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

Haven't encountered such white-hot anti-prequel passion in a while. I guess it does provide a certain level of, I dunno... Surprise? Amusement?

I'm laughing with you guys. Though, just to be clear, I would never say that Kuro wasn't entitled to his opinion.

I remember a guy on IMDb, full of hate -- makes Kuro look like a kitten -- that would post these incredibly derisive comments about the prequels (it *was* IMDb), especially AOTC, and had pet names for everyone. Yoda, for example, was "Yodine", and Mace Windu somehow became "Mace Windows".

Yeah, I know. That's why I derived a certain satisfaction in writing it.

As I said at the bottom of it, opinions on AOTC do vary a tad.

 

You're a knight master of understatement

 

I was thinking of you, I do admit, when I wrote that!

I remember you saying the same sorta thing, anyway; but I rediscovered a post of yours, with just such an opinion expressed in it, a little earlier.

Absolutely had to include that one in my list.

Something, in AOTC, that's close to the (big word incoming) "aleatory everyday". But, like anything, done in a "Star Wars" way.

There was a little movie
Set a long time ago
In a galaxy far, far away
It captured much of interest
It was quite groovy
It put on quite a show
It had much to recommend
Including the aleatory everyday
That's what sometimes happens
In middle installments
With clones and a few groans
Set a long time ago
In a galaxy far, far away

 

I like to think this thread has taken a positive turn! Thank you Kuro for playing along, I'm glad we can agree Ewan McGregor is awesome!

While I don't know what drives Kuro to consistently come to the PT forum since he hates it so much, it is refreshing to see his obvious love for film displayed in nearly every post. He never fails to post something interesting!

 

The funniest nickname I've heard is Queen Amidala being called Queen "Ooba Dooba" by ConfusedMatthew. That guy's sheer rage in his PT reviews was also very hilarious and worth a watch (of course, don't take it too seriously.....though I'm sure that PT fans who venture to watch this kind of stuff understand that and see the humor in it).

 

Yeah, I've seen his videos. His anger actually gets a bit much. That's where the Plinkett videos are better. They're not unvarying, rage-filled polemics; they're something more.

I also think, for the record, Plinkett has better names/malapropisms, from "Ewan McDonald", to "Queen Aminalan" and "General Grievance". I almost laugh typing those.

 

I'm not sure I could find rage-filled reviews interesting. Like, RLM has its sarcasm, but if a dude is just genuinely angry and it's a loud anger and he's reviewing something... not sure I could sit through that review all the way. Hate leads to the dark side. Use sarcasm. Express your issues with serenity. A whisper is more effective than a shout. When you whisper, others have to strain to listen, ensuring they are paying attention and not tuning you out.

Meanwhile, it's nice to see the list. I'm hoping to re-watch AOTC this week and it'll be nice to keep the positives in the back of my mind while I "force" myself to focus on the elements I enjoy.

 

That, to me, is the Confused Matthew videos, pretty much to a tee.

Yes. Or, in Plinkett's case, adopt a boozy slur and pepper with rape jokes. But seriously, his reviews are a lot more random and funny; almost a satire of a guy like Confused Matthew.

Cool! My list isn't meant to convert anyone. I was just trying to parse out (uh oh!) what I find pleasing and cool about AOTC; and combating -- or, at least, counterposing -- Kuro's extremely negative appraisal whilst doing so.

 

Tbh, I usually like what Kuro posts (unless it's like a whole page of big paragraphs, in which case I usually skim, sorry Kuro!), but I just can't see Anakin the way it's described for a few reasons. One, the only thing I get passionately anti about in that film in particular (and there are lots of issues I have, but we're talking real anger here) is Yoda's lightsaber battle, which runs so counter to the themes and purposes of his role in ESB that I feel it betrays the character's essence. I don't care how "cool" it looks, it feels inherently the wrong choice.

Ironically enough, the fan edits I have of the PT, AOTC is the most improved in the place where it's weakest: the love story. It 1) Cuts out most of the scenes, or trims them as much as possible. 2) It actually puts a deleted scene back in, the one where they have dinner with her family. and 3) miraculously, one actually feels chemistry between the two! It's honestly kind of amazing how editing alone can do so much to change a film.

