Or if you like a high fantasy story of good vs evil. You should also keep in mind that Starwars is meant for ten year old kids. George Lucas has said so himself.

 

 

 

George Lucas also said that Greedo shot first...

 

The original trilogy, without a doubt the first two movies, were made for people of all ages. If those movies just appealed to kids, they would not have been near as successful as they were. Nor would so many people be wanting to be seeing them decades later, or be invested in what the sequel trilogy will bring us. The addition of the original cast would not be so important if they just wanted to appeal to 10 year olds.

 

Starwars was based on Flash Gorden; a kids show. When making the original script George Lucas wanted it to be, "A movie a ten year old would love." (From his biography) With the original trilogy he never strayed from that premise. Don't get me wrong; he didn't design the movie to alienate adults, but ten year old kids were the target. The fact that such a wide audience enjoyed the movie came as a complete shock to Lucas.

 

We've already seen the results of both approaches to Starwars. Make it a story of the heroic good guys fighting the evil bad guys (The originals) and you get some of the greatest movies ever made. Make it morally unclear and have sympathetic villains and you get the prequels. Movies that are sub-par at best.

 

They're based on more than just Flash Gordon. Westerns for one. That's well known.

 

Again, Lucas says that Gredo shoots first. <<<< this means that near anything Lucas says anymore and for a long time now means poop. (he also contradicts himself in many other instances over the years).

 

Insofar as why the prequels suck:

 

It has nothing to do with the moral ambiguity, and everything to do with an abysmal script and direction. You have multiple good actors in those movies give the worst performances I've ever seen them give (Portman, McGregor, Neeson to name a few). The reason is the atrocious dialogue and George's direction. Lawerence Olivier couldn't have saved some of those scenes.

 

The premise of the story behind Anakin's fall to the dark side is a great one. I was looking forward to it. How Lucas executed his vision of decades earlier was poorly to say the least.

 

Lucas lost his way a looooong time ago. The respectable George Lucas that gave us the original trilogy, Raiders of the Lost Arc, and envisioned Anakin's tale died sometime in the mid to late 80s. The doppleganger who sounds and looks like him yet is strangely pudgy is soulless, shallow, tasteless, heartless, and greedy. When I saw those 'love scenes' between Anakin and Padmé for the first time I thought to myself: 'No wonder George's marriage ended in failure....'.

Edited December 3, 201411 yr by Valsuelm

 

They're based on more than just Flash Gordon. Westerns for one. That's well known.

 

Starwars takes elements of westerns and other genres as well, but that doesn't mean it was based on them. It was inspired by Flash Gordon, it's tone was and general universe was based on Flash Gordon. George added tropes from other stories sure, but the basic idea for Starwars came from Flash Gordon. That isn't well known, but is very true.

 

 

 

 

 

It has nothing to do with the moral ambiguity, and everything to do with an abysmal script and direction. You have multiple good actors in those movies give the worst performances I've ever seen them give (Portman, McGregor, Neeson to name a few). The reason is the atrocious dialogue and George's direction. Lawerence Olivier couldn't have saved some of those scenes.

 

Even from the beginning of the creation of Starwars Lucas went out of his way to make it a story a ten year old would love. The tone of the original trilogy even matches that premise. It's a part of why the British crew on the first film were so critical of George Lucas; they weren't happy working on a science fiction movie for kids. Please just accept that the originals had kids in mind during it's creation. 

 

The script and direction put in both moral ambiguity and nuance. The things Trashman and maybe you want. It's kind of silly to say that a script that had moral ambiguity and nuance was bad; except for the ambiguity and nuance. 

 

Much of the atrocious dialog was the result of trying to make Anakin a sympathetic villain. Many of the terrible performances were the result of trying to make the story sophisticated and nuanced.

 

It's like you can tell where the movies failed, but not WHY those aspects of the prequels failed.

