You know, I recall the heady days of 1999 when Star Wars burst back onto the screens (aside from the original trilogy's special edition) to a chorus of disapproval - something as a big Star Wars fan I obviously ignored. That said, I recall being a little disappointed but certainly not to the degree that critics (who had been waiting 16 years to stick the knife in) were.

It's odd to think that it's 13 years since it was released and reflecting on the different world we now live in, it's actually welcome to see this come back to the big screen for reassessment.

I have to say, though, that 3D is a gimmicky nonsense that still doesn't draw me in. I'll always opt for the 2D when the option is there. For this, however, there was no choice. Was this a good 3D adaptation? Who knows, who cares.

Jar Jar Binks and young Jake Lloyd appeared to annoy a lot of people far more than they should have back in '99. Yes, they were whiney, and yes that meant they slotted perfectly into the world established in the first trilogy. Did people forget that these are movies aimed primarily at kids? And adults who cannot shake off their inner geeky kid? I don't think these characters were as overbearingly disappointing as was the prevailing thought. Sure, in the case of Jar Jar, the focus on the clumsy comedic sidekick (a character also lacking the brilliance of C3-PO and R2 D2) went too far, but not compared to the shrieking proportions of disapproval they met.

The actors chosen as leads (Neeson, McGregor and Portman) were choices based on talent rather than suitability, IMO. Neeson and Portman adapted to this better than McGregor. Ewan struggled to deliver (and he must've known the clumsiness of the dialogue in advance!) the lines with sincerity or subtlety. That was jarring for me. He did get better with subsequent episodes, but I think he was a poor casting choice.

The film is a little long but packs in an awful lot of action whilst organically bringing Anakin into the Jedi path. The pod race was wonderful, as was the standard issue 3 front attack ending to bring us to our happy conclusion. They could have probably cut down on the political manoeuvring (although it was necessary in establishing the undertones of the conflict and Palpatine's route to Supreme Chancellor) and used that time to explore Maul.

And that was perhaps the most disappointing aspect - fact they never utilised Darth Maul like they might have, and whilst his makeup was excellent, his clothing and height were issues for me. I just found myself being distracted by it. That black number with the MC Hammer trousers just didn't work. He was a potentially cool villain and yet we knew nothing of his motivation or perceived ills to justify the attack on the Jedi.

All in all, though, this was an enjoyable ride. For some, it seems to be the worst movie ever made. This isn't the worst movie in the Star Wars series, for Pete's sake! It's a much maligned movie that is seemingly not getting the reassessment this release should allow it to receive. That's a shame. I think it will grow a bigger audience of appreciation as the years go by and that's a credit to George Lucas for making the film he felt needed to be made.

It isn't the worst movie on the Star Wars franchise?

Course it is, by a long, long way...unless you're including the Ewok abortions.

I'm a massive Star Wars fan, but it just didn't work as a film.

The problems were basic and fundamental. Simple screenwriting and structural deficiencies...it starts off illogical and absurd when the Jedi's come to visit the Space Station (they release killer gas, and then open the doors) and it just went from bad to worse.

It seemed to go out of its way to undo any tension. The robots are weak and ridiculous. Why deliberately create antagonistic forces that are so pointless and weak?

The introduction of the midichlorians was an abomination as well...undoing the Joseph Campbell inspired universal idea that anyone could access the force through faith and turning it into a genetic birth right....a horrible idea that would have killed Star Wars stone dead if he'd put it in the original trilogy.

Part of the problem with the film is that the Star Wars Universe grew continuously between the two trilogies. There is a whole collection of stories that are chronological. A novel called Cloak of Deception was released before Phantom Menace that explains the whole plan and the role the Trade Federation plays...but it's not acceptable to have to know the contents of a book to make sense of a film.

Another problem is that you've got three films whose sole intention is to get Anakin to become Darth Vader. Three films to get to an already understood point. That's a challenge and Lucas has nothing like the skill required to deal with such emotion and couldn't allow the ratings to be raised to tell that particular story effectively.  

None of the characters are interesting either. The original trilogy was remarkable in that even minor characters seemed imbued with life. Here, even the mian characters are flat and formless.

I don't know if you've ever seen that Buffalo Bill inspired review of the film, but it points out individual flaws better than I could right now. I agree with every word of it.

One illuminating moment was footage of the editor watching the film with Lucas and pointing out that the ending is a massive problem because you are going from comedy in one scene (Jar Jar) to tragedy, to something else, to something else....the film has no consistent tone at all.

The face of the Producer (Rick Callum or something similar) was priceless as he was watching the abortion unfold!

I will always be grateful for Lucas for creating Star Wars. It's probably the reason I'm a filmmaker (I have merely swapped Star Wars figures for live actors). However I have reached the point where I want him to stop interfering with it and pass it on to others.

Judging by the films he makes when he has total control, I think it's fair to say that it's his collaborators who did more to make the Star Wars universe so good. It's clear he wants it to be a chilish, idiotic type creation, but other people have made it far more than that.

Lucas seems intent on destroying the only legcay he has ever created. If it wasn't for writers like Timothy Zahn, Karen Miller etc he probably would have succeeded a long time ago.

Originally he wanted to create a Universe and let other people make films in it...that's what he should do. He should retire from Star Wars completely and let it find a new voice.

On the other hand, I'm sort of glad he made the new films, if only because the novels written based on this period have proven to be of a decent standard.

Even Darth Maul has two stories: Shadow Hunter and Saboteur that explain his past and make him an interesting character. Basically, the dozens of writers working in the Star Wars Universe are able to rectify all the nonsense that Lucas keeps coming up with and filling in all the gaps in logic.

[Darth Maul survives that scene btw...he appears later with robot legs in Star Wars visonaries.  He's killed by Uncle Owen, after a fight with Obi Wan, when he tries to get back in favour with the Emperor by killing Luke Skywalker! For the sake of your own knowledge, he was raised from an early age by Palpatine and was essentially a Special Ops/Assassin type. He was brutally tortured and killed all his rivals. Palpatine comes to realise he's made a mistake in his education by making him hate the Jedi too much...meaning he's not capable of dispassionately planning their exctinction...so he turns to Count Dooku as his next apprentice.]