 

And of course, if one sees that, one might have a reasonable chance at guessing the reason for the characterisation in R.L.M.'s reviews.

 

Would you consider the possibility that maybe Yoda's viewpoint and teachings on Dagobah are things he learned from his mistakes in AOTC? Or really, the way I see it, the whole PT. I think Yoda and the rest of the jedi probably shouldn't have been caught up in the war effort so much.

After all, in stories and life alike, terrible or great events like the ones of ROTS change people and characters for better or worse. I think that both Yoda and Obi-wan learned and grew over the Dark Years.

But even so, I think they still don't get the entire picture, because they don't believe in the redemption of Anakin Skywalker, until it actually happens of course.

 

Well, as someone who generally likes the prequels - TPM less so, AOTC and ROTS about equally - I'll address some of the things I didn't like that much about them. I'll limit myself to the last two, as everything I dislike about TPM has pretty much been said already, many times.
AOTC:
- Already mentioned, that "football" video game in that bar on Coruscant
- I never cared that much for the "diner" scene
- Something concerning the whole PT, though it doesn't really bother me that much: the interiors of the Naboo ships were a little "dull" and unintersting, too smooth and lacking instruments, decoration etc., unlike the OT ships. I know they are supposed to look that way, being more "elegant" than OT era military-style ships, just felt they were sometimes a little "empty"-looking. I loved their exterior designs though.

 

I think some people believe that the prequels weren't as "sweet and innocent," so to speak, and I think a lot of people missed this. I think that's what they might be referring to.

 

Some? I bet you the vast majority of people don't have this issue with the prequels. Every time I hear this claim I have to roll my eyes, as I've never seen one anti-PT rant include that reasoning in their description. Not one. I'm sure a couple weirdos exist who hold that opinion, because the internet gives a voice to all kinds, but... nope. Just, not even close to accurate.

 

Well, now it has been.

I'm speaking from my observations. It is accurate because there are some people who think that way. I have seen threads (yes, they exist) where people have lamented about the lack of the same innocence in the prequels.

If it can be thought, there are those who think it.

 

I do not understand how those people think that. Luke's journey includes a loss of innocence through his experiences. I have to believe that those who make that claim are a very small percentage of the detractors.

 

I think the innocence is in Luke, always. Anakin was always moody and brooding. Luke, even as he lost some of his innocence, was still something of an optimist. Luke was just plain sweeter than Anakin. I think that's what they mean by that.

 

Well, anyone would be moody and brooding when they're forced to leave their mother behind and witness their Jedi father figure die at a very young age. Anakin became (in the words of Spock) "emotionally compromised" from that moment on which enabled PalpSidious to corrupt his mind. Luke didn't have any of those problems because he was allowed plenty of time to spend with his aunt and uncle to the point where he was ready to separate himself from them. Plus, he was old enough to handle the pain of loss and he didn't have a Sith lord manipulating him since childhood unlike his dear old dad. That is why people relate to Luke more because he turned out to be a much better person while Anakin became much worse.

 

Not buying this. Not buying this for a second. Rey and Finn lived much worse lives than Anakin Skywalker lived, yet we don’t see them murdering kids or re-enacting the My Lai massacre.

Anakin was just a fundamentally rotten human being…period.

 

Rey and Finn weren't manipulated by a Sith Lord since childhood like Anakin was. Kylo Ren, on the other hand, suffered the same fate as his grandfather and look how he turned out.

 

No, Finn simply spent his entire life being indoctrinated as a stormtrooper. Yet he refuses to participate in mass murder.

And Rey was abandoned on that miserable desert planet, and had to spend her entire life fending for herself.

Despite living absolutely horrible lives, neither of them murder children. Anakin was simply a brat.

 

Kylo Ren was manipulated by a dark side practitioner such as Supreme Leader Snoke the same way that PalpSidious manipulated Anakin. Just like Anakin, we see Kylo Ren slaughter a village full of men, women, and children but the worst part is Kylo Ren showed no remorse for what he has done unlike his grandfather.

Kylo Ren is a brat just like Anakin.

