it, the soul before it twisted it; it needed to make me desperately root for Anakin and Padme to succeed...so that when their hearts broke, mine broke with them. But it didn't. I was never on the same page as them. YMMV.

There is some praise to be said about the idea of the PT; a twisted prequel where the main character becomes the bad guy and the trilogy ends with the bad guys winning and the good guys losing, etc. It's a neat idea. It doesn't aim for the standard story. The OT, that made you feel good and warm in the end, and quite often throughout. The PT doesn't. Maybe it should have a little more, maybe it went too far to the opposite end of the spectrum. Again, YMMV.

 

If Lucas who admitted to being terrible at directing actors had taken up some sort of acting coach on set at all times and devoted more time to creating authentic performances and dialogue than we may have gotten a more memorable heart and soul in the film.

Hayden wouldn't have overcompensated his acting and Natalie Portman wouldn't have been so wooden/dull and lifeless. They're the heart of the films or at least should have been but nothing about whats on screen feels as truthful or authentic as a single moment Mark Hamill or Ford had in the OT. I think that's the biggest/unforgivable sin of the prequels that even a DIE hard defender of them like myself has to admit to. None of the actors save Christopher Lee, Mcdirmond, Liam Neeson or Ewan McGregor gave anything real on screen... I don't think Lucas had anything to do with them. I'm sure they were classically trained and knew to just deliver it themselves without any direction.

 

Horse puckey. They acted as he wanted them to act. He wanted Padmé to be stiff and formal in her queen persona, and much warmer and gentler out of it. He wanted Anakin to be a raging mess of hormones, anger and Dark Side issues. He wanted their romantic dialogue to be awkward and corny.

(Honestly, I can understand the criticism of the romantic dialogue, but otherwise, I fail to see how the dialogue in the prequels is so dreadful, or so lesser in quality to the OT, which isn't exactly Shakespeare.)

And Hamill and Ford (and Fisher) got dissed plenty for their acting in the OT, before the prequels were so much as a gleam in Lucas's eye. So did the dialogue. So did the movies in general for "being more about special effects and spectacle than story and character." Hamill, Ford and Fisher all made a concentrated effort to separate themselves from SW and their respective SW personae, with (to say the least) highly varying degrees of success.

Incidentally, Hamill objected to the infamous "power converters" line in ANH, and wanted Luke to sound less whiny when he said it...but Lucas insisted. He wanted Luke to sound like a sullen child who's trying to get out of going to school.

 

Faster and more intense?

 

I think people are talking about it being a lot more CGI and the acting being horrible to some viewers

 

It's something... elsewhere. Elusive.