I'll always love Star Wars for that reason...it's one story that is continuously being expanded. Characters who are on the screen for a few seconds are suddenly given entire histories and futures meaning that the films are continually reinvented.

As a sort of literary phenomenon, it's a bizarre and incredible achievement.

Bantha Poodoo.

A shitty movie will remain shitty in whatever "D"it's shown.

I remember the day very well when I saw The Phantom Menace. I grew up watching the original Star Wars movies mainly because they were shown on TV every bank holiday.
I also remember the end credits rolling and thinking 'Man, that was a poor film'. I hated it, I hated Jar Jar fecking Binks and his stupidity and basically everything else that followed. I did then think of the Ewoks and thought they too were pretty poor but at least it had a decent story.  Maybe it was an age thing but I've never watched the episodes 1 & 2 more than once and I don't even think I've seen number 3 at all.

I am however completely pissed by the ridiculous amount of 'milking' that the franchise has been up to. Episodes 4,5 & 6 were released so many times I lost count and now 3D! They should just leave it alone.  It was cack the first time and isn't going to get any better.

True, Rob, true.

When I actually think about the film in depth (it was too traumatic an experience to really dwell on at the time) it really is just utterly terrible...it's offensively bad.

Even as far as the racial sterotypes that exist amongst the alien species...the Rastafarian type idiot that's Jar Jar, the Asian parodies that are the Trade Federation.

Even on the most basic film level it fails. Annakin destroys a spcae station by mistake, whilst at the same time the idiotic Jar Jar is winning a battle by falling over and being an idiot.

These things belong in a comedy movie...not an Epic film about Good vs Evil.It's Revenge of the Pink Panther type stuff.

There's no chemistry between Amidala and the ridiculously young kid (what is it Lucas has about under age sex? His original version of Indiana Jones was that Indy had been shagging an under age girl).

This reveals a problem throughout the whole thing...the story only goes where it has to..the plot is entirely manipulated. They fall in love because they have to have a couple of kids, not because it was realisitc or organic to the story.

The other thing is that Annie never even shows any particular talent. Think about how obvious that should be...the kid should be like a maelstrom of power. His pod racer breaks...fuck it...he just uses the force.

That problem continued throught the first three films...he lost every battle he ever fought...Count Dooku, Obi Wan. Bizarrely, it was only when he became less powerful by losing most of his body that he started to win a few fights.

I'm not sure there's a single scene that actually makes sense within the story's own Universe.

Clones is by far the worst film, in my opinion.  Phantom Menace, to me, has a sense of movement, whereas Clones is utterly stagnant and interminably boring.  Plus, as painful as Jake Lloyd is, I'd take his "Yippies" over the Christensen/Portman romance any day.  I submit the following:

Quoted from Anakin Skywalker I don't like sand. It's coarse and rough and irritating and it gets everywhere. Not like here. Here everything is soft and smooth.

In my book, points also go to the (original) Menace for puppet Yoda and, of course, for the Darth Maul showdown.  I do agree with Rick, however, that Jar Jar "Sambo" Binks is an ugly contribution to the world.

I gotta strongly disagree, Rick, about the characters in the original trilogy.  To me, Guiness' Obi-Wan is the standout that gives us something to figure out in a universe populated by staggeringly simple characters.  That many of the characters happen to be appealing depends much more on an action-figure mentality than a film-character one, in my opinion.  This isn't meant as a slight against the films by any means; I do think that the characters, at least in Hope and Empire, are exactly what they needed to be.  But to me, the main characters are archetypes, and nothing more, and the supporting characters are interesting and entertaining, but certainly one-note.  Again, to me Obi-Wan is the only performance suggestive of any actual life.  I don't, of course, deny that the characters in the prequels are largely uninteresting as well.

And the bit-part actors in all six films are uniformly laughable; though perhaps this isn't a particularly unwelcome phenomenon, all things considered.  Two fighters against a Star Destroyer?!

You've probably all seen it, but just in case there's those who haven't... The best movie review in the history of movie reviews, IMO...

The characters may be archetypes, but they have strong personalities...not least of which is Han Solo.

You know what they all represent and their dialogue exchanges (largely ad-libbed due to such a poor script, apparently) are convincing and more importantly, energetic and fun.

You can't even say what archetypes the characters in the new trilogy are even supposed to represent, due to how bland they are.

I strongly disagree that the bit part actors in the first two films in particular are laughable...the likes of Moff Tarkin (Peter Cushing) were great...far better than the main characters in the new trilogy.

Even C3P0 seems like a comic genius when compared to the tripe dished up later.

There is the kernel of a decent film in Phantom Menace...the way Palpatine engineers the whole conflict in order to secretly get power over the entire Galaxy. It's analogous to things like the Patriot Act and conspiracy theories surrounding the likes of the Rothschilds. He was a decent character and, a bit like the Joker in Dark Knight, he overshadowed everyone else in the film.

It's sort of ironic to me that people try to defend it as just a kids film...when the only times it works (pod race aside) is when it's delving into disticntly adult territory.

Just google the opening credits to the film...it's on about trade embargos and levels of taxation...what sort of kids are going to get any of that?

That's not the premise of a kid's film.

Star Wars was pretty dark..it opens with Stormtroopers wiping out a whole ship and then the implied torture of a Princess. Then the Stormtroopers kill Uncle Owen and his wife in cold blood, leaving their burning corpses outside.

We even have an entire planet being wiped out.

if lucas had just given all of his ideas for the original trilogy over to more capable writer/director....episodes I II and III could have been truely epic..

and that's where most of the vitriol from fans comes from....

what could have been

I didn't think Episode I was the worst. Episode III was the worst for me.

That last scene with the tying up of the plot holes when Yoda says:

"Right, send that twin there. Send the other twin there. Oh, by the way, Liam Neeson has learned how to appear as a ghost, he''ll teach you how, Obi-wan -- so you can talk to that twin when you peg it in twenty years" etc etc.