Sharp_One is correct on that front in my eyes. Someone on this board pointed out in another thread where we discussed it that whenever Anakin doesn't have to speak any of George's dialogue and can act with his physicality he really knocks it out of the park and I actually went to rewatch it keeping that in mind and he really does. Plus, the guy's proven in other films that he's at least a halfway competent actor, won some awards for Shattered Glass even. I think a lot of problems with the acting in the prequels come down to George's direction combined with the green screen work. It's already hard to act to things that don't exist, let alone if you have a director who famously had no better directions to give at any time than "faster, more intense".
 

Starwars takes elements of westerns and other genres as well, but that doesn't mean it was based on them. It was inspired by Flash Gordon, it's tone was and general universe was based on Flash Gordon. George added tropes from other stories sure, but the basic idea for Starwars came from Flash Gordon. That isn't well known, but is very true.

 

Basic idea for the setting, maybe. The first film is essentially a setting transposed version of Hidden Fortress.

 

Saying that script is bad because it wanted to had moral ambiguity and nuance is silly. Are you saying that ALL scripts that have moral ambiguity and nuance are bad? That is just plain ridiculous.

I'm not saying that moral ambiguity and nuance are bad. They are bad for Starwars though. When you take an idea like make a guy who basically submits to the dark lord of the Sith to obtain the power of the dark side of the force, and try to play him off as sympathetic; it's going to lead to some stupid events, dialog, and motivations. 

Edited December 3, 201411 yr by Namutree

Because the tragic fall is not a cliché story that can be done with dramatic flair? The fact of the matter is that moral ambiguity and nuance aren't present in the prequels at all and I very certainly don't get the idea that it was what George Lucas was going for either, it's just that Vader's fall from sympathetic to evil was badly written.

The fact of the matter is that moral ambiguity and nuance aren't present in the prequels at all

Yes they are; a lot. The republic isn't portrayed as good, but rather a corrupt and dysfunctional bureaucracy; this is featured prominently in episode 1.

 

In episode 2: George left that Count Dooku was a villain deliberately unclear until very late in the movie. Something even he acknowledges in one of the deleted scenes where he states that he didn't want the audience to know if he was a bad guy or not yet.

 

In episode 3: The opening text specifically state that their are "heroes on both sides, and evil is everywhere". Sounds like ambiguity to me. It also makes the audience uninterested in the given conflict; since there are no clear "heroes" to root for.

 

 

 I very certainly don't get the idea that it was what George Lucas was going for either, it's just that Vader's fall from sympathetic to evil was badly written.

George Lucas has stated previously that his greatest regret is how he made Darth Vader such a menacing villain in the original trilogy. He wanted Anakin to blatantly submit to evil; while still being sympathetic. That will lead to bad dialog, events, and motivations. The best writer ever been born, or who ever will be born; could not have made that premise work well. 

The fact that the originals were beloved and iconic classics is validation of my stance. The prequels followed your logic and are crappy, boring, and held in complete contempt by nearly everyone who sees them.

 

I wonder why you insist on shoehorning in sophistication and nuance into a universe they will never belong in; while ruining that universe's primary appeal.

 

 

1) What is the primary appeal of SW is totally subjective.

 

2) Depth and nuance will ruin a fictional work? First time I hear that.

 

3) The prequels were s*** because they were s***. Correlation DOES NOT equal causation.

 

 

1) What is the primary appeal of SW is totally subjective.

They were created with a specific tone and appeal in mind; both idea's were fully realized. Maybe what George Lucas thought was appealing wasn't what everyone found appealing, but the goal was clear. A high fantasy story that a ten year old would love; based on his childhood memories of Flash Gordon. 

 

 

 

2) Depth and nuance will ruin a fictional work? First time I hear that.

 

I wonder who said that? Not me. Not all fantasy stories are set up the way Starwars is. Such concepts could work in fictional universe's that are made around them. Starwars wasn't. It's like some people have this ridiculous idea that depth and nuance are always good all the time in any story.

