Sinfully Good

To be completey honest with you, I used to hate episode one. I loved Epsiode 2 and Episode 3 was not bad either.

Now that I have all the movies, I watched them back to back and I enjoy Episode one much more now. I have always liked Episode 2 and 3, I think they were fun and great.

Yes, you are right, they have their flaws. As much as I love CGI, I think it is overused and not used wisely now in films. Again, your are right, Anakin's fall to the dark side is too fast and padme dying is awkward. Over-all I still loved the movie.

When TPM came out I was so mad and confused, why did Lucas make this garbage? However, I feel that it flows nicely with the other two movies.

Great blog by the way.

tC

*opens closet* *steps out into room* *steps up to mic* (*adjusts accoutrements* - Ed)

Hi, my name is Maelstrom and I'm a StarWarsAholic.

But I do think the prequels were "kiddified".

..which is why I sometimes feel I have to recuse myself from reviewing them, as I simply wasn't (often enough) the main target audience demographic (particularly of TPM -Ed)

I have a theory on the prequel backlash.

(we thought you might - Ed)

I suspect a great bulk of the disrespect given to the prequels (where applicable -Ed) was born of the original Star Wars audience 'aving felt personally _snubbed_ by Lucas; many original fans had been expecting Lucas to reward their Star Wars loyalty and patronage by delivering prequels designed towards their respective age and accompanying sensibility, but that isn't what happened. Certainly not with Episode 1.

Ergo (I would stipulate) that was a great part of the backlash to Phantom Menace.

An "what about me? you bastard!" onslought.

Nevertheless I found I was able to enjoy Episode 2 particularly for its Hard-Science-Fiction Flavour and Episode 3 I'll debate anyone on the merits of, I think it's the one prequel film that fits *almost* seemlessly into the original trilogy mythology.

it'd also be my observation/contention/deconstruction that Lucas appeared to be upping the age ante by approx 5 years with each respective prequel.

id est. Episode 1 for toddlers
Episode 2 for teens
Episode 3 for 20+

Ostensibly then one might theorize that what age (psychological or literal) one is still able to recall/identify-with might dictate which prequel film one enjoys (or hates - Ed) most.

Personally I 'ave no problem identifying with teendom or twentyplussomething, ergo I enjoyed Episode 2 and 3 on those bio-demographic levels.

But that's not to say that I'd be found denying they have observable problems.

Yet when I look at each prequel, I find they are technically better _on the whole_ than they might 'feel"; the problem is that it's very difficult to see "the whole", because each prequel has an UBER-CRINGE-MOMENT (or two - Ed) that overshadows the film, is felt to destroy the flow and credibility, and most damagingly catapults some viewers OUT of the movie and IN to cringing in their seats.

I would call those moments the "LUCAS KIDIFICATION" moments.

id est. if you "edit" out JarJar (which was done in The Phantom Edit -Ed) TPM becomes a much better film.

If you edit out the love dialogue/scenes in Episode 2 (which as Sinister says and I agree 100% is, EXTREMELY PAINFULLY REALISTIC teen-love "you hang up, no you hang up" cringe-worthy dialogue) then Episode 2 becomes much better and I'd argue it has some fantastically impressive widescreen hard core SF scenes that still resonate to this day.

And if you edit out Darth's inceptual childishly delivered/portrayed/miss-shot "Noooooooooooooo" in Episode 3, well, I'd argue the film very nearly slides into the original trilogy beautifully.

Point being, that's why I would stipulate it's the KIDIFICATION moments that more than anything else may kill the credibility of the prequels (to whomever that is applicable - Ed).

Yet, imo when Lucas is in "professional" mode he's untouchable; the brightest professional in Hollywood (everything this man touches when he's in serious-professional mode, becomes #1 in the industry -Ed)

I really do wish Lucas would drop this young-family-viewing/kidification aspect, I find he's at his best, when he takes himself and presents his work "seriously". Not just his best, but _the industry best_.

I know Lucas-bashers are going to pounce on that statement, but I might just remind you that while you and the rest of America were chewing paste, this man was redifining the Cinema experience from every level from what you see on-screen to epic storytelling to the cinematics (ILM) to how you experience it in the theatre itself (THX sound, Digital Theatre Equipment) and he's had to pull Hollywood studios and theatres kicking and screaming every step of the way (theatres STILL don't want to upgrade their projection and audio equipment to Lucas digital standards simply because they don't want to pay to upgrade their 40 year old equipment - Ed) this man's accomplishments and consummate professionalism (when applicable - Ed) demands our respect.

Still, would that he would return to targeting the teen plus crowd instead of the tween down crowd.

(one look at the box-office displays why he heads down that road, 3.5 family tickets brings in more box than 1 teen+ ticket. And more box is arguably necessary, without the capital, he'd have no ability to further transmogrify the American Cinema experience. If this were left up to Hollywood execs, we'd still be watching B&W movies with a 78" record player sitting on stage hoping little Jimmy dropped the arm at the right time to synchronize the film's sound - Ed)

yet still, I do wish that he would return to focusing that uber-professional eye of his towards targeting the teen plus crowd instead of the tween down crowd.

but until then, I remain, a StarWarsAholic, who looks forward to the next installment.

and a LucasAholic, that finds the cinematic world a better place for his presence in it.