 

Good posts, PMT99 -- you gets it.

"Only a Sith deals in absolutes."

But Rey and Finn have less to deal with than Anakin.

While Rey might lead a bit of a hardscrabble life on Jakku, she doesn't have the worries and frustrations and responsibilities that pile up on Anakin's shoulders; let alone suffer through the anguish of having your beloved mother, whom you had promised to come back and free from slavery, die in relatively miserable circumstances in your arms. She is more like Tom Hanks' character in "Cast Away". She's relatively "free" in most regards, and she has her ways of coping, having adapted to the unyielding aridity around her.

The runaway Finn, on the other hand, has more of a freak-out moment than an enlightened "awakening". The trigger is seeing one of his buddies bite it helplessly at his side; not necessarily a moral objection to war and murder. He just wants to escape and preserve his own life. This is underlined by the fact that he thinks nothing of shooting his former comrades ten minutes later, and then arguing with Poe, after lying to him about "helping" him to escape and it being "the right thing" to do, insisting they have to get out of the system rather than go back to Jakku: "We go back to Jakku, we die." Even after meeting up with Rey, and then the famous "war hero" Han Solo, all he wants to do is keep running and get as far away from the First Order, and any sense of confrontation or responsibility, as he can.

I daresay that the depiction of Anakin, and the world he lives in and makes him what he is, is a tad more nuanced, complex, poignant, and believable. Anakin's needs, desires, aspirations, and frustrations are quite layered, and he isn't merely "a brat".

Anakin actually strives to do good, but also be recognized for the good he does. He also has issues with the present system, believing it to be slow and inefficient, and that a benign dictatorship, led by "someone wise", would be better for everyone. He's also a powerful warrior and learner in the ways of the Force, looking for love on the side. He yearns for comfort, contentedness, and for the loving energy inside of him to be received, understood, and returned to him. Belonging to the Jedi Order gives him some sense of stature and pride, but he also believes he is being limited out of concerns he is too unpredictable; and maybe because Obi-Wan is secretly jealous of his abilities; which the Jedi otherwise do recognize (Mace: "The boy has exceptional skills"). He is, in a metaphorical sense, a frustrated alchemist, desperate to turn base metal into gold (the relatively small, vulnerable, sleek vehicles he pilots, tinted yellow, are also an excellent metaphor to this end).

Anakin's chief flaw is one of restless impatience; stemming, in part, from his slave existence on Tatooine and an inability to let insult slide. He can't abandon the sense that the skills he could bring to the universe are being wasted; and more pain and suffering are accruing all the while. He also doesn't care too much for grey areas and the finer points of politics and bureaucracy. He'd rather things simply be done. And his mind, the whole time, is twisted by Palpatine; even on this level ("Do what must be done"). His whole life is a technicolor tragedy -- and the Star Wars movies play out as an epic rolling tapestry; a "coming of age" pastoral space fantasy; a poem, a chronicle, a lament, a parable, a warning. I'm sorry you don't get more from the character or the series than you do.

Then you have all the irony at work, from Anakin naively proclaiming that "no one can kill a Jedi", only for that same Jedi to be dead at the end of the movie -- the same Jedi that was his first Force mentor who powerfully believed in him and fought for his right to be trained. To that line becoming much darker in ROTS, where many Jedi are killed and Anakin slays the youngest ones by his own hand. Similarly, Yoda and Mace seem to believe in him in AOTC, while Obi-Wan is less certain of his ability to handle himself on his own, but in ROTS, this completely flips around, making Anakin's turn to the Dark Side all the more tragic. There is also Anakin's childish dream of freeing all the slaves in TPM, but he merely brings a greater tyranny (the Empire/Death Star) on the heads of everyone (well, until his final act in ROTJ, anyway).

