![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
somedaybitchthe author of the blog entry referenced in my previous lj entry posted comments here, that he, well, commented here. i can't, however, find a comment other than where he says he commented. so, i link to a new post that he made here hoping the trackback will bring him looking...and i'll expand on my thoughts some.
Gary discusses how the backstory for Sith is present, just not in the film, but rather in the book/video game world of Star Wars, and also in scenes cut from the script. that's all fabulous and stuff but that's not my responsibility as a consumer of film. i've read, easily, 30 Star Wars novels. so what. the prequels aren't novels. they're films. i go to have a film maker show me the universe created. show me the conflict, the drama, the character arcs, the story arcs, the story. film is a visual medium. there is a very specific reason it is called motion. picture. if i want endless exposition, i can read a novel.
the entire prequel trilogy is a waste of celluloid, honestly. Lucas makes visually beautiful worlds, and he created a truly amazing universe, but he took a wrecking ball to it because he was apparently too lazy to care about stuff like timelines, canon and actual character development. no amount of apologistic film reviewing will alter that fact.
the greatest injustice done in the prequels is the utter emasculation of Darth Vader. and that was not Hayden Christensen's fault. that was George Lucas' fault, both by horrific dialogue and equally horrific directing. Darth Vader is an amazingly tragic character, in the Greek tradition of tragic and the prequels undo that fully.
i felt for Darth Vader in the original films. i felt Luke's belief in his father. i felt Vader's internal struggle, his conflict, his love for his son. those were things shown to me in the original films...the only ones, btw, that i will acknowledge exist.
Anakin Skywalker was a patriot, an idealistic man that believed in the Republic and risked his life willingly to defend it. he argued with his brother Owen about it, who, for whatever reason, is totally missing from the prequels. Anakin made decisions that he thought were right for the Republic. he genuinely wanted to protect and defend it. Palpatine should have been depicted as the master manipulator, separating Anakin from the rest of the Jedi -- who, quite frankly, were whiny, cranky little bastards in Sith -- and manufacturing events and using them to slowly manuever Anakin down the path of the Dark Side. i should have felt the tragedy, the conflict, the angst that pushed Anakin over, should have felt and understood why some chose one side and some chose the other. the choices should have been easy to see and understand.
which brings me to the not!conflict itself. the Rebellion against the Empire should have felt something akin to the angst created by the American Civil War...brother against brother, friend against friend...officers and fighter pilots who all attended the same academy for the Republican military now forced to choose sides and they all think their side is the right one, not the "evil" one. they all feel that what they are doing is to preserve the Republic. that kind of conflict and angst should feel heartwrenching. instead, it isn't even mentioned.
and going hand in hand with that, where's the threat to the Republic that forces the choices in the first place? where's the conflict when Palpatine, inexplicably, establishes himself as Emperor? where the hell did the Rebellion even come from if democracy simply "...ended with a thunderous applause"? who's rebelling exactly if they all apparently think it's such a grand idea?
and speaking of the whiny, cranky Jedi....what kind of utter, heartless bastard is Obi Wan that he just stands there and monologues while Anakin burns alive. what the fuck is that? either kill the guy or save the guy, but don't bitch him out (beautifully acted, ironically) and then leave him there. that disgusted me and was a HUGE injustice to both the original character of Obi Wan, and Sir Alec's portrayal of same.
and this isn't geek nitpicking. that's essential storytelling. coincidentally, Gary links to a tv writer's blog where the author discusses some industry terminology that staff writers have used. one of them is called the "Up and Back". the author defines it as, "...when characters and plot go through high drama/high action scenes, but neither their emotional arc nor the story arc are advanced." the prequels are 3 films of "Up and Back". pretty, flashy, shoot 'em up bang bangs that have nothing to do with the films that spawned them save the name.
show. don't tell.
Gary discusses how the backstory for Sith is present, just not in the film, but rather in the book/video game world of Star Wars, and also in scenes cut from the script. that's all fabulous and stuff but that's not my responsibility as a consumer of film. i've read, easily, 30 Star Wars novels. so what. the prequels aren't novels. they're films. i go to have a film maker show me the universe created. show me the conflict, the drama, the character arcs, the story arcs, the story. film is a visual medium. there is a very specific reason it is called motion. picture. if i want endless exposition, i can read a novel.
the entire prequel trilogy is a waste of celluloid, honestly. Lucas makes visually beautiful worlds, and he created a truly amazing universe, but he took a wrecking ball to it because he was apparently too lazy to care about stuff like timelines, canon and actual character development. no amount of apologistic film reviewing will alter that fact.
the greatest injustice done in the prequels is the utter emasculation of Darth Vader. and that was not Hayden Christensen's fault. that was George Lucas' fault, both by horrific dialogue and equally horrific directing. Darth Vader is an amazingly tragic character, in the Greek tradition of tragic and the prequels undo that fully.
i felt for Darth Vader in the original films. i felt Luke's belief in his father. i felt Vader's internal struggle, his conflict, his love for his son. those were things shown to me in the original films...the only ones, btw, that i will acknowledge exist.
Anakin Skywalker was a patriot, an idealistic man that believed in the Republic and risked his life willingly to defend it. he argued with his brother Owen about it, who, for whatever reason, is totally missing from the prequels. Anakin made decisions that he thought were right for the Republic. he genuinely wanted to protect and defend it. Palpatine should have been depicted as the master manipulator, separating Anakin from the rest of the Jedi -- who, quite frankly, were whiny, cranky little bastards in Sith -- and manufacturing events and using them to slowly manuever Anakin down the path of the Dark Side. i should have felt the tragedy, the conflict, the angst that pushed Anakin over, should have felt and understood why some chose one side and some chose the other. the choices should have been easy to see and understand.
which brings me to the not!conflict itself. the Rebellion against the Empire should have felt something akin to the angst created by the American Civil War...brother against brother, friend against friend...officers and fighter pilots who all attended the same academy for the Republican military now forced to choose sides and they all think their side is the right one, not the "evil" one. they all feel that what they are doing is to preserve the Republic. that kind of conflict and angst should feel heartwrenching. instead, it isn't even mentioned.
and going hand in hand with that, where's the threat to the Republic that forces the choices in the first place? where's the conflict when Palpatine, inexplicably, establishes himself as Emperor? where the hell did the Rebellion even come from if democracy simply "...ended with a thunderous applause"? who's rebelling exactly if they all apparently think it's such a grand idea?
and speaking of the whiny, cranky Jedi....what kind of utter, heartless bastard is Obi Wan that he just stands there and monologues while Anakin burns alive. what the fuck is that? either kill the guy or save the guy, but don't bitch him out (beautifully acted, ironically) and then leave him there. that disgusted me and was a HUGE injustice to both the original character of Obi Wan, and Sir Alec's portrayal of same.
and this isn't geek nitpicking. that's essential storytelling. coincidentally, Gary links to a tv writer's blog where the author discusses some industry terminology that staff writers have used. one of them is called the "Up and Back". the author defines it as, "...when characters and plot go through high drama/high action scenes, but neither their emotional arc nor the story arc are advanced." the prequels are 3 films of "Up and Back". pretty, flashy, shoot 'em up bang bangs that have nothing to do with the films that spawned them save the name.
show. don't tell.