 

 

 

 

3) The prequels were s*** because they were s***.

 

Sound reasoning.

 

Maybe they weren't **** simply because they were ****, but instead because the spirit of the prequels were incompatible with the established universe. Most of the glaring flaws are an extension of that fundamental flaw.

 

I'm not saying that moral ambiguity and nuance are bad. They are bad for Starwars though. When you take an idea like make a guy who basically submits to the dark lord of the Sith to obtain the power of the dark side of the force, and try to play him off as sympathetic; it's going to lead to some stupid events, dialog, and motivations.

KotOR 2?

 

What of it?

Sharp_One is correct on that front in my eyes. Someone on this board pointed out in another thread where we discussed it that whenever Anakin doesn't have to speak any of George's dialogue and can act with his physicality he really knocks it out of the park and I actually went to rewatch it keeping that in mind and he really does. Plus, the guy's proven in other films that he's at least a halfway competent actor, won some awards for Shattered Glass even. I think a lot of problems with the acting in the prequels come down to George's direction combined with the green screen work. It's already hard to act to things that don't exist, let alone if you have a director who famously had no better directions to give at any time than "faster, more intense".

 

Starwars takes elements of westerns and other genres as well, but that doesn't mean it was based on them. It was inspired by Flash Gordon, it's tone was and general universe was based on Flash Gordon. George added tropes from other stories sure, but the basic idea for Starwars came from Flash Gordon. That isn't well known, but is very true.

 

Basic idea for the setting, maybe. The first film is essentially a setting transposed version of Hidden Fortress.

the hidden fortress inspiration is something fans and media kinda latched onto with understandable, but likely excessive vigor. is a handful o' similar characters, but as much is different as is arguably similar. in fact, when somebody finally got around to actual asking lucas, he admitted to some inspiration (droid characters), but that most similarities were coincidence or imagined into being. am recalling lucas saying that hidden fortress "sort of inspired" star wars. 

 

and you do realize that kurosawa's samurai films were themselves inspired in part by hollywood western's, no? hidden fortress likely has more inspiration from ford's the searchers than lucas got inspiration from hidden fortress.

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

 

 

I'm not saying that moral ambiguity and nuance are bad. They are bad for Starwars though. When you take an idea like make a guy who basically submits to the dark lord of the Sith to obtain the power of the dark side of the force, and try to play him off as sympathetic; it's going to lead to some stupid events, dialog, and motivations.

KotOR 2?

 

What of it?

 

It contradicts everything you claimed about Star Wars above. Not to mention tons of comics, books etc. that made moral ambiguity and nuance work very well in SW universe. So your claims are not true.

 

The expanded universe is both not cannon and mostly terrible. Not to mention they're not movies (mostly, but the expanded universe movies are horrible).

 

As for Kotor 2:

 

1: It's a role-playing video game, not a movie; different rules apply.

 

2: Kotor 2 isn't really all that great. The mechanics were a blatant improvement over Kotor 1, but the story, characters, and atmosphere were very lackluster. It's a good game, but nothing special.

Edited December 3, 201411 yr by Namutree

 

The expanded universe is both not cannon and mostly terrible. Not to mention they're not movies (mostly, but the expanded universe movies are horrible).

 

As for Kotor 2:

 

1: It's a role-playing video game, not a movie; different rules apply.

 

2: Kotor 2 isn't really all that great. The mechanics were a blatant improvement over Kotor 1, but the story, characters, and atmosphere were very lackluster. It's a good game, but nothing special.

Your words:

"it's going to lead to some stupid events, dialog, and motivations."

 

Events, dialog and motivations of characters are not something that is restricted to movies, so other media examples that includes them are just as valid.

 

And as you said yourself K2 was good and the prequels were bad. So the implementation of moral ambiguity and nuance are bad goes out of the window and you confirmed.

Not true. Thanks to being a video-game it has time to convey these concepts better than a movie can. Hence my line, "Different rules apply."

