Do prequels rob us of our memories and imagination ?

[darklord1967]

I don't think it takes away our fond memories of the originals...how can it? Like you said Mike...you had an idea in your Head of what the SW prequels would be like...but then again, so did George Lucas.
George had the the basic plots already mapped out for Episodes 1, 2, & 3...but decided to start with episode 4 instead.

That said...even though episode 1 had a LOT of flaws...take JaJa away, and it would be a bit more watchable. Attack of the Clones was better...and episode 3 was the best of the Prequels...and wrapped up the story just as I thought it should be.

I couldn't have said it better myself!

Although I must admit that I don't really feel that Episode I: The Phantom Menace had a "LOT" of flaws. It had some to be sure. I just don't think that it had "a LOT" of them... certainly no more than any other STAR WARS film.

And the film did have one of the most kick-butt climaxes in the entire SAGA with a four-stage showdown:
1) The land battle with the Gungans
2) The HUGE space battle with the Trade Federation ships and the Naboo Fighters
3) Queen Amidala's gun battles in the palace to re-gain her throne from Viceroy Gunray, AND...
4) An AMAZING 3-way lightsaber battle (that in my view was never really matched before or since in any STAR WARS picture).

Also, I don't really fall into the anti Jar Jar camp. I know I'm likely alone in this opinion, but, to me Jar Jar was no more offensive or annoying than C-3PO was during the OT.

The protocol droid was just as clumsy, chatty, and irritating to the other characters (and to the public) as Jar Jar was during EP I.

The difference was, there was no internet available back in the 1980's with entire websites dedicated to trashing C-3PO (like there was for the introduction of Jar Jar) . C-3P0 was given a chance to grow on the public.

This factor alone contributed GREATLY to the anti Jar Jar sentiment spreading like wildfire after the release of EP I.

And let's not forget that that character’s idiocy actually had an important narrative purpose in the Prequels. As we saw in EP II, it was Jar-Jar’s simple-mindedness that was INSTRUMENTAL in convincing the Senate to grant emergency powers to Supreme Chancellor Palpatine.

The truth is, corny comedy relief has ALWAYS been a part of the STAR WARS Saga... That's nothing new, and it's always been a part of the saga's charm.

The same could be said about the saga’s stiff dialogue, and stilted acting. TONS of it in the OT.

During the OT, it didn't seem "corny" or "stiff" to us because we were a bunch of 9 year olds watching these films during a VERY different time and a VERY different climate in our culture.

Today, there is a modern "too-cool-for-school" new age CYNICISM that somehow made cute, corny jokes a CRIMINAL OFFENSE to be included in a STAR WARS film... even though the OT was RIFE with them (Re: "Laugh it up fuzzball").

This is the same cynicism that conveniently FORGETS that these films (all 6 of them) are basically made for children. They're for today's children, the children that we used to be, and /or the children that remain alive within us today.

They're NOT the tablets from the mountain. And they really don't have much more importance (in the grand scheme of things) than a really good Looney Tunes cartoon.

They're big, loud, colorful, bombastic, epic, romantic, and yes... quite silly. That's the point.

I don't expect everyone to see things the same way I do. Certainly, that's the beauty of these message boards: To exchange differing opinions respectfully, and maybe even learn something about ourselves and each other.

But I'll say this: I am absolutely convinced that much of the anti- prequel backlash that occurred was due to a LOT of folks not wanting to admit that they were entertained, thrilled, and wowed by these films. For some folks it wasn't "cool" to admit this.

I can't tell you how many people I've run into over the years, waiting on-line at a Toys R US "Midnight Madness" STAR WARS toy premiere, just itching to buy the latest toys from the latest film... and all while moaning about how much they HATE the prequels and Jar-Jar.

It's tired. And it's the HEIGHT of cynicism. I've got no use for it... and quite frankly, I've got a healthy amount of contempt for it.

If you HATE the STAR WARS prequels, that fine. You don't have to like them just because I like them.

But if one really wants me to take their opinion on the matter more seriously, then they might want to take OFF the Jar-Jar Binks T-Shirt before they tell me what a "horrible" movie they thought TPM was (actual example!).

During these prequel films. There was a healthy amount of idiotic childish giggling in movie theaters for nothing more than a sight or sound seeming familiar.

During Episode III, when we got our first shot of the Tantive IV's hallway, I remember that half of the audience giggled. And why? Because it was the same familiar spaceship corridor from the beginning of A NEW HOPE. That's why.

During another scene in the film, as the Jedi Council met in chambers, General Yoda stated that he would go to the planet Kashyykk since he had good relations with the wookies.