Good blog Sinister.

mXm

A quick breakdown of why I strongly dislike these films -

Just sticking with Phantom Story, er, Menace
1. Atrocious dialog.
2. Wooden acting that makes Pinocchio jealous
3. Mindless, souless, meaningless battles in which you neither know nor care about any of the combatants (the Jedi's battling Darth Maul is the exception)
4. Too much happening at once - you have like 4 battles going on at the same time - the space battle, the gungans versus the droids, the queen's raid on the palace, and the Jedi's versus the Sith) - two of these battles are meaningless, pointless, heartless CGI battles that are no more than fx eye candy, and one of which is utterly boring.
5. The introduction of Midichlorians.
6. The retconning and revisionist history of Star Wars.
7. Good actors acting badly (I have never seen either Liam Neeson nor Natalie Portman act so badly.)
8. Jar Jar and the Gungans. These make the ewoks very endurable. And Anakin Skywalker. Not just the cardboard character and unbelievably bad acting, but the whole "wheee, what does this button do? oh, I just blew up the attacking fleet!" crap.
9. Convoluted plot. The political maneuverings of Palpatine could have been interesting had the leaps of logic not been so huge. Suspension of disbelief is shattered beyond repair when trying to accept all the conceits of this mess of a plot.
10. Boring. The film was boring. Once I got past the opening scrawl (which held a twinge of excitement and nostalgia) I kept waiting for things to get interesting. However none of the actors seemed to be having any fun, with the exceptions of Ian McDiarmid and Ewan McGregor, and none of the action seemed very engaging (except for Darth Maul fighting Qui-Gon and Obi-Wan.)

I can see, somehow, shutting off ones brain and enjoying this film far easier than I can see enjoying X3. But it is such a task to ignore all the obstacles that make this movie such a travesty that I don't think it is worth the effort.

Just play Knights of the Old Republic again to see what a GREAT Star Wars story should be like.

EDIT - and having posted as MXM was posting, I want to point out, yet again, that I am not nor never was a Star Wars fanatic. I enjoyed the original trilogy just fine, about as much as I enjoy the myriad of movies I see, but it held no special place in my heart at all. In fact, I think I saw parts of them as a kid and really re-watched them once in high school (when a friend showed them to a bunch of girls who didn't even know what they were - but, truth be told, none of us really paid any attention to the films) and finally, largely because of Clerks referencing them so much, I went to the rereleases. That's really my first REAL experience with those films. So, no, it's not any "failure to live up to my youthful exposure" - its that the films, themselves, divorced from any "love and fanatical devotion" to the Star Wars mythos and universe, are high-budgeted, extremely well polished, examples of abhorred directing, writing, and film-making as a whole.

Yes, but the "what about us original fans Lucas, where's our film, you bastard!" point re: the backlash wouldn't apply to you _anyway_ Merin, since you plainly admit you weren't an original Star Wars fan that grew up with it.

So obviously you wouldn't feel that way. Most people however have a different experience than you do, I think you'll acknowledge.

Even post-original-theatrical-release Star Wars generations "grew up" with Star Wars, though it might have been on Video/Television/with Re-Releases (home or theatrical).

That OT-backlash-theory is an observation that I only mean to apply to original Star Wars fans.

But yes, as a study in "film" criticism, I could likewise rip holes into ALL Star Wars films, including the original trilogy.

(The New York Times themselves tore into Empire Strikes Back and Return of the Jedi, because they chose to review them strictly as "Films", this was about the time "genre-reviewers" became an increasingly recognized demand, people love Ebert because he was able to analyze a genre film within its own milieu as opposed to as compared to the best films ever made which was the standard film criticism MO- Ed)

But I would argue that Star Wars are not standard films that can be judged by standard film criticism; they're SO closely identified with people's childhoods, that they transcend "normal" film criticism and are judged (rightly or wrongly - Ed) in part in relation to the environment that surrounded one when one first saw them.

There's no question the Prequels have atrocious dialogue, but so did the original Trilogy, Ford himself notoriously told Lucas, "you can type this shit, but I can't say it". He made his lines work because he was "Han Solo", the part was so BIG, he transcended the dialogue and made it work.

It's not something every actor can pull off, nor should they have to. In a perfect world the dialogue should be well-writ to start with, I find it's a bit like playing Dracula on Halloween.

99% of people say "I've come to suck your blood" and you just cringe at how hokey it is, but one bloke says it just right, and your eyebrow goes up, that tingle runs down your spine, and you become officially impressed.

In any case, I'm not going to analyze the prequels as "films" because I believe they represent far more than films, and, if I did there's no doubt I'd come down to a sim set of conclusions to those you outline.

There 'ave after-all been a googolplex of prequel reviews which outline the flaws or that speak in defense of the movies, largely the criticism favours a negative portrayal of the prequels, so rehashing that doesn't interest me, at this point I'm more interested in the psychology of viewer reactions.

When I saw for example that Stuart Baird was nominated for an editing award for Casino Royale, my eyebrow fires up, the film was _horridly_ edited, it works because it's a blue collar Bond and that currently appeals to audiences, it does not work because of the horrid editing.

The conclusion I come to here is that Baird must be an extremely likable person.

And that's interesting.

Likable person+crap editing = editing award.

unlikable person+brilliant work = overlooked.

I find there's almost always a "personal" component to criticism and reviews, quite aside from whether the work itself is any good or not.

Hence my interest in examining the possible sources of the "backlash" component to the Star Wars prequels.