 

What you also seemed to have missed is the part where I mentioned that the story was lackluster, as in; not good. The reason I still liked the game was for the mechanics and character choice.

So basically you will backpedal and ignore all and every argument. 

I responded to their arguments, and never backpedaled. I established that I liked Kotor 2 as a video game due to its mechanics, but I didn't like the story. Then you claim that since I liked the game that means I was wrong. I then re-established that I liked the game based on the game mechanics. I don't know how that could be backpedaling as it's more akin to repeating myself.

 

If anything you ignored what I said.

 

So there is no point in further discussion. I think everybody made their mind about your claim as it is.

 

That's probably true. If they want to think that the ideas and tone of the prequels could have worked as well as if not better than the originals if only they were executed better; I doubt I can change their minds.

Edited December 3, 201411 yr by Namutree

 

They were created with a specific tone and appeal in mind; both idea's were fully realized. Maybe what George Lucas thought was appealing wasn't what everyone found appealing, but the goal was clear. A high fantasy story that a ten year old would love; based on his childhood memories of Flash Gordon. 

 

Implying young people can't enjoy depth or non 2-D characters?

 

 

 

 

I wonder who said that? Not me. Not all fantasy stories are set up the way Starwars is. Such concepts could work in fictional universe's that are made around them. Starwars wasn't. It's like some people have this ridiculous idea that depth and nuance are always good all the time in any story.

 

Star Wars can work in many ways, and those concepts are not "alien" or incompatible with SW.

 

 

 

 

Maybe they weren't **** simply because they were ****, but instead because the spirit of the prequels were incompatible with the established universe. Most of the glaring flaws are an extension of that fundamental flaw.

 

The flaws are bad writing. Period.

You also ignore that fact that settings grow and develop over time, as the writer and audience grows.

Case in point, compare The Hobbit with LoTR. LOTR is better in every way.

 

ps as an aside, we would note that "setting" of star wars is less attributable to hidden fortress than is a couple o' lucas' characters and possible some plot. the setting for star wars is long ago in a distant galaxy with magic, faster-than-light spaceships and an impressive catalog o' alien species.  in fact, we believe lucas' most meaningful star wars contribution were his quasi sci-fi setting.  

 

HA! Good Fun!

ps as an aside, we would note that "setting" of star wars is less attributable to hidden fortress than is a couple o' lucas' characters and possible some plot. the setting for star wars is long ago in a distant galaxy with magic, faster-than-light spaceships and an impressive catalog o' alien species.  in fact, we believe lucas' most meaningful star wars contribution were his quasi sci-fi setting.  

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

I agree.  The brillaince in Star Wars isn't in the story, characters, or performances, but in the art design.  The stuff that really captures the imagination of the audience is the droids, the weird aliens, Vader's mask, all the cool spaceships/speeders/walkers, etc.

Lucas in 1979: "I especially loved the Flash Gordon serials... Of course I realize now how crude and badly done they were... loving them that much when they were so awful, I began to wonder what would happen if they were done really well."

 

He tried to get the rights to Flash Gordon until he found out that King Features wanted too much for them to make filming a movie practical.

Edited December 3, 201411 yr by Amentep

 

ps as an aside, we would note that "setting" of star wars is less attributable to hidden fortress than is a couple o' lucas' characters and possible some plot. the setting for star wars is long ago in a distant galaxy with magic, faster-than-light spaceships and an impressive catalog o' alien species.  in fact, we believe lucas' most meaningful star wars contribution were his quasi sci-fi setting.  

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

I agree.  The brillaince in Star Wars isn't in the story, characters, or performances, but in the art design.  The stuff that really captures the imagination of the audience is the droids, the weird aliens, Vader's mask, all the cool spaceships/speeders/walkers, etc.

 

 

This is part of the reason that, though Star Wars fans hate it, the general public still went to see all the Star Wars movies.