F*ck off!

And don't get me started with Episode II when they throw Boba Fett's dad in just because we all had a hard-on for Boba when we were kids. (yes, he was cool. But his fucking Dad shows up? Seriously?).

Saw 'Star Wars' in 1978 at the cinema as a 15 year old - magical.  Caught up with the next 2 over the next few years.

Lined up in 1999 to see the adventure continue, and walked out nauseaus. Have never bothered to watch the next 2 sequels.

The 3 newer ones should be erased from the archives...

oh look, more people pissing and moaning about the star wars prequel...havent heard that before.

i'm not disagreeing with what you all are saying. is it bad? yeah. is it the worst film to ever plop out of lucas' moist, sweaty loins? eh not really (I'm looking at you Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal bullshit)

as a huge fan of the original trilogy, every expectation we could have possibly had about episode I is simply unfair. nostalgia clouds our judgement. we wanted episode I to transport us to those days when we would have gladly sucked the emperor's seared cock just to get a glimpse of princess leia's "death stars". but guess what? NO film could make us feel that way again. that time has passed.

furthermore, it's time to let go of the bitterness and resentment we all have towards lucas for making episode I. ultimately it was a failure, but we did have the opportunity to go back and revisit the star wars universe, not once, but three more times. and even though it pales in comparison to the original trilogy, there were some really kick ass moments in the prequels. general grievous? hells f ucking yes.

i for one thought episode III was pretty g oddamn good. anakin killed a bunch of children. amen.

granted, lucas is beating a dead horse and laughing all the way to the bank, but who cares? he's in it for the money. surprise! directors (and film studios) love money.

I'm certainly pissing into the wind on this one! Great discussion thus far, though.

If I had to rate them, I'd go:

1) Empire
2) A New Hope
3) Revenge
4) Attack
5) Phantom
6) Return

I feel bad putting Return last, 'cos there's a lot of good stuff there. The climatic scene with Luke, Darth and the Emperor with the battles through the window was excellent. On top of that, we get Han back and the scene that ends Jabba on Tattooine is very cool.

There could some currency in stating Lucas' material is better handled by other hands. Kershner directed Empire, of course, but he also directed RoboCop 2. Could Lucas' material be the missing quality link here. Who knows, but I think there's this odd body of 'evidence' to suggest that Lucas is to blame for anything remotely bad about the Star Wars universe. It's all a little ungrateful!

Quoted from Rick Part of the problem with the film is that the Star Wars Universe grew continuously between the two trilogies. There is a whole collection of stories that are chronological. A novel called Cloak of Deception was released before Phantom Menace that explains the whole plan and the role the Trade Federation plays...but it's not acceptable to have to know the contents of a book to make sense of a film. Another problem is that you've got three films whose sole intention is to get Anakin to become Darth Vader. Three films to get to an already understood point. That's a challenge and Lucas has nothing like the skill required to deal with such emotion and couldn't allow the ratings to be raised to tell that particular story effectively.

I don't know, man. We come from this at very different angles. Whilst you enjoy the universe, I find it a huge turnoff. These huge, extended anthologies of universes like Star Wars and Star Trek just don't appeal to me, whereas, as you say, that's one of the things you do like. The whole body of work of Star Wars, such as the novels, animated series, etc, lacks legitimacy in my mind. Lucas developed and authored this unparalleled world and yet gets only a modicum of credit for it! It's bizarre. I know there's a polemic out there that he's a surly director with no idea of how to relate concepts to actors, but come on! He deserves more credit.

This is where I disagree most strongly:

Quoted from Rick Judging by the films he makes when he has total control, I think it's fair to say that it's his collaborators who did more to make the Star Wars universe so good. It's clear he wants it to be a chilish, idiotic type creation, but other people have made it far more than that. Lucas seems intent on destroying the only legcay he has ever created. If it wasn't for writers like Timothy Zahn, Karen Miller etc he probably would have succeeded a long time ago.

Come on, man! You talk about him like he was washing the dishes after communicating this world to more talented superiors. I'm not sure Zahn or Miller would agree with you. It takes a brilliant mind to develop and conceptualise a world like that of Star Wars. Lucas was pioneering in so many ways with Star Wars. He has weaknesses like any director, but to suggest he was more passenger than creative genius is too far. I loved the script Chewie as it tapped into the idea that Star Wars was a ramshackle production that just worked by accident. Sure, there's probably some credibility to that, but if Lucas is such a drag on the productions and essentially a talentless hack, why is it that Zack Synder can't make a decent movie? Much less a set of classics like Star Wars.

Quoted from Rick I don't know if you've ever seen that Buffalo Bill inspired review of the film, but it points out individual flaws better than I could right now. I agree with every word of it.

If it's anything like a Mark Kermode, I'd rather not. Kermode is the ultimate talentless hack, with an enormous superiority complex. Mark, if I could meet with you or Michael Bay to discuss movies, it certainly wouldn't be you, you Morrissey wannabe. Bay makes films and you talk them. *Kermode rant over*

Quoted from Chris I gotta strongly disagree, Rick, about the characters in the original trilogy.  To me, Guiness' Obi-Wan is the standout that gives us something to figure out in a universe populated by staggeringly simple characters.  That many of the characters happen to be appealing depends much more on an action-figure mentality than a film-character one, in my opinion.  This isn't meant as a slight against the films by any means; I do think that the characters, at least in Hope and Empire, are exactly what they needed to be.  But to me, the main characters are archetypes, and nothing more, and the supporting characters are interesting and entertaining, but certainly one-note.  Again, to me Obi-Wan is the only performance suggestive of any actual life.  I don't, of course, deny that the characters in the prequels are largely uninteresting as well.

I agree with Chris. There isn't a huge difference in the depth of characters throughout the series. If anything, the difference lies with the quality of performance, and ability to own the role and nonsensical nature of some of the dialogue. I agree with Rick that nobody owned a role in the second trilogy like Ford did in the first, though. I think they made some howlers in casting and particularly with McGregor and Christensen. Obi Wan needed a twinkle in his eye, and Anakin needed a Di Caprio. I recall rumours at the time of him being interested. Had he starred, it could've made all the difference.