I think there is a "personal" component there too.

Original fans felt snubbed, they shot back.

That has nothing to do with a critical analysis of the films themselves though, quire right, it's just an observation on one facet of the audience-criticial-review dynamics that are involved in fan criticism in the 21st century.

As I (increasingly - Ed) see it.

mXm

If you check most of my reviews or responses, you'll see a love of B movies, of campy sci-fi, of old classics that most wouldn't think stand the test of time.
I love Flash Gordon with Sam Jones and Max Von Sydow. I thoroughly enjoy the 80's glam musical The Pirate Movie. I can watch, over and over, Barbarella.
Amatorian did a review of DOA the movie in which I responded that films need to be critiqued as the genre / type of film, that (as another example) you cannot compare Escape from New York to The Philadelphia Story as they are completely different kinds of film.

I AM comparing Star Wars to other Star Wars films. I am comparing Phantom Menace to contemporary sci-fi / fantasy such as The Matrix and Fellowship of the Rings. And in these comparisions, Phantom Menace ranks just above X-Men 3.

I think there is probably some small truth to all of the following:
1 - People who hate Star Wars or aren't Star Wars geeks might be very vocal about dislike the Prequels.
2 - People who saw Star Wars when they were young and had it burned into their psyche might not be getting the same experience from their childhood because they are no longer children with a childish sense of wonder and are therefore very vocal about their dislike of the Prequels.
3 - People who have just gotten more cynical and negative as they've gotten older, the ones who seem to only find flaws in most new movies and often decry a loss of the good old days of movies (the 90's, the 80's, the 50's, depending on the age / tastes of said cynic) will dislike the Prequels because they are new and are likely very vocal about their dislike.

I believe some of those people exist, and many of them are very loud.
I also believe they are a very small number.
I also believe they are a scapegoat for those who want to dismiss criticism of Star Wars films, as if somehow Star Wars films, by the very nature of being Star Wars films, transcend any possible criticism. That's BS, its circular logic, and it is the sign of people who don't want their house of cards blown on.
You know another set of groups that exist?
1 - The fanatics who so slavishly love all things Star Wars that anything Lucas puts out with lightsabres and spaceships will be slavishly devoured.
2 - The Star Wars fans who turn a blind eye to all that is bad just because they WANT the Star Wars films to be good, and will defend them as good regardless of any evidence to the contrary.
3 - Movie fans who dislike romance, drama, character development, and plot, fans who only want more action, bigger explosions, more special effects - who actually are entertained by, say, hundreds of nameless CGI creatures fighting against hundreds of other nameless CGI creatures.
4 - Critics and movie fans who are just so detached from fantasy and sci-fi films that they can overlook bad dialog, bad acting, and bad stories (as they assume that is what makes up the genre) and can just poit to Lucas's films as "good" and "successes" because he made them.
They all exist. And they are people who give the Prequels good ratings.
Do I make the claim that these are the people who are out there making so much noise about the "backlash" the Prequels received?
No.
Like the first groups, they exist - but neither exist in numbers significant to cause a "phenomenon" like what the Prequels have experienced.

What fans cannot seem to accept is that many people just honestly did not like the films for the films themselves. That some people honestly find the Prequels bad and unenjoyable.
Accept it.
I have to accept that people DID enjoy them, did enjoy the Matrix sequels, and did like X-Men 3. I have to accept it. And I don't have the right to dismiss those people as being stupid, having poor taste, or just "not getting it." I should not, and will not, try to come up with exterior motives for their liking those films.

People should stop trying to come up with exterior motives for why many people really disliked Phantom Menace and the other prequels. On IMDB 125,000+ people gave Phantom Menace an average of 6.3 - that means there are enough 10's to balance out all those 1's. Actually, what it means is that most votes were in the 7-5 range. And all my bringing that up is to point out that MOST viewers see it in about the 6 out of 10 range. That's better than I give it by far (I gave it a 2) and worse than you guys seem to want to give it.

Lastly, for the record, I wanted to like it. I saw it 3 times in the theater, and then twice on DVD, well, once, the second time, before the release of Attack of the Clones, I tried to watch it again with my bro-in-law and I couldn't make it through it. It was his DVD and he claimed to like it - claimed because he was cringing and when I said I had to stop watching it, despite all his defending of it to me in the past, he agreed that it was worse than he remembered.

But your opinion is the majority opine Merin, what Star Wars prequel fan doesn't know the majority of Star Wars fans dislike the prequels?

If you bang that drum loud enough I'm sure you could instigate a riot against anyone that has anything good to say about the prequels on a genre board.

1. because the masses are easily manipulated toadies that love a good whippin boy (so long as it isn't themselves, the filthy cowards - Ed)

and

2. precisely because the majority of people dislike the prequels.

Not that you would, I suspect you wouldn't be that sort of person actually, but is it really necessary to head into the one lone guys blog thread that is willing to dare to speak the Star Wars prequel love that hath no name..?

(oh boy! - Ed)

:)

..and remind him in step by step fashion how loathed the prequels are?

You are apparently unawares, so let's clear this up, whatever the impression your personal radius of family and friends may have given you the majority of people are like yourself, they DIDN'T like the Star Wars prequels.