More idiotic giggling. It was never-ending.

Meanwhile these giggles had a decidedly cynical tone to them.

Naturally, this affects the perception of the film to audience members who are puzzled by the reactions around them. I saw a LOT of that: Girlfriends leaning over to their STAR WARS fan boyfriends and whispering "What was so funny?" And as they all leave the theater, many of THOSE confused people just decided to dislike the film because so many others seemed to giggle sardonically at it.

This type of cynical, childish nonsense has so thoroughly taken hold of our culture that it turns my stomach. We didn't used to be like this!

You know, in 1973 Warner Brother released a film Directed by William Friedkin that became a national sensation. That film was The Excorsist.

I'm old enough to remember how the news media was filled with stories about how there were people fainting, and passing out in movie theaters all over the country from how horrified they were watching this film.

People were having major hysterics, and, in some cases, were having to be carried away on stretchers and in ambulances.

FLASH FORWARD to the year 2000. My wife and I went (on opening night) to see the re-vival of The Excorsist that was released nation-wide with additional footage. The capaticty-packed auditorium was full of first-time viewers of the film as well as old-timers (like us) who were familiar with this classic and wanted to see it on the big-screen.

Judging by the amount of LAUGHTER (not giggles... LAUGHTER) that we heard throughout that film that night, you'd have thought we were watching a slapstick COMEDY.

I felt like I was in a fever dream.

This is a film that depicts the brutal, vile violation and possession of a 12 year old little girl by a vicious demon... It graphically chronicles the torture that this despicable personality joyfully inflicts upon this child, her mother, and those that care for her.

And the modern, cynical audience THOUGHT IT WAS A LAUGH RIOT.

That's how far we've come. Very sad.

[darklord1967]

As to the matter of Darth Vader's origins being disappointing to some. My only response is "how could it not be?" Honestly, do you really think that ANYTHING could have lived up to an expectation that was built up in YOUR head over nearly 30 years?

I don't think so.

Yet amazingly, what George Lucase came up with on the firey lava rivers of Mustafar pretty much blew me away. In my view, that confrontation between Obi-Wan Kenobi and an enraged Darth Vader was poignantly-acted, powerful, dramatic, heart-breaking, exciting, epic, and grandly presented.

NOTHING I saw in the Original Trilogy came close.

Some say that Anakin's turn in Episode III was too quick and sudden, making him seem weak-minded.

Well, I say his turn was chronicled over (at least) two films... not just the events of Episode III.

Elements of Anakin's Dark-Side fall are CLEARLY seen set in place during Episode II... the movie that EVERYONE loves to ignore and rip apart because of the "gooey badly-acted romance stuff". Yeah, yeah. Whatever.

But while these people were so busy rolling their eyes at this film, they missed the tumultuous relationship that Anakin had with the Jedi council AND with Obi-Wan Kenobi himself.

They missed the absolute heartbreak and RAGE that this kid went through at arriving on Tatooine just in time for his brutally tortured mother to die in his arms... knowing that he could probably have prevented it... if only jedi code permitted it. This cemented his resentment of the jedi order even more.

While some folks were busy thumbing their noses at this movie, they also missed Anakin's (very un-jedi like) rage having gotten the better of him and his slaughter of an entire Tusken Raider tribe... men, women, and children.

I guess these people may have even been off at a bathroom break or something and missed the scene when we clearly see Palpatine manipulating this kid into believing himself BETTER than all the other Jedi... even master Yoda himself. The KEY THING about this scene is the implication that this manipulation has been going on OVER THE LAST 10 YEARS... having begun when Anakin was a 10 year old little boy.

ALL of these things were contributors and elements of Anakin's Dark Side fall... not just the events seen in Episode III.

Palpatine didn't just walk up to 22 year old Anakin (during Episode III) and say, "Hey bud, join me! The Jedi suck!" with Anakin responding, " Ummm... 'kay!"

It didn't quite happen like that. The prequels chronicle a 12 YEAR PERIOD. That's how long it took to fully turn Anakin.

By the time Anakin (possessed by the Power of the Dark Side) slaughtered jedi younglings, this was NOT a new atrocity for him. He had done it before at that Tusken Raider camp on Tatooine.

It's cleary established in the OT by Ben Obi-Wan Kenobi that The Force can "... control your actions..." just as it can obey commands.

Anakin's raw uncontrolled, selfish, vain emotions allowed him to fall victim to an aspect of The Force (The Dark Side) that is FAR more controlling of its user than the light side.