While I don't think Episodes 1, 2, and 3 were as good as they could have been (or as good as the original series), I did enjoy them for what they were rather than what I'd wanted them to be.

 

Most of the people who I know (anecdotal evidence and all that) who hated the "prequels" with the heat of a twin sun system were the type who put "Jedi" and "Sith" as their religion on census information and I really don't think that any movie would have lived up to their expectation; being enjoyable but highly flawed just made them a big kickball.

 

Maybe they weren't **** simply because they were ****, but instead because the spirit of the prequels were incompatible with the established universe. Most of the glaring flaws are an extension of that fundamental flaw.

 

The flaws are bad writing. Period.

You also ignore that fact that settings grow and develop over time, as the writer and audience grows.

Case in point, compare The Hobbit with LoTR. LOTR is better in every way.

 

LOTR is a brilliant example! Both the Hobbit and LOTR are high fantasy stories with binary morality. If only the prequels had taken the same route as the LOTR. 

 

Tolken didn't take his world and go, "You know what? This story needs moral ambiguity and nuance; no more of this good vs evil nonsense; it's immature!" If he had done so the LOTR wouldn't have been nearly as good as it was. The story was expanded, but not contradicted (in any meaningful way). Smaug was evil. Sauron was evil. There was no attempt to make that universe something it could never be.

 

Compare that to what the prequels did. They took a universe with binary morality, and made it morally gray. Which of course meant adding in stupid events to try and justify it. Stupid events means stupid dialog. I don't how anyone could have taken the idea of Anakin falling to the dark side, while keeping him sympathetic, and made it work well. It can't be done. This guy will never make a great Starwars villain:

 

 

 

 

I wonder who said that? Not me. Not all fantasy stories are set up the way Starwars is. Such concepts could work in fictional universe's that are made around them. Starwars wasn't. It's like some people have this ridiculous idea that depth and nuance are always good all the time in any story.

 

Star Wars can work in many ways, and those concepts are not "alien" or incompatible with SW.

 

No, it can't. It's already established that there is a binary morality in the force. The force (good), and the dark side (evil). Not to mention that the Starwars universe is just plain silly in a lot areas. It's not a good template for an in depth and nuanced story. We got that with the prequels; look how that turned out.

Lucas in 1979: "I especially loved the Flash Gordon serials... Of course I realize now how crude and badly done they were... loving them that much when they were so awful, I began to wonder what would happen if they were done really well."

 

He tried to get the rights to Flash Gordon until he found out that King Features wanted too much for them to make filming a movie practical.

That was back when Lucas knew what he was going for.

Compare that to what the prequels did. They took a universe with binary morality, and made it morally gray. Which of course meant adding in stupid events to try and justify it. Stupid events means stupid dialog. I don't how anyone could have taken the idea of Anakin falling to the dark side, while keeping him sympathetic, and made it work well. It can't be done.

 

To my mind, there needed to be a defining turning point.  Obi-Wan says that Vader killed Luke's father in the original film; in a sense what needed to happen was just that - the sympathetic but misguided Anakin at the start of the films needed to die and become the Sith Lord Darth Vader.

 

Anakin needed a choice at the precipice (like Luke has in ESB when Vader reveals he's Luke's father and asks him to join him) but one he embraces, thus killing any part of his old life.

 

There's a number of ways this could have been done and kept the basic structure of the series (one thing IMO that should have been done though was to start Anakin off at an age roughly equivilent to Luke in the first film; the emotional core of the series is hard to build on when the primary character the "journey" is about is 10 years old in the first film).

I don't think the age of the kid Anakin was the problem, it was just terribly executed.  He should have been like that kid from Sixth Sense, who was sympathetic but also clearly a bit dark and dealing with some powerful issues.  The kid is a slave, but comes across as happy go lucky.  It was terrible.

Anakin just needed to be more badass, as a Jedi and then a newly turned Sith. Hayden wasn't fit for this role

His fall to the dark side should have lasted longer than 20 minutes too.