What you're witnessing here is an anomaly, it is not the norm, nominally pro-prequel folks keep it to themselves (which I meant to illustrate by opening with the *enters from closet* up there in my reply)

:D

I don't believe SinisterPryde was meaning to challenge the anti-StarWars-prequel position or engage in a critical debate on its merits vs its flaws. Maybe he was but that wasn't my impression.

My impression is Sinister was saying "g'damnit, I know I shouldn't, I know few people do, but I like the SW prequels and I've gotta say something!"

He also appears to be saying he recognizes and acknowledges the problems but likes em anyway.

I don't think he's looking to re-launch a debate on their intrinsic value.

Though perhaps I'm wrong, maybe he was.

I just got back today so if there's a backstory to this 'ere, someone needs to fill me in.

For my part, I haven't given my criticial reviews of the Star Wars prequels in here, I'm interested in analyzing the subcutaneous elements that go into the formation of an critical-opinion.

I find that particularly fascinating for reasons previously outlined above.

I also find that reviewing a film from a distance and trying to discover its key components/those key moments that cause a shift in the viewer's thinking, THAT I find infinitely fascinating.

(and do'able too, not to 100% accuracy 'natch, but you can nail a couple of key mind-shift or audience-shift moments, I find)

For example, with the Star Wars prequels, I think Jar Jar sets up this Pavlov'ian reaction in the audience, which changed the Star Wars prequel viewing-dynamic.

So that by the 2nd and 3rd film, people were increasingly on-edge in their chairs -waiting- for the moment they'd be made to cringe/be jolted by some pedantic element/moment.

having been pre-conditioned to it.

(and Lucas didn't let us down, we got to cringe in every prequel rendition, at least 1 time - Ed)

That's not good for the prequels either because it changes the viewers relationship with the movie. We go in apprehensive and on-edge, so we're less able to insert ourselves fully into the film. I find.

But although they're present, I also find the weight given to those, for lack of a better term unCool-Cringe-Moments, for example, to be I think out of proportion, because there are quite a few otherwise uh non-Un-cool/non-Cringe-Moments in the prequels too.

Which brings us to focus/emphasis.

As you know, where we place emphasis often dictates whether one's over-all review is positive or negative. but not ALL items listed as a negative in a negative review necessarily are, if left to stand on their own. Sometimes they are merely by association.

For example if you're predisposed to a negative view, you might toss in the midichlorians argument as a negative, but if you enjoy the film, the midichlorians might come off as a much less offensive concept.

Midichlorians are not inherently a shit or FORCE iconaclastic concept.

Why not? because it's no different than Evolution vs Religion.

Many people on both sides like to argue (falsely) that their disciplines are fundamentally opposed to eachother but in fact at its core evolution only explains the universe AFTER its creation.

..while religion explains the ORIGINS of the universe.

There ought be ZERO CONFLICT because their teachings' disciplines should not intersect.

Of course they invariably do intersect when religion tries to use the bible as a science book and scientists try to use the periodic table of the elements as a bible, but fundamentally there is NO CONFLICT.

Science cannot explain original-creation. It explains everything after it. Evolution will in fact NEVER be able to explain original creation because evolution = change, and in order for the universe we exist in to exist, we know that the fundamental law of OUR universe is: that someone comes from nothing. If you trace it all back to the beginning, if you go smaller and smaller and smaller to smallest, at some point some sub-atomic particle just appeared out of nowhere into nothing and became something.

Ergo evolution or change will never be able to explain original-creation.

Now if Religion could but stay out of science's way and vice versa (scientists offering their views on whether or not God exists, is just as needlessly confrontational as religion attempting to stand in the way of scientific progress)

Anyway, point being, if we focus on the midichlorians then they can *appear* to debunk the spiritual-mysticism of "The Force" but on closer analysis, do they?

I personally don't think so.

I see them as little more than a scientific explanation for some of the elements that comprise The Force.

Like a great piece of art or cake or emotion, we can enjoy them on one level, the level of _just being_ the level of pure _experience_, of being _in the moment_.

and then on the other we can take a magnifying glass and look at the nuances of that piece of art's construction, the artists strokes, etc, or we can look up the ingredients to that great cake, or examine the synaptic and nerve firings that went into that orgasmic emotion.

So it's the same with the Force. On the level of experience it remains a magical mystical spiritual event.

Knowing some of the elements may make it less romantic, in a sense, perhaps, but it doesn't make it any less magnificent or magical. imo.

Anyway, no worries Merin, whatever your family may have convinced you of, your anti-prequel positon is far more prevalent an opine.

The reason I'm banging this article, aside from the fact that SinisterPryde writes well, is because in my observation it takes snowballs the size of a tonton's to stand up and say you enjoyed the Star Wars prequels.

:D

And I'll stand next to big-balled people willing to go the slightly less traveled opposite path that public opine generally walks, anytime.

Sometimes I agree, sometimes I don't, but I always respect the daring, I don't know about you Merin, but I 'ave so had it up to my anus with the way commercial critics ape eachothers reviews. I half suspect, that most of these commercial critics haven't even seen half the films they're reviewing.