This is why Dark Side practitioners seem to be under some sort of spell... or under the influence of a kind of demonic possession (re: glowing spooky eyes, etc)

That much raw negative power coursing through an individual potentially robs them of their self-control. A twisted by-product is that the victim's natural rage FEEDS this.

In addition, if the victim is kept in a perpetual state of rage, and physical pain (as Palpatine made SURE of with Darth Vader) then you've got yourself one particularly nasty and POWERFUL Sith Lord.

[Werewolf]

I don't think prequels ruin movies for people. Bad movies do. I didn't recall anyone complaining that Casino Royal ruined the Bond series.

[ctc]

>to me Jar Jar was no more offensive or annoying than C-3PO

HAW! I agree, but I didn't particularly care for 3P0 either.

>Today, there is a modern "too-cool-for-school" new age CYNICISM that somehow made cute, corny jokes a CRIMINAL OFFENSE to be included in a STAR WARS film...

Hmmmm.... I think you're sliding into the very cynnicism you're protesting. Yeah, there were tons of funny bits in the originals; but JarJar kinda beats you over the head with it. He's goofy looking, awkward, talks funny and does stupid stuff that becomes the focus of his scenes. I don't think it was JUST poo-pooing corny jokes that bothered folks, but the idea that JarJar never did anything that WASN'T corny! When we first meet Yoda in Empire, he's a lot like JarJar; but he eventually does serious things. Sure, his presence is kind of important in the next film 'cos it's HIM that starts the galaxy down the road to despotism.... but who would have made this guy a rep to begin with? It kinda rubbed me the wrong way 'cos he never displayed any sort of competence during the first film.

>And the modern, cynical audience THOUGHT IT WAS A LAUGH RIOT.

I think you're confusing a couple of different effects. Most people see things in the coarsest of terms. For film, this manifests as the "old films got bad effects" argument. Content and context take a back seat to the visual spectacle. The audience probably had no idea what the Exorcist was actually about. They were more distracted by the lack of CGI and explosions.

And that's not new, OR limited to our generation. As a lifelong Godzilla fan I can attest to that.

>Elements of Anakin's Dark-Side fall are CLEARLY seen set in place during Episode II... the movie that EVERYONE loves to ignore and rip apart because of the "gooey badly-acted romance stuff".

Hmmmm.... I had some problems with this 'cos both the romance AND Darksidedness kinda come out of nowhere. 'Course the romantic subplot in MOST films is pretty arbitrary, so that's kinda expected. (What was it that attracted them to each other?) As for Anni's turn.... you'd think one of the other Jedi would have noticed. He disobeys orders on a regular basis, he wears black (a bad sign in the Star Wars universe) AND he slaughters a tribe of Tuskin Raiders.

Thing is, there are a lot of perfectly good reasons any of this could have happened; but we in the audience aren't really given privy to any of them. I think with the new films THAT was a problem too: so much was just understood to be the way it was gonna happen we were never given any hints as to WHY. Obi-Wan could have been covering for Anni out of respect for HIS mentor, but we don't get any indicators of this.

>The prequels chronicle a 12 YEAR PERIOD.

Yeah, that's another weird thing too. Time seems really contracted 'cos we're getting brief flashes from the films over such a long span. Which I think was intentional so's that the blanks could be filled in by numerous tv shows, books, etc. So.... in the third film they've finally tracked down General Grievous; scourge of the galaxy.

Who....?

>do you really think that ANYTHING could have lived up to an expectation that was built up in YOUR head over nearly 30 years?

I think this more than anything else was Phantom Menace's downfall. No matter how good the film, there was NO WAY it could live up to the hype and expectation. 'Course, I thought it was a pretty mediocre flick, but that's never stopped any other film from being a hit.

>that confrontation between Obi-Wan Kenobi and an enraged Darth Vader was poignantly-acted,

The only weird part was when Obi Wan just walks away. Er.... That's pretty cold. It felt out of character for Obi-Wan and seemed like the writers knew what was supposed to happen but couldn't come up with a smooth way to make it happen.

Don C.

[darklord1967]

Hmmmm.... I think you're sliding into the very cynnicism you're protesting.

How so? As a STAR WARS fan, I'm merely pointing out that there was a stylistic consistency in terms of comic relief between the OT and the Prequels.

I had an appreciation for both.

My observation was basically meant to illustrate that so many folks fall into tendency of attacking the Prequels for some of the very stuff featured in the OT that they love so much.

... but JarJar kinda beats you over the head with it. He's goofy looking, awkward, talks funny and does stupid stuff that becomes the focus of his scenes. I don't think it was JUST poo-pooing corny jokes that bothered folks, but the idea that JarJar never did anything that WASN'T corny!