Oh, and these are definitely kids' films, IMO. I think that got lost between trilogy one and two, which accounts for some of the despair. Granted, there are some dark themes and occurrences, but that doesn't detract from the conceptualisation of movies for kids. That was part of the genius in appeal: it did only apply to just kids, but the kids in all of us.

given george lucas' track record - is it not looking more and more like the original trilogy was a fluke?


talk about the most successful one-hit-wonder this universe will ever see

Well Lucas did have some help with the original trilogy...

Andrew, you might have hit the nail there. These are kids movies. Maybe Phantom did so badly because the generation that loved Empire had grown up and perhaps expected episodes 1-3 to do the same?
Still hate Jar Jar annoying Binks though lol

I didn't mind Jar Jar, to be honest. I know there's a distaste for him based on the supposed stereotypes he represents (which I would agree are disappointing if intended), but I try to veer clear of reading too far into that.

If anything, Smith answered all the questions about race relations in the Galaxy with Hooper X in Chasing Amy*.

*I'm joking.

I can totally understand where you're coming from regarding the "extended Universe". It's very geeky, but a guilty pleasure of mine.

It's simply that without other authors coming in and fixing all the complete nonsense in the meantime the new trilogy is even worse.

I don't know how you even find it watchable without knowing a bit more about the likes of Darth Maul and all the faceless senators who spend so long on the screen.

It is simply broken as a film and as a story. Easily the most illogical film I've ever seen. Not one piece of the story makes sense and even the characters are internally inconsistent.

Of the hundred or so writers currently working in the Star Wars field...Lucas is the worst. I can only call it as I see it. The things he's directly involved in are the worst Star Wars stuff there is. Lucas makes bad kids films...that's been his limit for decades now. 35 years since he directed a good film!

The graphic novels and books preceding the new trilogy were good, the ones after the new trilogy were good..the films were terrible. The Clone Wars series (again Lucas directly involved) is OK...I suppose...for kids. ..but it's far worse than the more serious Clone War graphic novels.

I'm grateful he made the Universe, but whatever Francis Ford Coppola taught him about screenwriting seems to have long since been forgotten.

I really can't say for sure how good Lucas is. I can only see what he's slowly doing to Star Wars...the closer it gets to his original vision...the worse and worse it gets....look at Jabba!!!!

He thinks Empire strikes Back is the worst film of the 6. He was trying to make them all rubbish and failed!

http://blog.moviefone.com/2007/02/10/george-lucas-empire-strikes-back-was-the-worst-star-wars-film/


He even stops some of the best work being made. After 30 years of stories about Mandalorians (Boba Fett) being violent mercenaries opposed to the Jedi's...he's suddenly decided that they were all pacifists and the best Star Wars novel series ever has had to be stopped before the final book is released for this reason.

He's done the same with other characters, there was a great little series about the Clone Wars and a character called Quinlan Vos. The character was so good that Lucas has banned anyone from using him in case he wants to do something with him.

I think he knows himself he's not as good as some of the other kids playing with his toys.

And I agree that they are for kids...the ironic thing is that kids like more adult things...Star Wars was my favourite film (still is), along with Jaws, Terminator, Aliens...that's where it belongs to me. It was just as dark in its own way, it just left the violence off screen.

If we look at other series, they tend to get more mature as audiences age...Harry Potter for instance. Lucas is the opposite.

There's nothing in the first two films that's as childish as what has come later....and i really do think that it's because other people were there to fix certain things.

Even fans of the later trilogy must be in their 20's by now. Time for George to move on and let other people control Star Wars.

I am not a real Star Wars fanatic. I liked both trilogies. The original was an incomparable phenomena in film. I was about 10 or 11 when it came out, and kids used to brag about how many times they had seen it. Nothing like it ever before in film.

I am going to post below a copy of a post of mine in Scriptshadow's review last September. The best I can do to add to the conversation, and like I said, I am not a fanatic, so there's a ton of stuff I don't know or am not considering. But I think the prequel trilogy presents huge structural challenges, which I discuss, and I think Lucas does it decent job meeting those challenges.

posted in Sept 2011 in Scriptshadow

I was looking for a review for a film with a dark ending, and what's darker than this! Not sure if this qualifies, however, since it's a prequel, and we know how the story ultimately ends on a positive note.

I actually like the basic idea behind the prequel trilogy where we follow the child who ultimately succumbs and turns to the dark side. I realize this is a violation of some of Carson's rules for a protagonist, but the concept works here from two perspectives.

One, it is completely consistent with the basic theme of the original Star Wars trilogy, which involves a struggle against the powerful draw of the dark side. In order to achieve good in the world, one must develop power, and as we know, power corrupts.  So that is the risk. We see this in our own world when well intended politicians begin their careers with an idea of serving, and end up corrupted and sometimes convicted.

The the second reason the concept works is simple fascination. We know how it ends, with Darth Vader being the most notorious of evil movie figures. So to watch a character that is the likable hero be transformed holds our attention. It's like reading the biography of an evil historical character and seeing a person with many human qualities, but making what we know from our perspective are the wrong choices, choices that lead down the path of evil. For example, Mao can be seen sympathetically in his youth, but ultimately he will become a dictator whose actions will kill millions.

When we're dealing with a prequel, we know the future, so this means we're in a different kind of story telling world. We know the character arc. So the journey is going to be different for the audience.

Once Lucas decided to take this path, he had to pull off two very difficult things. He has to make Anakin likable, and at the same time he has to make his descent into the dark side believable. Two difficult goals that work against each other. Having us get to know Anakin as a child is kind of an unsurprising choice. Bonding with Darth Vader isn't going to be easy. It helps that we are a little sympathetic to Darth at the end of Return, but what better way to bond with him then to meet with him as a child. And it was also a way to introduce us to the idea that the seeds of his destruction are already there, even as a boy.