(but that's another story, and don't get him started on that one or we'll be here all night - Ed)

mXm

I don't think SinisterPryde is taking me as attacking him or his views or his "daring" to say he liked it.
I've never stopped saying I like Hulk, Ghost Rider or Fantastic Four despite the odd looks and comments I get from people. I like what I like, and don't like what I don't, and screw anyone who tells me I should feel otherwise.
SinsterPryde enjoyed the Prequels and wants to say he shouldn't be ashamed.
Heck no he shouldn't be ashamed. Wear your freak hat and show that you are an individual. You want more freak from me?
I really enjoy listening to A-Teens.
Even more freak?
I think Lazy Town is a fun show to watch.
In no way am I attack you or your opinions, SinisterPryde. But I'm sure you knew that already. You seemed to me to be saying that you tried to see what others did in why they hated the films and couldn't, hence my response as to what I didn't like them.

MXM, you went into an OFTEN given apologist view that people who don't like the Prequels were ones who had the Star Wars experience when they were young and it couldn't measure up - that they didn't get their "adult" version of Star Wars.
I have to say, those people (and I know there are many of us) that I know of who didn't like the prequels never mentioned they were insulted by Lucas for not giving them an "adult" version - they were insulted because they were given a "CRAP" version of Star Wars. It's not cause they are kid-friendly - Harry Potter and Spider-Man are kid friendly, so is Bridge to Terabithia and Series of Unfortunate Events, yet these are all GREAT films.
IT IS LARGELY BECAUSE THESE ARE POORLY MADE, BIG BUDGET MISTAKES.
In reverse of what SinsterPryde says, yes, I admit, there are cool things in the Prequels. The FX are amazing. Most of the light-saber duels are spellbinding. Character design, make-up, massive battle scenes are all super-cool looking. But the story - or lack there of - is horrid. The acting, the dialog, the stupid goofy battle droids and clumsy, clownish gungans . . . it is all so bad in ways the originals are not.
There are tons of people out there who like or love the prequels. Again, go to IMDB or other polling places - a 6.3 is fairly positive - and look at the breakdowns, there ARE far more 10's than 1's. You guys are not the minority you think you are. The people attacking these films are just louder. ;)
As for me being isolated by family - my wife refused to watch any of them after Phantom Menace (I had to go to the other two on my own, and YES, I tried like HELL to enjoy them), my mom has never even seen Star Wars, my dad wasn't a fan, I think my brother liked them, no one in my sister's family watches them (well, I think my nephew saw them but he's big on Batman and such), and of my friends I think the opinions are mixed from those I saw it on opening night all hating it except me to other friends having thought they were ok to great. I've experienced the gambit of opinions, MXM. Not just negative - mostly, you add up the people I know, about half of them have never seen a Star Wars movie or more than part of one.
And as for bringing in Evolution versus Creationism, if you REALLY study the "debate" you'll see its about more than origins of the species and/or the universe. It is a cheap cop-out to say both sides are right and both sides are wrong, and that one can explain some but not all things, and vice-versa for the other side. Spirituality, at best, deals with human nature and how we interact with others and "the soul" if you will. Science deals with fact, study, exploration, proof, and explanations. They are different things entirely, and one is about FAITH (usually blind, unquestioning belief without reason) while the other is about QUESTIONING (usually to the point of not even fully accepted already "proven" facts.) Please don't try and make them separate but equal - they really, truly aren't.

Now, for both of you, let me tell you what the big differences between the original trilogy and the prequel trilogy are, structurally -
Lucas, in the original movies, pulled from a lot of influences. Kurosawa films (notably Hidden Fortress), old sci-fi serials (notably Flash Gordon), and most importantly Joseph Campbell's Power of Myth. Lucas brilliantly (yes, I can praise him when he deserves it) utilized archetypes and formulas, set character types and story lines, and meshed it all into a fun fantasy story in a cool outer-space setting. The original three movies introduced, developed, and got us hooked on interesting and involving characters, and (with the exception of Return of the Jedi where bad things started to already show up) all the action / fight scenes dealt with the established characters that had already been developed and we cared about.
The Prequel trilogy instead was influenced and pulled from two sources - real world events, and the original Star Wars trilogy. Already its a copy of a copy, and trying to interject real-world concerns into what was fun-filled fantasy dealing with mythical archetypes is never a good move. It recycled background characters from the original films (Jabba, the droids, etc.) and introduced stiff, undeveloped, uninteresting characters who are never developed (Qui-Gon, nameless guards, queen body doubles, politicians, aliens all of which are so forgettable that few know their names) and whom fail to connect with the majority of the audience. Is Han Solo a simplistic character? Sure, but he's a cool character we connect with. Is Qui-Gon, conceptually, a more complex character? Sure, but he's hard to relate to and is even harder to care about - and then you add in Liam's poorest acting performance of his career . . . The stories in the prequels are largely political and are "explaining" the events that lead up to the original trilogy. So, in effect, it is a long, three part "origin" story for the original trilogy - kind of the Hannibal Rising of Star Wars in three parts. Whereas the action in the original trilogy was, at worst in Return of the Jedi at least included Lando, connected to the main characters we cared about, the action in the Prequels often boiled down to a barely developed captain of the guard or alien comic-relief character fighting against numerous CGI robots or aliens. There's no emotional involvement in the battles beyond however long one can be fascinated with watching an RTS video game play out on the screen in front of them without anyone in the audience actually controlling either army of generic soldiers.

There are huge differences between the original 3 and the more recent 3 that can ignore quality and reception and just look at structure, influence, and pacing.

That's it. Sorry if this kind of discussion isn't what you wanted, SinsterPryde, but it had seemed to me like you wanted an open and frank discussion as long as those talking didn't just insult or berate you for your opinion. I'm not insulting nor berating you. If those movies entertain you, then they have succeeded for you, and that is all that matters for you. That's fine.