Very often, what one sees in another individual is what one chooses to see... and nothing else. This was very much the case with Jar Jar Binks in my opinion.

While silliness, comedy, and corniness was the MAIN aspect of that character it was not the only one. In Episode I, Jar-Jar basically serves as little Ani's child play friend. It was a sweet and innocent relationship since Jar-Jar is child-like and innocent like Anakin.

But even more importantly, one of the most POIGNANT and PIVOTAL scenes in Episode I featured Binks:

A pensive Amidala is in her Coruscant quarters staring out her window, clearly agonizing over the fate of her people on occupied Naboo. It is Jar-Jar Binks who through his purity of heart (and just good ol' fashioned decency) feels compassion for her suffering and attempts to comfort her:

BINKS: Yousa thinkin' yousa people gonna die?

AMIDALA: I don't know.

BINKS: Gungans get pasted too, eh?

AMIDALA: I hope not.

BINKS: Gungans not dying without a fight. Weesa warriors. Weesa got a Grand Army. That's why you no liken us messa thinks, hmm?

This is the conversation that turns Amidala from her pacifist ways and GALVANIZES her to return to Naboo to fight for her people and re-claim her planet... and more importantly to forge an alliance with their planetary rivals The Gungans to help make this liberation happen.

I think you're confusing a couple of different effects. Most people see things in the coarsest of terms.

Well, that's just what I mean. Seeing things in the "coarsest of terms" is yet another example of this pervading modern cynicism that I despise so much.

For film, this manifests as the "old films got bad effects" argument. Content and context take a back seat to the visual spectacle. The audience probably had no idea what the Exorcist was actually about. They were more distracted by the lack of CGI and explosions. And that's not new, OR limited to our generation. As a lifelong Godzilla fan I can attest to that.

Sorry, but I do not accept that. From where I sit, our culture is experiencing a "dumbing-down" of UN-PRECEDENTED proportions due to this rampant cynicism. It is happening on a magnitude NEVER before seen in the history of our country... and it is getting exponentially worse.

That "Exorcist" audience knew EXACTLY what they were watching. The premise of that film was not rocket science. Like I said before, that audience was a healthy mix of first time viewers AND older viewers who grew up with that film.

If the 2000 audience did not understand what the Exorcist was about, then that could only be attributed to one of two things: Either there was a SHAPRP drop off in the measure of their intelligence-level / attention span when compared to their 1973 counterparts OR a general lack of compassion for human suffering has de-sensitized people in our modern culture at an alarming rate!

Which is it? I don't quite know the answer to that. But I fear it could be BOTH.

In either case, it still points to the ugly specter of growing, vicious cynicism.

There is a CLEAR stylistic, contextural, and emotional distinction to be made between the human suffering depicted in a Godzilla film, versus the human suffering depicted in The Exorcist, versus the human suffering depicted in a historical drama like Glory, Titanic, Schindler's List, or Mississippi Burning.

I find it intensely irritating that modern cynicism seeks to erase these distinctions, and to reduce the dramatic depictions of ALL human suffering to a punchline.

I think it's patently obscene that we have become such a cynical culture that it has become commonplace to thumb our nose and flip our middle finger at that which is decent and good... that which strives to make a positive impact on the world and the lives of others.

Meanwhile, modern children are having innocence robbed from them at an earlier, and earlier age with metal detectors at their schools, and internet predators waiting and lurking.

The irony is that a bunch of middle aged men on this message board and many others like it all over the net are lamenting their "robbed childhood memories" via Prequel and sequel films that contradict the movies they loved as children.

Honestly.

WE are the ones that lived in the simpler happier times of MEGO, Evel Knievel STAR WARS and Star Trek. Our fun, innocent childhood memories from yesteryear haven't been robbed! They're as safe and intact as we allow them to be in our hearts and minds... and in the way that we pass them on as anecdotes and heirloom keepsakes to our children.

If a modern prequel/sequel movie that you disagree with has "robbed you of your childhood memories", then I suggest those memories were overly fragile and tenuous to begin with.

You want to talk about "Robbed Childhoods"? How about the fact that we've got modern 8 and 10 year olds engaging in sexual acts with each other in rear school stairwells while they TOTALLY DISMISS the import of such contact.

We have young adolescent boys... the supposed future of this country... walking around wearing pants so LOW that the crotch and seat hang roughly around their knees. These boys are NOT being taught the FIRST THING about making a proper gentlemanly impression for the world to look at, admire, or respect. They are NOT being taught to carry themselves as the kind of men that a woman will one day be PROUD to say "That's my husband", or that children will be proud to say "That's my father". They are not being told that their future is NOW, and that simple things like their appearance or the ability to conduct a PROPER handshake will make all the difference in how they are precieved as competitors in the world economic market.