In the second prequel, it's natural that the love story is developed. He needs to set up the birth of Luke and Leia, but also, we know that the only force in the universe strong enough to drive a true hero to the dark side is love. The plot is poorly executed, Portman is awful in this, and the story wanders, but they did have the right idea.

Finally, in the third prequel we have the birth of Vader. This is where the transformation from good hero to evil villain occurs, and such a transformation must be gradual and believable. For it to work, we must really feel the struggle within Anakin. The plot here is slightly convenient, but I think overall it succeeds in making us feel the struggle. We see his loyalty and affection for Obi Wan, but also his jealousy. We see his growing power and the ambition that feeds it and is fed by it. We see him struggling with concepts of what exactly is good and evil, and he understands that it's not always clear. This is contrasted to the original Star Wars, where there is simply the good and the dark side, and I think that's appropriate, as the film has matured.

In the end, the film more or less achieves its objective. It gives us, in the final sequences, an Anakin who we still care for and sympathize with, but one who has tragically lost himself to evil. It works because we see ourselves in it. We know that under the right circumstances, who knows what we are capable of, or what we could become. And Darth Vader is born.

The problems with the sequels is that in the attempt to have more mature concepts of good and evil, they became too complicated. There should have been ways to show that good and evil are complicated without making the plot so difficult to follow. Palpatine is brilliantly played, and the Palpatine/Anakin relationship, which is critical to the hero's descent to evil, is well done. Palpatine understands the struggle within Anakin, and he carefully seduces the young man by exploiting his weaknesses.

The only problem is that sometimes it's a little hard to understand Palpatine's motives and the risks he takes. It's clear the whole abduction of Palpatine was staged by him as part of a complicated scheme, but as he comes so close to dying in it, it doesn't seem logical. Is the seduction of Anakin to the dark side really that important that he risks everything? It doesn't seem to make sense, unless we accept the father/son motive, and that's hard to buy as a motivator for one on the dark side. Later on, in Return, he's willing to give up Anakin for Luke without any emotional consideration. The best we can do to explain this stuff is that evil can be illogical.

The most annoying part of the film, frankly, are the Jedi. Part of this is that Lucas couldn't help bringing his modern, post 9/11 political views into the plot. When Obi complains about that a Sith lord deals in absolutes, it strikes me that it's completely the opposite. It's been clear all along that the Jedi are rigid and inflexible in every way, both philosophically and in their rules. For good or bad, they are the ones who deal in absolutes, not the Sith. The Sith do whatever it takes to get what they want. No absolutes. That line was written with George Bush in mind. Another reason politics should be kept out of movies, especially movies that take place in a galaxy far, far away.

Killing the child Jedi was absolutely necessary in this story. These prequels are meant to be a more mature Star Wars, and this act solidifies Anakin's descent to evil. Palpatine knows this is the act that will bring Anakin once and for all over the line. and unlike killing his wife, it is a rational act. If the only way to save Amidila is to allow Palpatine to mentor him, he becomes an ally. Once he does, he sees that the Jedi will unite to destroy him. Those children will one day be sent against him. And once this evil is committed, he is changed. He is now capable of killing his wife in a jealous rage.

Carson's analysis of the mechanics of the story is spot on, generally. Addressing those issues in the plot would have made these stories a lot stronger. It's important to keep in mind that there are other things going on in the movie that are entertaining people and though not important in terms of story line, are still critical. This is a film, not a novel. It's very visual. People that go to see Star Wars want to see space fights and explosions and battles. Sometimes plot makes sacrifices to these needs. Even the need to insert humor into the script can subtract from plot.

These stories disappointed on many levels. But considering the challenges involved with a prequel trilogy, they were fairly successful in doing what they set out to do.

Lucas is a freaking money grabbing WHORE!....Enough already with Star Wars.... 4,5,6 brilliant when they first came out.... 1,2,3 the most wooden actors I have ever seen including Yoda!
Then remastered... then dvd`s, blu rays, extended editions and now 3D....

SPOILER ALERT!

Darth Vader is Luke Skywalker`s father...

JOKE ALERT!

How did Darth Vader know what Luke Skywalker got him for christmas..... He felt his presents..:):)


Mark

Good theme for the next 7WC if its on - REWRITE THIS HOW IT SHOULD'VE BEEN DONE!!

I remember coming away very disappointed when first seeing Phantom Menace at the cinema but I think that was also down to the bad reviews it had at the time, I couldn't help but join the hate mob. As time as gone though, it has grown on me and certainly doesn't deserve all the slack it got, I've always thought Clones was the worst of the three.

I just think that it was going to be near on impossible for George Lucas or anybody to create the magic of the first trilogy but for what they were trying to show, which is Anakin's downfall, I thought they did a solid job.

Quoted from Andrew 1) Empire 2) A New Hope 3) Revenge 4) Attack 5) Phantom 6) Return

I agree with these standings if you swapped Attack and Return around.

Quoted from stevie Good theme for the next 7WC if its on - REWRITE THIS HOW IT SHOULD'VE BEEN DONE!!

That would be fun!

Quoted from jwent6688 You've probably all seen it, but just in case there's those who haven't... The best movie review in the history of movie reviews, IMO...

Simply perfect, great review.

A new Hope is one of my favourite films. The empire carried this on and despite the weaknesses i even liked Return.

Personally, i think CGI has a lot to answer for...as well as weak scripts

I thought the prequels got better as it moved on. Although they are still a notch below from the originals.

The problem with the Phantom Menace is that the kid scenes feels so forced. The Pod Racing is one glaring example. It's so obvious Lucas was going for marketability (i.e. selling Pod racing video games, action figures, etc.).

What disappointed me was that at this point in his career Lucas had enough money to do whatever he wants and really taken this to another level like Nolan's Batman. Instead, he copped out and when kiddie porn on all the adults who grew up to the original masterpiece. But business is business and I'm sure he made bank on the prequels regardless of the critics and my ranting.

The pod racing did come close to completely ruining that movie.