And here we come to it. I am not attacking anyone's opinions or trying to defend these films. I have never believed myself to be in a minority (these films were top grossers after all). I know that some people expected something in the flavor in the original trilogy in these films and didn't get it. They were disappointed. Some people really did take it as an insult that Lucas had made films that seemed to almost fly in the face of the original trilogy (from a certain point of view).

I think Lucas did make a few mistakes. Its been mentioned that the films didn't grow up with their audience. I think Lucas actually did recognize that the original audience had grown and he tried to cater to them. He also knew kids would go to see these, so he tried to cater to them. He tried to make these films everything to everyone. So it was really disjointed. I won't even try and deny that Lucas fell in love with the technology and he seemed to focus more on what he could do with it than he did on the story. He even admitted that Episodes I & II were mostly filler and he wasn't really sure how to flesh them out.

What I was trying to say was simply that I liked them. They're not great movies, but their still fun in their own way. I guess I just needed to state this since Lucas' Spider-Man comments seems to have re-introduced the Prequel Backlash. If people didn't like them, that fine. I know plenty of people who simply aren't into these films (they even hated the OT).

Lucas seems to be at his best plotting and producing. He wisely stepped back on Empire and Jedi. Also, if you ever read Star Wars Trilogy annotated screenplays it gives great insight into what was actually being talked about for Return of the Jedi). Lucas is great at taking archetype characters and throwing them into familiar situations (Farm boy and good thief rescue princess form evil wizard, farmboy is actually a decent wizard under tutelage of older, wiser teacher). He just added ships to the mix. With the Prequels, he stayed in (he tried to get out of II & III but Spielberg and Ron Howard pretty much forced him into them) and he tried to craft a compelling political story with charcaters that are, by their natures, unrelateable. Jedi are too Monk-like, Padme is an elected Queen (WTF?) and Jar Jar is a cartoon put in to keep the kids getting bored during political machinations. Also, it is well known that Lucas is a non-director (he'll set up the shot and yell action, but doesn't give the actors many cues. That's gotta be hard with a blue screen).

Before I move on and people point out how I admit to the flaws but still manage to like this I will point out two inthe OT. The first: Ewoks. Marketing gimmick, stupid.
The second: In a Universe of literally uncountable beings, separated father, son, and daughter all come together for pivotal moments in this conflict? You wnt to talk about suspension of disbelief. Or that Palpatine would bother with a second Death Star after the first was taken out so easily? Yeah, no flaws there (but I still love them). :D

The last reason for blogging was to see if there were others that would come out and say they did like them or be honest when they didn't. So, yeah, thank you guys for reading and commenting.



Edit: On the subject of pseudo-science, Lucas may have been close, but he tried to be too fanciful. It seems to me that when he was discussing midichlorians in the prequels he was just renaming mitochondria (does he play video games?). I agree, though, that the films worked better when the Force was just the Force and he wasn't trying to explain why it flowed so strongly in some people.

No Merin, I mean exactly what I say, I am not interested in debating the intrinsic cinematic value of the Star Wars prequels. Nor have I given my review of them.

I'm mean _precisely_ what I say, which is that I find the _subcutaneous_ elements that are _involved_ in film criticism and critical examination, to be FAR more interesting than the actual film reviews themselves.

I don't mention the Star Wars backlash elements to _support_ the prequels, I can understand why you might think so, but I've explained (twice now -Ed) that I mention these extraneous elements because I notice _they are there_.

It's the same interest with my analysis of Stuart Baird, it is not anti-Stuart Baird or anti-Casino-Royale on my part to note that the editing in Casino Royale was horrid, and to come to the conclusion that he must be a VERY likeable fellow to have been nominated for an editing award for Casino Royale.

Someone might *assume* that means I don't like Casino Royale, but that _isn't_ what I said.

What it is, is an attempt at an analysis of that one particular aspect (the editing in Casino Royale) based on pure unemotional logic, it is not a covert means of attacking Casino Royale because I covertly dislike Casino Royale. That conclusion would be in fact completely incorrect.

The truth is the opposite of anyone that came to that assumptive conclusion, in fact, I enjoyed Casino Royale _despite_ the horrid editing.

Someone might _assume_ in either case that there is some alterior motive, but they would be wrong. I mean precisely what I say.

Ditto, when I mention the extraneous elements that I believe go into a Star Wars prequel review, I am not "covertly" supporting or not supporting the prequels, or belying some hidden review of them, I mean _precisely_ what I say.

Which is that I observe certain film-review-elements such as the OT-SW "where's my SW film!" backlash to be subcutaneously hyperpresent.

It's not meant to be an "excuse" for the prequels, nor does it bely my review of them, it's an observation on a dynamic that I observe has taken place.

I really am (currently) more interested in the elements that go into a film review, it has nothing to do (on my part) with supporting or not supporting any given film.

I have said from the beginning here that I am not interested in debating the cinematic value of the prequels.

Why? because I feel I have to recuse myself from being able to properly review them because I am NOT the target demographic, and therefore I don't feel I can adequately or fairly review them.

This was my Phantom Menace experience: I camped out and strutted about with my custom made Vader (black grip, green vorpal blade) lightsaber in hand to the TPM premiere. I blatantly "geeked out" and damned if I gave a flying fuck what any of the "regular" plebes thought of my dueling with fellow nutjobs on-cinema-line. It was a blast.