We have an entire generation that is SO humanly DISCONNECTED to each other due to slick modern technology... computers and blackberrys and impersonal texting, that cynicism has become the easy and logical by-product.

Young people have become SO accustomed to texting messages in abbreviated forms that THEY HAVE NO CLUE how to write a full and complete message correctly.

The spelling and grammar of today's young people is absolutely atrocious! Again, cynicism and mediocrity at its worst.

And we wonder how this country got into the trouble it is currently in?

Let me tell you something: When you consider the arrogance, greed, and cynicism that has become the NORM in our culture... and when you take into account the accelerated dis-connectedness that people are engaging in, it's a WONDER the bottom didn't drop out before now.

I absolutely HATE this.

How many young people have YOU run into for whom the horrible events of 9/11 meant absolutely NOTHING... just a collection of images on a TV screen... like a movie to be LAUGHED at?

Sadly, I have to say I've run into far too many. Cynicism at its WORST, my friends.

Hmmmm.... I had some problems with this 'cos both the romance AND Darksidedness kinda come out of nowhere. 'Course the romantic subplot in MOST films is pretty arbitrary, so that's kinda expected. (What was it that attracted them to each other?)

Again, I've heard this question asked before, and my response is always the same: This is not rocket science.

She was an amazing, beautiful looking young woman, and he was an impressive, powerful, beautiful-looking young man.

What's so hard to figure out here? An attraction between these two is most natural... most logical.

Outside the physical aspects, she is a regal, kindly, compassionate and good-hearted woman... qualities that many men would fall in love with.

And he is a fiercely loyal powerful warrior Jedi Knight (with a little bit of a dangerous bad-boy edge to him) that many women would find irresistible. He is also in emotional turmoil due to the murder of his mother, and that triggers her compassionate instincts sending her heart out to him.

Does it really need to be more complicated than that in a fairy tale?

Nobody asked these questions about Han and Leia 30 years ago, and frankly, I find that relationship even MORE unlikely.

When Han first met Leia she was... not looking her best (as a long-time prisoner aboard the Death Star), AND the first words out of her mouth were an insult hurled at him. Naturally Han Solo, scoundrel that he is, gave as good as he got. He took no crap from Leia, and an adversarial relationship was forged between the two.

Those two didn't STOP cutting each other off at the knees until they finally kissed in the Millennium Falcon's hold during Empire.

Falling in love has no set established patterns. It doesn't work that way. People who respect, care for, and empathize with one another professionally fall in love all the time (Anakin and Amidala), as do people who on the surface appear to not be able to stand the sight of one another (Han and Leia).

The only weird part was when Obi Wan just walks away. Er.... That's pretty cold. It felt out of character for Obi-Wan and seemed like the writers knew what was supposed to happen but couldn't come up with a smooth way to make it happen.

That's not what I saw, Don.

What I saw was a terribly distraught and anguished Obi-Wan Kenobi turning his back on a defeated adversary that he was CERTAIN did NOT have long to live.

The alternative would have been for Obi-Wan Kenobi to go down to the bank of that lava river where Anakin lay defeated and helpless and plunge his lightsaber into Vader's back.

That would have been vicious and cruel... especially to a boy that he loved as a brother. Obi Wan simply could not do something like that. It was not his way, and it was not the Jedi way.

[huedell]

The only weird part was when Obi Wan just walks away. Er.... That's pretty cold. It felt out of character for Obi-Wan and seemed like the writers knew what was supposed to happen but couldn't come up with a smooth way to make it happen.

Don, you're one of the smartest most intricate and unbiased talkers here
---but I think this is an example of just not liking the movie or the style of
the movie---because if you hear Obi's apeech BEFORE he left Anakin---it's
about as direct and informing and emotional as you can get-----check it out
sometime

[DocDrako]

Thanks to the prequels, I think of Obi-Wan as a tremendous lying piece of garbage who is manipulating Luke into taking care of the mistake that he and Yoda and others made. I used to think Obi-Wan was a "great man" to quote Luke Skywalker, but not anymore.

And I didn't like Anakin as a child. He should have been a guy in the military caught up in the Clone Wars like everybody else. The military fighting someone's clone army. The Jedi's agree to act as Generals, Obi-Wan notices Anakin is powerful and is using the force without realizing it because he doesn't know about it and Obi-Wan decides to teach Anakin...

I gotta stop there. I can't go into it because it would take too long to say what I want to say.