I think people's expectations were also impossible to reach with this trilogy. Many people that had seen Stars Wars as kids were now adults, and had distorted memories of the original experience. And the special effects that impressed us in 1977 would not impress in the 21st century.

People take Star Wars way too seriously, which was part of its magic, but is part of the problem. It creates demands that no movie maker could meet. The universe within that galaxy far, far away has grown a level of reality that makes movie "fun" difficult.

I mean, Yoda in a sword fight? Come on, it's puppet, give it a good kick!

Agreed Kingcooky.

I sometimes wonder if things would have been better if he had waited till Lord of the Rings came out. That showed you can tell a massively successful fantasy story without having to make it childish.

Kev...interesting post with lots of interesting ideas.

This is the review Kev is talking about, for everyone else.

http://scriptshadow.blogspot.com/2011/09/phantom-menace-star-wars-week.html

For me there's a key problem with Phantom Menace in particular, but with all of them to some degree.

You call them more mature, but their style is far more infantile than the originals (Return of the Jedi was moving towards a similar vein).

The problem is that the entire premise is very adult. There's the political manipulation which is actually quite clever, and then there's the key point that you raise which is about how this guy turns to evil.

Both of these are dark, deep themes and yet the style of the film is very childish. It simply doesn't and can't gel.

Those who say it's a kids films are sort of correct, but the story is a complicated political thriller (which doesn't work at any point). There is no way the story is suitable for a kids film. It's more like a Syriana type story...it's about corruption, bureaucracy, manipulation, double dealing.

Some minor points for discussion...it's not love that turns him to the Dark Side...but fear of losing the people he loves. He wants the secret of immortality to prevent anyone he loves from ever dying again.

As for Palpatine's motivation...this is a problem with the films I mentioned before...they can only be understood if you've read the books that came out preceding them.

Andrew says the books lack legitimacy, which is an interesting viewpoint, the problem is Lucas has created an entire chronology behind the scenes and these stories were written from a frame of mind that seemed to expect people to know everything that has gone on outside the films.

It's called the Revenge of the Sith because the Sith used to rule the Galaxy and then were eradicated by the Jedi. They went into hiding...there was just one Master and one Apprentice at any time..the Apprentice is supposed to develop to a point he can take out the Master...if he fails the Master gets another Apprentice. So it goes from Darth Maul (who fails) to Count Dooku (Darth Tyranus, who fails) to Anakin...then to Luke...who overcomes the Dark Side by refusing to kill Darth Vader.

There was no threat to Palpatine when he's abducted because the people who have abducted him are working for him, they just don't know it. Count Dooku is the Emperor's Apprentice and General Grievous is Count Dooku's Apprentice.

Quoted from leitskev The pod racing did come close to completely ruining that movie. I think people's expectations were also impossible to reach with this trilogy. Many people that had seen Stars Wars as kids were now adults, and had distorted memories of the original experience. And the special effects that impressed us in 1977 would not impress in the 21st century. People take Star Wars way too seriously, which was part of its magic, but is part of the problem. It creates demands that no movie maker could meet. The universe within that galaxy far, far away has grown a level of reality that makes movie "fun" difficult. I mean, Yoda in a sword fight? Come on, it's puppet, give it a good kick!

I agree to an extent.

There's not much in the film that couldn't have been fixed in the writing stage. If GL had posted it on here, it would have ended up a better film!

Like Carson says in the review you mentioned..there isn't a single scene that works. It's not the worst film ever, but it's probably the worst script. Not one scene is logical and not one character works.

Really, you can't excuse that in this instance. Lucas can set his own deadlines, can hire multiple people to look at the script. It should have been ready before he started filming.

Maybe it would have still been disappointing, but it should have made sense at the bare minimum.

For whatever reason, Lucas and Spielberg both tend to put very childish, very unrealistic sequences in their films now. They never used to. They have devolved as filmmakers.

Jaws was a kids film, but it's one of the scariest thrillers ever made. If Spielberg made it now it would be full of slapstick comedy.

People do take Star Wars too seriously though, definitely.

I find it fascinating though. I want to one day start my own shared Universe and have numerous people creating content for it.

None of the individual novels are brilliant compared to the best of Sci Fi, but the fact that it's one cohesive story that goes on for thousands of years and you can follow a minor character from his birth all the way to his death is quite amazing.

It's got this weird thing that it's throwaway literature but dwarfs anything else in scope.

True, in some ways the story is childish, in terms of presentation, and adult, in terms of the political complexity. But what I meant by a maturation of Star Wars is that for the first time we watch good and innocent evolve into evil. That does not happen in the first trilogy. There is the attempted temptation of Luke, but it never comes close to succeeding, there is never even a moment of doubt that Luke will remain pure.

Far more interesting, and more mature, is the notion of someone good and heroic slowly succumbing to the dark side, and not because of greed, or even power lust(though that's a factor), but ultimately because he wants to protect those he loves. That's difficult to do in film, and I'm not sure how many good examples of it there are. All the comes to mind for me at the moment is Michael Corleone.

We basically agree on many points here. It's difficult to mesh the childish style that Star Wars demands, with humor laced action, CGI, puppets, ect., with a mature exposition of a complicated world, along with a sophisticated portrayal of the descent from good to evil. That is the thrust of my point, that Lucas had a rather impossible challenge, and all in all did a fairly decent job.

Regarding Palatine, I'm not sure it passes the logic test. Why would a Master want to develop apprentices powerful enough to take him out? Why would he encourage that? That seems rather...idealistic. Not very selfish. Not very...dark.

Palatine's abduction: if the people are working for him, but don't know it...then they are a threat. And even if most of them knew it, we're talking about narrow escapes on a ship going down. It doesn't make a lick of sense.

And yet I accept the movie for what it is. I don't take it very seriously. It's just serious enough that we care about the characters, and just serious enough to cause us to care about the characters to a degree. And it still maintains the swashbuckling childish fun we expect.

A final thought on the maturity of the trilogy. Our hero butchers the Jedi kids formerly under his protection. It doesn't get more adult than that. And while people criticize this scene, I think it is absolutely necessary to make Anakin's descent to the dark side believable. It's a logical step in the evolution. Without it, I can't buy into Anakin killing his wife. In fact, I will dare to call this scene brilliant and bold, and handled with the right touch.