Anakin is also the builder of Threepio, but Artoo ends up being more of a companion, while Threepio fails to protect Padme, his mother figure, from his maker's own misdeeds. Threepio and Artoo then work against the dark schemes of Anakin and "his" Empire in the original trilogy. There is also the dark "Othello"-inspired plotline of Anakin turning on his wife, after he believes she has turned against him along with Obi-Wan, who Anakin saved countless times from death, only for the two to go up against one another in battle, with Obi-Wan leaving Anakin -- his "brother" -- a charred wreck. Then Padme dies broken-hearted, which is a maiming even crueller than the first, leaving Anakin to live the remainder of his life as a metallic man, no longer able to breathe on his own or see, speak, or express himself without mechanical assistance, with his crooked reaper master his only "friend", and oppressing the galaxy until it is all completely bound up in the gears of the Empire, the gears of death, the only dream he has left to live. I'd say this is an exceptionally tragic character, alright.

 

Yeah, I don't see Anakin's acts making him a "brat," but rather a narrative that is actually willing to explore extreme consequence as they pertain to extreme situations. Simply, slavery and the Jedi brand of servitude messed Anakin up. The movies don't shy away from this, which is why I like them.

Conversely, Finn rang a bit false to me because of the wishy washy nature of how his First Order upbringing affects his free life. We're introduced to the character as he's traumatized by a violent situation even as he refuses to participate in that violent situation. Minutes later he's high-fiving Bro Antilles as they shoot down the same people Finn apparently sympathized with even as he abhorred their violent mandate. Maybe just a burst of adrenaline before the film gets back to exploring Finn's psychological mindset? Or not, as he's more worried Rey might have a cute boyfriend. Oh well, he could always put a saber through that boyfriend's chest like he did that one trooper. No biggie.

 

That is true. I mean, let’s compare the two.

a) Anakin lives in a palace. Rey squats in an abandoned starship.

b) Anakin (presumably) has all of his basic needs taken care of, such as food, healthcare and whatnot. Rey has to scrounge just to eat.

c) Anakin has a father figure who, while perhaps a bit strict, genuinely cares for him and wants the best for him in Obi-Wan Kenobi. Rey has Simon Pegg, who quite clearly doesn’t give much of a damn about her and is more than willing to exploit her labor.

Truly Anakin has the more difficult life. In fact, before the events of THE FORCE AWAKENS, I'm not sure that Rey had anybody who cared for her.

Funny. I had no problem understanding Finn’s motivations. He’s repulsed by the actions of the First Order and wants to get the hell outta dodge. Got it. Makes sense to me. Hence, why he helps Poe Dameron escape, and is willing to shoot fellow storm troopers. It’s only when he comes to form a bond with Rey that he decides to confront the First Order. Is it particularly deep? No. But it works perfectly fine for this kind of movie. He’s a likable and engaging character that I enjoyed spending time with, unlike the prequel characters (aside from the Emperor and occasionally Obi-Wan). But I guess unlike Anakin, we simply observe Finn’s actions rather than having him spell it out to us in grand soliloquy.

The problem with Anakin is that I know exactly what his needs, desires, aspirations and frustrations are, and I don’t find them even remotely layered. As for poignant? **** no! If anything, they made Anakin quite loathsome and repugnant.

“I wanna be all-powerful! Why isn’t Obi-Wan just waving a magic wand and automatically making me all-powerful? He’s such a meanie head for holding me back like this! I’m the Chosen One, which means that I'm a special snowflake and I should always get my way 100% of the time and never have to face any difficulties in life! Wah, wah, wah! Me, me, me!”

Brat!

He’s upset because he doesn’t always get his way and life can be difficult sometimes. Tough ****, you little brat. Understanding that and accepting it is called “being an adult”. You’re not always gonna get your way and sometimes things will be difficult. I apologize for having little-to-no sympathy for a petulant man-child who strikes out in murderous rage because of his failure to be an adult.

But it’s not a tragedy. A tragedy would’ve actually shown us a good man who tragically becomes evil. With Anakin, we just saw a spoiled brat who lashed out in murderous rage because he didn’t get his way all the time. Boo-hoo! That’s why the immolation scene is such an uplifting and heartwarming scene. Little brat gets what’s coming to him.