[huedell]

I completely understand. Thanks to the prequels, I think of Obi-Wan as a tremendous lying piece of garbage who is manipulating Luke into taking care of the mistake that he and Yoda and others made. I used to think Obi-Wan was a "great man" to quote Luke Skywalker, but not anymore.

Hey, if me and MY friends made a MISTAKE promoting Hitler---I'd do what it
took to solve the problem of EVIL DESTROYING THE UNIVERSE.

[DocDrako]

I can see your point Huedell. I guess it's his way of doing it that I find fault with.

[MIB41]

This is the same cynicism that conveniently FORGETS that these films (all 6 of them) are basically made for children.

I could not disagree more. That suggestion,within it's own context, indicates a lack of effort on the part of the producer to develop and market a film for anyone under the age of 10. No one invests that kind of money and talent to make a "children's film". He could have gone on Sesame Street if he wanted a child's film. No. This was a science fiction tale intended for anyone who loved that genre. The child-characteristics of it, like the killer teddy bears from Jedi, were all marketing aspects to enrich Lucas personally. Let's not confuse greed with story telling. Lucas understood where he could make money and has shown little shame in exposing that aspect. In many ways it has tarnished what many have thought about him as a film maker. Now the diehards can give him a pass, because they need Star Wars like they breath air, but let's be honest here. George Lucas is the "Gene Simmons" of the science fiction genre. He will market and sell anything with the Star Wars logo on it, just like Simmons does with KISS. If it's green he's there.

[Mikey]

Hmmmm,

Thinking about story structor and story telling, i'd say the only Star Wars movie that seemed to be geered toward children or a family audience was Star Wars.
Jedi pretented to be geered toward kids, but it clearly wasn't.

After the success of Star Wars, Lucas probably noticed the Trek Nerd Teen audience taking notice and changed his storytelling there after.

It's why Empire is so different then Star Wars.
Also, why Empire is a "fan favourite" but most others shrug it off as too deep and dark.

[Gorn Captain]

Why did he seem to not remember anything that happened in ROTS in the classic trilogy ?

Man, I hadn't even considered that.
The memories of the droids were wiped, but Chewie?

Of course, is there anybody who can understand what the **** he's saying most of the time.....

[raider5gt]

Man, I hadn't even considered that.
The memories of the droids were wiped, but Chewie?

Of course, is there anybody who can understand what the **** he's saying most of the time.....

Han Solo does

[ctc]

>How so?

Well.... you seem to ascribe negative reasons as to why people didn't like the new films; stuff like a predetermined bias, a modern cynnical view of the warm and funny.... stuff like that. It's also possible that people GENUINELY disliked it.

>one of the most POIGNANT and PIVOTAL scenes in Episode I featured Binks:

But that scene could have happened with ANY of the characters. It wasn't neccessarily JarJar that could have delivered the lines. Anni could have, or one of the Jedi. All characters one would expect to have the purity of spirit required for an impartial observation.

>Gungans not dying without a fight.

'Course that almost sounds antagonistic.

>our culture is experiencing a "dumbing-down" of UN-PRECEDENTED proportions due to this rampant cynicism.

....uh.... Okay.... this is kinda veering a bit. I don't think the "dumbing down" is new. At all. I think it's easy to see it as such, because when we look back at the "good ol' days" we do so with the eyes of a child who was sheltered and cared for. Subsequently, it's easy to look at "now" as some sort of horrid travesty because we're so much more aware of how things actually work. But I don't think that horrible stuff is new; just maybe new to us. And it's easy to pan the younger generation 'cos they do stuff that seems weird and offensive to us. Consequently, it's easy to forget that WE did stuff that our elders thought was weird and offensive. Sex, violence, disturbing fashion.... it's not new.

>That "Exorcist" audience knew EXACTLY what they were watching.

But there's a difference between "knowing" and "empathising." For most people it's easy to dismiss a film that's really old "'cos the effects aren't good" 'cos it doesn't register with the template they carry around as to what IS good. And it's that template you have to connect with to get a reaction from the audience. Sync with the WRONG things and they'll react completely opposite to what you want. I know a lot of folks who bawl their eyes out when the aunt of a character in a chick-flick dies, but can't make that jump during the first Star Wars when Luke's aunt and uncle die just because the film has spaceships in it. And it's not cynnicism; it's that they have different buttons to push. (Kinda how a lot of sci-fi fans can't get choked up by the aunt in the chick-flick 'cos it's just one of them overwrought chick-flicks....) I could see the Exorcist having a similar effect 'cos we all KNOW demonic posession involves creepy images seen in morrors and weird CGI twisty effects in the background. Not cheesy facial appliances and fake puke. Most of the modern audience probaly couldn't get past that point to the REAL point of the film. Same way a lot of people don't get choked up when someone dies in a 50's monster movie. It doesn't register as "that dude's dead!" it's more like "hey, he got attacked by a puppet!"