How often does a movie incite a crowd to stand up in cheer? That happened in theaters all across the world when the mask of vader is placed on Anakin at the end. For all the imperfections of the series, any film that can achieve that becomes instantly historical. It had to have done something right. And for the most part, it was an entertaining ride.

Absolutely, it's a crowning achievement that he created a universe that people buy into.

I am certainly not the great Lucas defender by any means. Maybe it worked ok for me because I was not a fanatical fan of it, so my expectations were less.

It can be done, as you pointed out, with Lord of the Rings. Those films managed to please the hard core Tolkien people and the virgin audience. It's just hard to do.

I agree about killing the Jedi Children. I think people have a problem with it, not because of the scene in itself, but the fact that they didn't really buy his descent as it was too sudden. The descent was based on the fact he wanted Darth Plagueis secret of immortality (Palpatine's master) to save Amidala...but he'd still dobbed him in just before. He got Mace Windu killed by accident, but that's all that had changed. I think for a lot of people it simply felt off that he would devolve to that level within such a short time.

I totally disagree about the Vader scene!

Not in the UK...the audience was rolling on the floor in fits of laughter at the Frankenstein imitation and the legendary and much parodied "Nooooooooo".

The worst scene in the whole prequel trilogy in my opinion. Hilarious stuff. Don't know how they got such a simple thing so, so wrong.

The two Sith thing goes way back. This is what I mean about how they make no sense without knowledge of the "Extended Universe"...and that shouldn't happen in a film.

To cut a (very) long story short, the problem the Dark Side always has is that they all continually betray each other, so they could never take over permanently...or worse a group of weaker Dark Siders would unite and rule as a committee, holding back the most powerful Sith from their destiny.

A guy called Darth Bane comes along and creates a new Sith Order where there's a Master to control and an Apprentice to aspire. It means that the power is always in one persons hands and there's no infighting going on...but the allegiance is essentially to the Dark Side of the Force..which is incredibly powerful but ultimately corrupting physically...so you need someone to carry on the tradition, even if it means they will eventually destroy you.

They are Sith and want the Sith to rule the Galaxy over their sworn enemy, the Jedi. They will still try and defeat the Apprentice...the Apprentice has to prove he's strong enough....and weak ones are simply replaced.

If they didn't have an Apprenticer then the Dark Side could lose in the event of their death, but the other side of it is that they are training their potential killer.

It's part of the way the story has changed...as you yourself have mentioned. The story has expanded to such a level that it's become morally relativistic. The bad guys aren't that bad, and the good guys aren't that good.

They are more like forces of nature than good and evil. Both will always exist.

The idea that it's a birth right, not just a religion, has also changed things...because kids are born with power but not necessarily in ideal circumstances.

It sort of makes it more interesting, but more pointless at the same time as it is just a reflection of life now, wheras originally it was quite clear cut about the lines between Good and Evil.

Quoted from Scar Tissue Films For whatever reason, Lucas and Spielberg both tend to put very childish, very unrealistic sequences in their films now. They never used to. They have devolved as filmmakers. Jaws was a kids film, but it's one of the scariest thrillers ever made. If Spielberg made it now it would be full of slapstick comedy.

Very true.  I see this as a sort of negative feedback reaction to the overall film climate.  As the industry pushed their clownass "dark, gritty, realistic" faux-verite standard further and further, Spielberg and Lucas compensated and then overcompensated with more and more silliness.  Personally, lthough I don't think there's any doubt that both became much too silly -- and I'm certainly no fan of Spielberg -- I'll take excessively staged silliness over lazily staged "realism" any day.  

Quoted from kingcooky555 Instead, he copped out and when kiddie porn on all the adults who grew up to the original masterpiece.

Two thoughts on this; first, I wouldn't see it so much as "going" anything on the adults, as I think that the new films were aimed at a new generation of kids rather than an old generation of fans.  Even considering this from a marketing standpoint, it makes sense; the original fans were going to see the prequels no matter what, and there's no reason to pander to them.  More importantly, though, film is a medium so immediate and timely that it must be aimed primarily at its own generation, and Star Wars is, after all, for youths.

Second, I would seriously contest the use of the word "masterpiece."  Hope is tightly told but rough as hell and terribly written and acted.  Jedi blows.  Empire is a great, great film, and certainly the only of the three deserving anywhere close to such an accolade.

There's some great discussion on this, chaps. Very good to see different perspectives. Always good.

Also good to see Star Wars still stokes the fire.

To my mind these films are undeniably built for kids, and adults’ inner kid, which is what made it such a marketing phenomenon at the time. Whilst there are clearly some 'adult' themes present, you’ll actually find this to be the case (at least in terms of complexity) with an awful lot of kids films. I think it's clear there's not a consensus on what kids films actually are. I don't see them as one genre, i.e. kids - I see kids films as a group that can be sliced and diced just like 'adult films' (suggestive undertone unintended).

RE: the legitimacy issue. I can't pretend to know what control Lucas has in giving a go ahead to other writers, but unless it comes from Lucas or he's actively involved, I think it lacks the legitimacy of a true Star Wars product. This is his world, and that's why it's so baffling he's viewed with such disdain. Or considered the worst writer of his creation! I do understand a lot of the derision at certain moments in the new films, but, you know, it's always a pre-requisite to check cool in at the popcorn counter when watching Star Wars. It was always a little silly.

All of this said, I'm just not into the convention geekdom that surrounds universes like Star Wars, Star Trek, LOTR, Harry Potter, etc. There's a superb irony of geeks (who typically abhor mainstream manipulation) casting aside their principles and finding themselves acting like fans of the Bay City Rollers. That awareness is what makes Kevin Smith so deliciously funny with his clear taking the piss of himself and cohorts. For the record, I don't care either way, 'cos people like to belong to groups exhibiting similar behaviour/values/whatever. Nothing wrong with that. I just enjoy the irony. Kinda like when at school all the alternatives mocked the uniformity of everyone else, whilst being blissfully unaware of their own conformity. So that's why I take a lot of the geek criticism of Lucas with a pinch of salt. Obviously no offence intended, Rick! Just a general observation.