Now I don’t doubt that Lucas intended to make a tragedy. The problem is he failed…big time. And that’s the ultimate reason why the prequels suck. Had Anakin been a compelling and tragic character, I could’ve forgiven everything else. But he’s not. Well, I guess whether he’s compelling is subjective, but I can pretty clearly state that, on a purely objective level, his story is not a tragedy, for the simple fact that there's really no fall from grace. To the extent that there is one, it happens offscreen in between THE PHANTOM MENACE and ATTACK OF THE CLONES. And since we never actually see it, it doesn’t count.

But the problem is that Anakin had already fallen to the dark side by the time we meet his adult self in ATTACK OF THE CLONES. This is why people compare the prequels negatively to an actual tragedy, like THE GODFATHER/THE GODFATHER: PART II. In those films, we actually see Michael Corleone start off as a good man, someone who felt compelled to serve his country in World War II and who swore he’d never have anything to do with the family business. But we see how he’s slowly drawn into a life of crime, and, more importantly, we understand Michael’s choices, and the initial choices he makes aren’t over-the-top cartoonishly evil, the way Anakin’s are. To me, this scene is the first step in Michael’s decline:



Now, granted, I have a hard time trying to figure out what the hell was going on in the prequels, since, unlike George Lucas, I'm actually a human being and not some weird alien. But I do believe that Lucas intended for this to be Anakin’s first step towards becoming Darth Vader:



The problem is that Anakin’s actions here are so extreme that they don’t qualify as a first step. By the end of this scene, he is Vader in all but name. Everything else is just a formality.

Again, I reiterate: The prequels are not a tragedy because Anakin was never a good man (man being defined as “an adult male person, as distinguished from a boy”). That’s simply a fact.

Comparing the two scenes in question, Michael’s actions are actually somewhat justifiable and understandable. His logic is pretty sound. They know that they can’t trust Virgil Sollozzo, and that he’ll probably make another attempt on the Godfather’s life as soon as he gets another opportunity. Michael’s motives, at this point, are still pure and noble, even if his methods are a bit ruthlessly efficient. In other words, an audience can understand why Michael made that choice in the moment, and I think many people can see themselves making that same choice under those circumstances. Whereas the Sand People massacre was just pure murderous rage, with no logic or justifiable reasons behind it. Murdering the kids literally accomplishes nothing…you know, mass murder notwithstanding. Expecting me to believe that Anakin is a good person aside from being a mass murderer is just demanding too much. I mean, William Calley was sentenced to life imprisonment for pretty much the same exact thing (Nixon pardoned him, and, given Lucas’s opinions on Nixon and the Vietnam War, I somehow doubt that he was a fan of that pardon).

I’d also like to point out that one of my favorite films is CALIGULA (yeah, the PENTHOUSE epic), so I know what it’s like to defend a hated film. Frankly, putting aside the hardcore pornography in CALIGULA, it’s kind of an interesting comparison because we never really see either Anakin Skywalker or Caligula as good men, despite the intentions of their respective writers- George Lucas and Gore Vidal, respectively. When we first encounter both men (I’m excluding THE PHANTOM MENACE here, since Anakin was a child in that film), they’re already incredibly violent and dangerous psychopaths. Within the first 40 minutes or so of the PENTHOUSE film, we see Caligula betray one of his closest allies for no good reason and execute him in a particularly sadistic manner involving a giant red lawn mower that I highly doubt actually existed in Ancient Rome. I won’t even get into the notorious wedding scene (let’s just say that it involves quite a bit of lard). The difference is that Lucas’s vision was simply mangled by his own incompetence, whereas Vidal’s vision was mangled by the interference of Tinto Brass, Malcolm McDowell and Bob Guccione. And in the end, to the extent that the finished product of CALIGULA represents anyone’s vision, it represents that of Guccione. And I really doubt that Guccione ever intended for us to see Caligula as a good man at any point during that movie. Bob Guccione’s CALIGULA is objectively not a tragedy. But since the finished product has no pretenses about it, it can’t be faulted on that level. Lucas did intend for us to see the prequel trilogy as a tragedy, and on that level, he objectively failed.