Fast Forward past some bantering and partying and about a third of the way through TPM, you could likely see my face and my lightsaber drop as it dawned on me that this film wasn't really what I had been expecting.

This was far more for the 10 year old kids in front of me. And here's the rub, their faces were light up throughout the whole thing.

THAT is why I recuse myself from being able to properly review the prequels, as I saw it/see it, it was largely _those_ kids SW film series, not mine.

And those kids are just about now hitting the boards as teenagers, and if I were them, I'd be rather pissed that some older people that seem to vehemently hate the prequels are hardcore pissing all over my SW cornflakes and going overboard trying to retro-fit their personal distaste into a widespread condemnation of the prequels.

For example, whether they were what I was hoping for or not, I def agree with the SW prequel guardians that they were one hell of a ride, and I would go through the SW prequel "experience" again, in a heartbeat.

primarily because,

1. I didn't hate them anyway, AISI it's more the case that I just felt they were not aimed at me.

and

2. the Star Wars prequel "experience" was a bloody blast, from the SW pre-release expostulating to the camping-out to the on-cinema-line partying to the post-viewing analysis, et cetera. The whole SW prequel experience was an "event".

Perhaps mostly for extraneous reasons for those that they didn't directly target, but those "event" items are ever-associated with a new Star Wars film, and I don't believe you can separate them from the Star Wars Experience.

Bottom Line: I for one, will be on line with lightsaber in hand once again, if Lucas does go ahead with the sequel trilogy.

(Ostensibly a followup SW series might even target a broader audience, and that would likely be an uber welcome direction - Ed)

In any case, bottom line on the prequels themselves is that since I'm NOT the target demographic, I don't feel I can adequately review them.

Instead I have tried to approach the subject from a different tangent, from the vantage of what currently interests me, it's clear however that I can't move the discussion in this environment to the level that I'm more interested in, and probably rightly so since it's fairly clear you lot DO want to critically-debate the prequels, so I'll leave you and Sinister and whomever else to debate the intrinsic cinematic value of the Star Wars prequels.

'ave fun.

EDIT: (we do seem to be doing a lot of that don't we hehehe - Ed) You def come to Star Wars from an I think unique position Merin.

id est. Not having Star Wars as part of your "personal experience" and having half your friends not having seen them.

and so your review is much more clinical and detached.

Conversely, I don't think I know 1 person that hasn't seen Star Wars.

So we obviously have different experiences that colour our opines; I would only argue that the truth is probably somewhere in the middle. Somewhere between enthusiasm for the "Star Wars Experience", OT SW Fan Backlash, and detached clinical film reviewing.

In any case, no disrespect to your or any view is meant, to each their own.

mXm

So this is where you guys are hanging out can I join your clubhouse? heh. I like reading Maelstrom and Merin and now you SinisterPryde. I get the feeling you guys could mop the competition in high school debate club. Anyway I thought you guys might like to see this it's a Star Wars original trilogy and prequel trilogy VIRGIN! omg a review from someone that hasn't seen ANY Star Wars before. So he says anyway Entertainment Weekly believed him so I guess I will too. Here is his review.

=== We challenged EW.com reader Michael Morrison, who'd never seen any of the ''Star Wars'' movies, to watch all 14 hours of Cinemax's recent marathon -- here's his hilarious report

Editor's Note: In early October, when we first heard that Cinemax would be airing a Star Wars marathon — all six movies in narrative order, from Episode I: The Phantom Menace to Episode VI: Return of the Jedi — senior writer Scott Brown came up with a brilliant idea. Wouldn't it be grand, Scott wondered, if we could find a Star Wars virgin to actually sit through the marathon and write about his or her experience?

A grand idea, indeed: We put out the call for a reader brave enough to endure our challenge, and found a hearty soul in Michael Morrison, a Canadian who'd never seen any of George Lucas' saga. ''It was exhausting, but a lot of fun at the same time,'' Michael told us about his experience. ''It has kind of motivated me to watch other movies on my virginity list. Up next: James Bond! But not all in one night.'' Read about Michael's very special first time with Star Wars in his own words below (oh, and check out his cool entertainment blog too).

*

The Challenge was simple: Lose my virginity. More specifically, my Star Wars virginity. This was something I had held for so long that I had developed a sort of pride about it. It made me unique in this vast world of passionate and eccentric fans. Was now the time? Would I even be ready?

Late last week I was challenged by EW.com to watch Cinamax's complete Star Wars Marathon — George Lucas' complete saga in the order in which he originally intended (Episodes I-VI). I would have to watch 14 straight hours of Star Wars all night Friday into early Saturday. With my social calendar predictably empty, I decided now would be the time to give up what so many people already have over the last 30 years. However, with my roommate not being up for the challenge, I would be being doing it alone.

My knowledge of Star Wars was limited. I was familiar with the popular sayings that have become a part of today's language: ''May the Force be with you.'' ''Luke, I am your father.'' And without even knowing it, I had already developed a hatred toward Jar Jar Binks. I would take what knowledge I had and commit to this marathon like Darth would eventually commit to the dark side. (My first Star Wars reference!)