And over time, for a LOT of reasons, that template changes. I suspect the "robbing me of my childhood memories" problem is actually the feeling of being irrelevant that comes about when what WE consider good, proper and accurate is no longer the socially presented one.

>Seeing things in the "coarsest of terms" is yet another example of this pervading modern cynicism that I despise so much.

There it is again! There are all sorts of reasons people do this; sometimes they don't pay that much attention, or just aren't that into movies, or just don't get what's going on.... It doesn't HAVE to be cynnicism.

>and he was an impressive, powerful, beautiful-looking young man.

He was 10.

>Does it really need to be more complicated than that in a fairy tale?

For most movies, no. But I find in real life there's always SOMETHING that attracts a person to someone else.... some small thing that separates that person from everyone else.... and very few movies acknowledge that. The male and female leads fall for each other 'cos that's how it always works. And in a story, finding out what that something is would go a long way to detailing the characters. But nobody ever does it. Except for "Pitch Black." And a lot of Japanese cartoons.

It always seems like they miss out by not getting into that sort of thing.

>Nobody asked these questions about Han and Leia 30 years ago,

Yeah! Like that! If the characters fight, then it's GUARANTEED they're gonna be together come the end. Just 'cos. That's why I can't watch chick-flicks: I know what's gonna happen. (For the uninitiated, it works like this: woman complains about being alone and unloved, and shortly thereafter meeets a guy who she seemingly hates. THAT'S Mr. Right. BUT; she soon runs into a guy who's just as handsome, charming and *usually* rich whom she falls for, and whom treates her like a queen. THAT'S Mr. Wrong. Eventually Mr. Wrong shows his true colours, she leaves, notices the first guy is ALMOST at the point where he'll be taken off the market *by getting married, or moving or somesuch* so hse makes her last desperate play.... it fails, but gets his attention.... the SECOND one works, big kiss, roll credits.)

>if you hear Obi's apeech BEFORE he left Anakin---it's
about as direct and informing and emotional as you can get

Oh, I agree. "But you were the CHOSEN ONE!!!!" And then he leaves. While Anni is still twitching. THAT'S the part that seemed odd to me. Why just leave him? Wouldn't you maybe try to save him, or put him out of his misery, or at least stay with him 'til he was gone?

>where Anakin lay defeated and helpless and plunge his lightsaber into Vader's back.

Or stay with him 'til he passed. Enemy or no, I wouldn't want my best friend to die alone and in pain like that; and even if I couldn't finish him myself I'd want to provide as much comfort as I could. Obi Wan had been presented as a bit distant, but still attached; which is why him just leaving didn't sit well with me. Sure, there are reasons he MIGHT have, but we didn't get enough to guess (or know) why he'd go from hot to cold like that. Did he decide it was over, like you'd said? Did he decide his place was with the living?

It's tricky with a story; but action demonstrates character, and character dictates action. It's tough to find that "in" so's the audience can follow it. In a lot of films; like the new Star Wars ones, I find myself KNOWING what that relationship is, but not FEELING it 'cos it seems to dictated by plot.

>i'd say the only Star Wars movie that seemed to be geered toward children or a family audience was Star Wars.

Back before the 80's "General Audience" was often just that: meant to be enjoyed by everybody. I think the original Star Wars wa one of those kind of films. Maybe a little intense for small kids, but not too watered down for older folks. (ie: people obviously died when shot.) Since the mid/late 80's the line between G and PG has been VERY heavily drawn....

Don C.

[darklord1967]

I could not disagree more. That suggestion,within it's own context, indicates a lack of effort on the part of the producer to develop and market a film for anyone under the age of 10. No one invests that kind of money and talent to make a "children's film".

Really? Tell that to Walt Disney, or to the kind folks over at Pixar. I could not disagree with you more.

George Lucas has repeatedly gone on record to state that STAR WARS was created by him at a time in this country when there was nothing really available for young people to enjoy at the cinema.

In the mid-1970's the science fiction genre was virtually dead, and movies screens were filled with doom and gloom images of demonically possessed children, anti-hero gun totin' cops, charismatic mobsters, and tons of folks dying gruesomely in earthquakes, burning skyscrapers, capsizing ocean liners, and in the jaws of great white sharks.

STAR WARS was Lucas' attempt to create a mythology for young people to enjoy and call their own. The older generation has always considered STAR WARS "rubbish".