Lucas was really on a hiding to nothing by making the second trilogy. He surely knew the 'real fans' would lampoon him, but he also knew there was a new generation of kids to inspire and introduce to his wonderful legacy (notwithstanding its negative impact for others). Like Kevin, I don't want to be a Lucas defender or apologist - thus accepting unworthy films - but I think it's good to have some balance to the (what I consider) slightly unfair backlash.

Interesting Syriana comparison, Rick. Syriana was one of my favourite films of the last decade. Great film. I do see the comparison. I diverge on the intentions and messaging. Syriana's lens into corruption, etc is the whole point (therefore is the story), whereas in Star Wars it's an additional theme to insert a platform for the real meat on the bones: the universal themes of love, overcoming your fears, etc.

I do think Phantom Menace is worth a fresh look for many as they may not have seen it for years. My initial point was that time has been fairly kind to the film. Once we get past the initial disappointment when it came out, and reassess it, there's room for some forgiveness and reassessment. That's why my opinion changed on the pod race. Initially I was indifferent, but this time I felt in the cockpit of an F1 car with all the sounds and weaving through tight corners. It’s easy to be cynical (and it’s the obvious response) but films like Star Wars should melt cynicism.

When I walked out of this showing, I saw a lot of smiling kids. It warmed my heart. Perhaps it was their first experience of Star Wars and now they’ll grow to love it like many of us did. Surely there’s nothing more satisfying as a filmmaker – and that makes all the criticism and cynicism melt away.

Don't worry Andrew, I'm not THAT much of a Star Wars fan that I go to conventions!

Ultimately we're not going agree about "legitimacy". It matters not who invents something...just about who does it best.

You agree that Empire was the best film and Lucas didn't direct it, Irvin Kershner did and Kasdan wrote the script.

Is that not a legitimate Star Wars?

The weak characters he's created in the new trilogy have all been taken and made into much better ones by different writers.

The Anakin of the novels is far more convincing than the one note character in the films. We actually get to see his ridiculous power for a start.  Amidala is far more regal and proactive. Obi Wan seems exactly like the heroic, best of all Jedi's that the original trilogy suggested he was. The likes of Count Dooku, the wisest of all Jedi's, cuts a far more interesting figure as he attempts to master both the Dark and Light side of the force...and this continues with each and every character and each and every story line.

They are just better stories and that's the only legitimacy that counts as far as I'm concerned.

Are we to discount films such as Batman because it's not the original creator making the film? Was Frank Miller's Year One stuff that has basically re-invented superheroes for a new generation not legitimate because he's not Bob Kane?

Lucas is entitled to do whatever he wants with his creation. It's his sandpit. I'm grateful that he came up with the vision, I just recognise that his talents are limited to some degree and that Star Wars was/is a massive collaborative achievement.

Ultimately he created something bigger than himself and it will be going long after he's dead...like Batman, Sherlock Holmes and all the other stories that people invented.

Hence the disdain..Star Wars>George Lucas. His weird attempts at ruining even his first films with silly extra scenes have made him seem like the weird uncle at the family party that no-one wants there.

The most cardinal sin a writer/director can make is to contradict the logic within the Universe he's created. This is what he does several times and it kind of makes people hate him.

I've got nothing against the guy, I just don't think the films he made were up to much compared to the originals. ROTS was the best of them.

I say I'm not into the geekiness of it... but I still harbour hopes of one day sporting a stormtrooper suit.

I get your point about using a universe and allowing different interpretations of it, with all being equally valid. I'm not sure I'd categorise Star Wars and Batman (or any story with a comic book origin) in the same multi vision world. Star Wars was solely George Lucas' world that he brought (against opposition and ridicule no less) to the big screen. Naturally it was a collaborative process (all films are), but he was responsible for it from inception to big screen. That's hugely different to any comic book's route to the big screen. So to be fair, I'm not sure we're comparing like for like.

Therefore the notion that all versions of the source material are equally valid doesn't stand, IMO. There may well be writers churning out stuff with more raw ability than Lucas, but none of them are seemingly capable of imagining such a universe to hinge their stories on. Offshoots are fine, but they lack the authenticity (I'll change up the word to diffuse negative connotations) that Lucas can bring as the author of the world. These guys can develop back stories and the like all they want, but I defer to Lucas for the real development of his universe.

Now when the inevitable reboot surfaces, I will consider that differently as it's a separate entity. That's someone else's world and they're treated separately. I don't want to be too derogatory to writers whose work I've never read, but it's like fan fiction to me. Not to be taken too seriously. It's just how I view it.

But I still can't for the life of me fathom why you're do reluctant to give Lucas more than a jot of credit. It appears you think the Star Wars universe is only special in spite of him! I appreciate you consider others as influential and took the work to the next level (which is something neither of us can know as outsiders), but why the reluctance to acknowledge his unparalleled importance to Star Wars. I'm not suggesting he's among the best directors out there but it takes incredible talent and imagination to bring the world alive, and not to mention ingenuity to realise the vision. Cameron is attempting this with Avatar now and these guys are remarkable and inspirational.

As I say, though, I'm enjoying reading your perspective on this. It's good fun to exchange views on it.

Oh, and re: Empire (not to forget Marquand's Return), Lucas was obviously involved heavily in the production. Very different from the novels.

My point was regards Lucas' involvement, as opposed to his directing when discussing the legitimacy.

Quoted from Andrew I still harbour hopes of one day sporting a stormtrooper suit.

Who doesn't! lol

I wasn't sad to see this one flounder at the boxoffice.
Not one #1 finish in ANY country in the WORLD after an global opening.

I can't see any artistic reason behind the conversion.

I'm thrilled that sequels, tentpoles and remakes are by and large tanking.
The more original scripts thriving at the boxoffice, the better!

E.D.