Before the marathon, I always wondered what exactly was so special about Star Wars. What was I missing? I've never had the urge to stand in front of a theater wearing a costume. Would I want to after tonight? (I honestly didn't want to know the answer to that one.) And throughout the night I found myself asking some of the same questions. Without being too cynical, I wanted to know why these movies were so important to so many generations of people. In a world of Lord of the Rings, Star Trek, and Battlestar Galactica, do these movies still possess the magic to win new viewers over? Are they still relevant?

With an extra large coffee in hand, I settled in for Episode I: The Phantom Menace. For someone who has never seen a Star Wars movie, it would be easy to criticize them — and Episode I makes it especially easy. I had been told by practically everybody to stay far away from this particular saga. If only I could, Cinemax, if only I could. The movie comes off as childish and vague, and the script is notably weak. But this is my first time, and nobody's first time is perfect; there would inevitably be some bumps along the road. It was only a couple of minutes before my first Jar Jar Binks sighting, and I found myself wondering: Why does he sound like a Jamaican Elmo? However, those are questions for another time. I found I was often confused in this movie. Terms like Sith, Jedi, and The Force were new to me and they came with little explanation. Obviously, most people watching this movie would have seen the other movies and know what is going on, but this first-timer did not. I was obviously dealing with a more experienced partner.

As the night progressed and I became more comfortable with the proverbial ''motion of the ocean,'' I tried my best to forget Episode I. The next two Episodes grew more confident with every scene, and became more and more welcoming for the first-time viewer. Names became more familiar, as did words and phrases unique to the Star Wars Universe. When the pizza man arrived around 3 a.m., I wanted to show him how much I had learned about this cultural phenomenon. I instead treated him to a ''May the Force be with you'' and a $5 tip. He walked away confused.

Next page: Michael on the digital updates and the new order

- Page 2 -

The worlds that Lucas created are certainly magical and wondrous. Thanks to the digital updates, the flow between the two trilogies was surprisingly seamless — I had been expecting hilarious House of Frankenstein-worthy graphics. Obviously the CGI in the newer films is impressive, but to actually see what Lucas was able to do with limited technology is almost even more impressive.

For me, the biggest problem with seeing these films in their intended order is that Episodes IV-VI offered little surprises. I know who Luke's father is; I know that the little creature is Yoda. I have to sit through that uncomfortable kiss between Luke and Leia knowing that they are indeed brother and sister. Most of the mysteries and questions that drive the plots of the later episodes are nullified by having seen the first three. I almost envied those who saw them in original order, so I too could have enjoyed the shock and surprise of some of the plot's twists and turns. Luckily I was never a fan of bellbottoms, so I will indeed stick with the intended order.

Seeing the movies the way Lucas intended us to see them also lets us see how his power and clout in Hollywood have changed over the years. The scripts in the earlier movies are significantly stronger. The dialogue is more mature and smart. They had to be, if he was going to get the funding to continue his saga. For the newer Episodes, you can practically see George sitting at his Mac on top of his pile of money and giggling as he types lines line ''Whoa, that's tense'' and ''How rude!'' I looked it up and he was never a writer for Full House, which means he came up with those ditties all on his own. It could be the 4 o'clock in the morning talking, but it's almost as if he didn't have anyone proofreading his scripts. And did he even hire a casting director?

It was also interesting to note the shrinking galaxy as the movies progressed throughout the night. The first trilogy boasts enormous cities with towering buildings and seemingly endless planets that surrounded them. The later trilogy is more focused on the core cast in desolate settings. Every planet seemed to be a forest, desert, or giant icicle. I missed the busy cities and vast galaxies.

So after watching the sun set on all six of the Star Wars (or sun rise, in my case), what do these movies mean to me? I have to be careful where I tread here, because people's love of these movies is passionate to say the least. (Personal note: My friends had a Star Wars-themed wedding.) The cynical and tired side of me wants to say that George wanted Episode I to be shown first because after watching 14 straight hours of Star Wars, my memories of young Anakin and Jar Jar are almost long forgotten. I've tossed them aside along with my package of caffeine pills and bottle of Coke.

However, I would be lying if I said that I wasn't sucked into this Galaxy Far, Far Away. The stories that Lucas has weaved are truly imaginative and exciting. The six movies flow together with ease, and I cannot imagine having to wait all that time between movies. I barely could wait through the credits (no matter what my bladder said). Seeing the legendary journey of a Jedi was thrilling. After six Episodes, perhaps I too could begin my training to be a Jedi! Okay, maybe that's reaching, but I will be practicing my lightsaber moves in my living room when my roommate is not around!

I've become reflective on the time I have spent on my couch (and sometimes on the floor) while watching this marathon. Where does this leave me now, my virginity cut away like Skywalker's hand? Am I a different person? Certainly I don't feel different, though my head is full of new terminology! I know what a Sith is now, and I've seen Yoda go from hopping all over the senate to dying on the floor of a cave an old creature. Things like that cannot be taken lightly.

When I watch the Friends rerun with Ross' Leia fantasy, I will now know what he is talking about. No longer will I be scorned when I walk down the street for being a SW virgin. I will no longer watch Spaceballs with a look of confusion on my face. I will laugh like John Candy would want me to. Thank you, John. Thank you.

After 14 hours of Star Wars, I turned off my TV no longer a boy, but a man. I was now like so many of those before me. My eyes heavy and hands shaking (hopefully that's temporary!), I went to bed left with only one question: When can we do it again?

LOL