What makes the prequels "different"?

I bet some kids would think that collection was really cool. He could have given it to nephews or whatever.

I do wonder how many he actually destroyed.

It looks like a lot, but this is art, dammit!

Yeah, pretty reckless, attention-grabbing behaviour, I suppose. But we've seen that from the RLM folks for a while.

More like Andy Kaufman? I dunno. There's an element of Dadaism at work. Or culture jamming.

But it's like the Sith (Plinkett/RLM) turning on the Jedi (Lucas/the PT). They think they're heroes, even when engaging in despoliation.

Nice reference, though.

And Rick Worley, who made a great video about the prequels and RLM.

Agreed. I lack the terminology to describe my own unknowingness. I was reluctant to even start the thread, even though I thought it was an excellent opportunity for a communal response. Because it reduces the sublime to the profane; even in just asking the question. There's basically no way I can see to grok the prequels or to really locate the nub of what is truly "different" about them. Yet, in the words of Luke Skywalker, "I [had] to try." Had and have. This is an open thread. The cogitation and the rumination -- however pale and inadequate -- should continue.

"For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known."

-- 1 Corinthians 13:12

Besides, fanboys are generalising. The Prequel Trilogy's acting doesn't appear to be corrupt.

Sorry. When isn't the occasion ripe for a silly prequel pun? 

You make an excellent point there. It reminds me of something Carl Sagan once said:

"There are many different ways of being human." He actually said it a few times, but here is one of the more stirring examples of where it may be found:


I think it's clear that Carl Sagan and George Lucas think along similar lines. Humans are quick to judge, yet there isn't a golden standard for how to behave, much less how to think. The diversity of art, culture, religion, philosophy, etc., incontestably proves there is more than one way to conceive of the world and go about things.

Yet a lot of people (still, of course, a tiny fraction of the world's population, most of whom still live on crumbs) have spent the past twenty years, using a miracle of human consciousness and collaboration called the Internet (and adding to the world's carbon footprint as they go), to basically tell George Lucas he was wrong. 

But wrong about what, exactly? Cultures differ. People differ. Films differ. And films are a confluence or a manifestation of the former things. Suggesting there is an "objective" way to make (or consume) movies is a form of snobbery -- and snobbery is veiled ignorance.

Personally, I'm inclined to agree with you, Moonshield, that the acting is actually more "realistic" in the PT. Prequel fan Bob Clark TFN's Jedi_Ford_Prefect) once wrote in his 10th Anniversary essay on TPM:

"The cast of The Phantom Menace performs with their defenses up, intoning their lines with a guarded, muted realism."

It's an observation I've long loved. Granted, his sentence concludes: "that is absolutely drowned out by the cacophony that is Jar-Jar Binks." Of course, I don't really agree with him there. For all the value and worth he sees in TPM, Clark doesn't seem to have much regard for Jar Jar. He complains that Jar Jar is responsible for "diminishing" the other actors and making them "feel more wooden", ultimately concluding:

"As long as you view Jar-Jar in the context of the whole picture—or just ignore him altogether—then the actors and their sustained, under-the-radar performances survive and pay off."

The brilliance of TPM, and the PT generally, is how chimerical a movie-making masterpiece it is (and they are). Childish fantasy elements, lavish environments, and wide-eyed optimism occupy the same architectonic dreamspace as trade disputes, grim proselytising, and the arcane operations of a bureaucracy-dominated Galactic Senate. Despite disliking Jar Jar, Clark seems to get how stuffed and layered an experience TPM is:


I recommend giving Clark's essay a read. He saw depth and beauty in the prequels when other fans were busy ritualistically bemoaning them, and doing their best to stop any thoughtful analyses from gaining ground. 

Anyway, Lucas' deft use of exposition and little nuggets of tactical reportage or cautioning from Qui-Gon, for example, are a good demonstration of what Clark said when I think of his "guarded, mutual realism" observation (which, as I said, I adore):

"The negotiations never took place."



"The situation has become much more complicated."

 
(And how, thanks to the production techniques, Qui-Gon has the beginnings of a halo around him in that moment on Coruscant).

There's also this moment where Obi-Wan and Qui-Gon share an understated "Take care while I'm gone" farewell as Qui-Gon heads out for Mos Espa:

"That'll complicate things... Be wary. I sense a disturbance in the Force."



It's so underplayed with that documentary brilliance that Lucas is the master of.

"Don't mind all these crazy happenings. They're just happenin'."

Those MagnaGuards will be hard pressed to catch up with their leader.