And frankly, in my opinion, Malcolm McDowell’s Caligula is a far more likable, engaging and compelling character than Hayden Christensen’s Anakin Skywalker is. It helps that McDowell is a better actor than Christensen (and having seen Christensen in other films, I actually think he’s a pretty good actor, even if these movies do everything in their power to convince you otherwise), but as much as Caligula is a sadistic tyrant, I’d actually argue that he is still not quite as evil as Anakin is. For one thing, Caligula is capable of experiencing happiness and enjoying life, unlike Anakin, but it can also be argued that some of Caligula’s allegedly insane acts were actually his attempts at humiliating and dismantling the corrupt power structure in Ancient Rome, and making life better for the common citizenry (it’s really hard to detect in the finished product, but that’s what Brass and McDowell were going for and hints of it still remain), whereas all of Anakin’s acts were fundamentally self-serving and solely oriented towards making himself feel good. Also, Caligula seems to genuinely care for his sister, and is deeply upset by her death, which he did NOT cause, unlike Anakin, who only cared for his idealized fantasy dream version of Natalie Portman’s character and then proceeded to murder her when she failed to live up to it.

So allow me to reiterate that: Caligula was not as depraved, cruel, or insane as Anakin Skywalker is (at least if we believe PENTHOUSE). That’s quite an accomplishment, considering that Caligula’s very name has become shorthand for “insane, depraved cruelty”. And I’m also stating that PENTHOUSE managed to make a better movie than George Lucas was able to make. Certainly, CALIGULA has better acting (then again, what do you expect from a film starring Malcolm McDowell, Helen Mirren, Peter O’Toole, and Sir John Gielgud, all of whom give great performances in the film…yes, even O’Toole’s ridiculously intoxicated performance is brilliant), is better written, certainly has better dialogue and is simply a more vibrant, entertaining and human film than any of the prequels. Then again, I consider CALIGULA to be something of an unintentional masterpiece that somehow actually kinda works, even if it didn’t work in the way that anybody involved in its making intended for it to work. It’s like this wonderfully surreal bad acid trip that almost serves as a glorious ode to excess and bad taste, and it does a pretty good job of capturing the decadence and perversion of Ancient Rome in a way that no other work has (in spirit, if not necessarily accurate historical detail). I certainly don’t advocate this approach for every film, but it’s somehow appropriate for a film about Caligula. In fact, I have to wonder if the prequels would’ve been better had Lucas made them back in the ’70s and gotten Malcolm McDowell and Helen Mirren instead of Hayden Christensen and Natalie Portman (both of whom are fine actors, but founder under Lucas’s incompetent direction). Somehow, I have to think that McDowell and Mirren are great enough actors that they can even withstand crummy direction. They both gave great performances in CALIGULA, after all (unlike, say, Teresa Ann Savoy, who’s quite wooden and lifeless). And I’d also argue that if any director could’ve made a good film out of Lucas’s prequel scripts, it probably would’ve been Tinto Brass. He certainly could’ve injected a much-needed life and energy into them that they lack under Lucas’s direction. And whatever you think of Vidal, Brass, McDowell, and Guccione, they are all human beings, for better or for worse, unlike Lucas.

Yet again, the problem is that Anakin’s ultimate fate isn’t tragedy, since he was never a good man. It’s poetic justice. If the STAR WARS prequels are a tragedy, then so is CALIGULA. I mean, that film ends with the Praetorian Guard assassinating Caligula and his family. That is TRAGIC! (Bangs fist on table) IS IT NOT?!

PS: There is a scene in CALIGULA that I would posit as being that film’s equivalent to the Sand People massacre, but I'm pretty sure that posting that clip or even describing what happens in that scene violates all sorts of terms and conditions. For those who have actually seen CALIGULA, I’m referring to the scene where he decides to give a young soldier and his bride “wedding gifts” (if you have seen the film- at least in its uncensored version- this scene is impossible to forget). Let’s just say that trying to claim that Anakin is still a good man after the massacre of the Sand People is like trying to claim that Caligula is a good man after handing out “wedding gifts” (and yes, he uses his hand- or should I say fist?- quite…extensively during this scene). Both scenes effectively manage to show us just how cruel, depraved and insane our main character really is. With CALIGULA, that was the point. Whereas in ATTACK OF THE CLONES, for some inexplicable reason, we’re supposed to pretend that Anakin is somehow still good.