I clearly remember my parents and the parents of all my friends being basically confused and mystified that this "far, far away..." nonsense had become so popular among us kids.

This dynamic has NOT CHANGED. Many of the people on this message board have now become this generation's adults who just don't "get" the stuff that's popular for today's young people. Which is ironic considering this message board's focus.

Meanwhile, STAR WARS: The Clone Wars is probably the highest-rated (and best produced) animated TV show currently being enjoyed among kids (and many long-time adult fans).

Each of the 6 episodes of the STAR WARS movie saga, may have a slightly different tone. But the stylistic sensibility and approach is the same.

I'm always puzzled by STAR WARS "fans" who only like one or two episodes of the saga (usually A New Hope or The Empire Strikes Back), but pretty much hate everything else.

I do NOT point to the silliness of STAR WARS and apologize for it by explaining it as the minimal efforts produced for children.

Instead, I point to the silliness of STAR WARS and celebrate it as the charming stylistic choice produced primarily for children and the young... and for the kid still alive in me.

I look at that silliness, and see it as a consistent thread that exists throughout this grandly-told epic story.

I, by NO MEANS, imply a lack of effort on the part of George Lucas and his collaborators when producing the STAR WARS saga for children. On the contrary. Each film was a MONUMENTAL undertaking that shattered conventions and techniques never before tried in film making.

The child-characteristics of it, like the killer teddy bears from Jedi, were all marketing aspects to enrich Lucas personally. Let's not confuse greed with story telling. Lucas understood where he could make money and has shown little shame in exposing that aspect. In many ways it has tarnished what many have thought about him as a film maker.

It seems to me that if George Lucas were the greedy money-grubbing loser that you attribute him to being, then he would have simply made the prequel movies that EVERYONE wanted to see as opposed to the romantic melodramas that he came up with.

If he was a marketing *****, then he certainly went out of his way to come up with concepts for his prequel storyline that were just un-marketable and un-popular with some fans of the OT. (Re: A nine year old main hero, a charismatic villain (Darth Maul) with very little screen time, a romance sub-plot at the heart of our hero's fall, and a cute, goofy, clumsy, silly character (Jar Jar) that was created on the heels of the most reviled similar characters from the OT (Ewoks))

As the "pimp" of STAR WARS, Lucas could have simply made a prequel storyline that began with an older Anakin in Episode I falling to the dark side, and then spent the next 2 films exploring how he went around killing people (re: "... helped the Empire hunt down and destry the Jedi knights...")

Or (based on the OVERWHELMING fan popularity of Boba Fett) he might have made prequel films that prominently featured the armored Mandalorian warriors which we were told about years ago. He would have then cleaned up in toy store aisles all over the country selling mini rocket men.

He chose not to do any of this.

But let's assume you're correct and Lucas wanted to capitalize as much as possible on the popularity of his STAR WARS creation. My question is, what the heck is so wrong with that?

This is a capitalist society. A free-market enterprise. When you produce something with your hard work and effort, do YOU not wish to be compensated?

When was the last time YOU did some work for FREE... just to satisfy of bunch of other people's desires?

As the Chairman and CEO of a corporation, George Lucas has the right (and fiscal responsibility) to ensure that his company survives, thrives, and that the people working for him stay employed.

Why is that a crime?

At the very least, George Lucas pumps a huge percentage of his earnings back into making more entertainment for people all over the world to enjoy. You may not like his work (and that's fine), but the truth is, Lucas invests heavily in the industry that he deeply cares about. He has probably done more than anybody in recent memory to advance the art form of filmmaking and bring it into the 21st Century. The science behind making / exhibiting films was absolutely STAGNANT for nearly 100 years.

It was Geroge Lucas' pioneering efforts (dating back to the 1970's) that re-defined the method and quality standard for the production of motion picture Special Effects.

It was Lucas' later efforts that allowed for the development / implementation of digital cinematography / exhibition, which in-turn ushered in a much higher standard of picture and sound quality in our cineplexes and home theaters.

It was through Lucas' persistence, and financial investments that new technologies were developed to allow for the preservation / restoration of important classic American films for future generations to enjoy.

An impressive number of former George Lucas employees have gone on to form their own companies (Pixar included), and have followed Lucas' example, helping to advance the science of the filmmaking industry in their own right.

If you have ever listened to George Lucas speak, he is an incredibly intelligent, knowledgeable, and thoughtful individual... not at all a money-obsessed miser that pundits dismiss him as.

Now the diehards can give him a pass, because they need Star Wars like they breath air

I think George Lucas pundits need to attack him like they breathe air. I love STAR WARS, but I do not "need" it.