Debunking anti-PT articles/videos

Do critics of the Prequel Trilogy generally believe that the movies are "pompous" or "pretentious" or "patronizing" or something else along those lines? Or even the fans of them posing such questions?  It's interesting to me because the trilogy is obviously extremely GRAND(iose?), especially when compared to other movies from their time until even now. Nothing else has still quite matched the superabundance of its "upper-class-ness." Delusions of grandeur? I personally don't think so at the critical level, but I can see how someone might get or have that impression. It might have something to do with the distinction some make between the depiction of an extravagant, opulent setting and actually *being part of* the the same thing. Republics fall when things get pretentious? Hmm...Maybe! Deception, false fronts, dissimilitude, etc. Meta-commentary? The key to this problem might be whether or not the trilogy is, realistically, either affected or sincere in the choice to make it ubiquitously FANCY. Is it pretending to be important when it has nothing to back it up or is it naturally showing these concepts? I think the balance between the pomp and the circumstance is just right, but again, I'm wondering if something about this has been off-putting to others.

There's a good deal that's ignored in that video's thin and moralising commentary. Indeed, the "four rules" I typed out encompasses the entire narration. It is written out for completion's sake. I originally just wrote the rule headings in black and white. That would have honestly sufficed. Then I realised it wouldn't be much work to transcribe each rule in full, since none of them is elaborated on in more than a handful of short, clipped sentences. Hey presto. With that simple task done, I had essentially captured the entire video, minus the narrator's inflection, and the accompanying picture and sound (which are, at the least, impressively done).

Their harping on Star Wars being a "frontier" adventure/story/fable misses and oversimplifies a lot about the Original Trilogy, to say nothing of the prequels (which they are, of course, essentially derogating directly and indirectly with each of their "rules"). Of their four rules, only the third one, "The Force is mysterious", is largely untouched with their frontier obsession (the first and second rules explicitly use the word in their narration, while a frontier setting and frontier justice are implied in the fourth). I find it telling that their first words (in the first rule) are: "Star Wars doesn't happen in the city." That's hilarious when the culminating location in the middle movie, the beloved TESB, is Cloud City. They're basically screaming: "Don't give us complexity or complication. Keep it simple and direct."

Along with that, they clearly reject the new wrinkles Lucas added to the Force with the midi-chlorians; not to mention: Qui-Gon referring to the Living Force, Qui-Gon also describing Anakin as a "vergence" in the Force, and a myriad of subtle details in the PT that suggests esoteric happenings at work. But their main bash is obviously toward midi-chlorians, even though they don't name them directly. So, again, they are barking at Abrams to smash down those Lucas idols, throw out that complex constitution, drain the swamp, and Make Star Wars Great Again. And Abrams dutifully responded: in word and deed. As if he was ever not going to.

Their rejection of Star Wars having cuteness within it is also divorced from the reality of the original films. R2 and 3PO always lent a "cute" or whimsical factor, right from the very start, while this was also expressed in other ways, like the relatively innocent moment of Leia kissing Luke for "good luck" before they swing over the chasm on the Death Star. Very earnest, very innocent. Of course, by ROTJ, Lucas had ramped up the silliness another level and thrown Ewoks into the mix. It's strange how they completely go past that. The people behind the video obviously crafted a blunt-force piece of propaganda to gain attention. And no-one with any familiarity with the films and common fan arguments can fail to miss the stench of their message: "Make Star Wars our way -- or else."

Very nice, Joe! It's a dense pastiche, indeed.

Here is Lucas on Star Wars in his own words:


I think that sums it up. 

I wrote "silliness" in reference to the Ewoks -- an offshoot of "cute" -- in direct response to the fourth rule from the "Dear JJ Abrams" video, which asserts that Star Wars is "never cute, or silly". Silliness has its place in the saga and always has. 

That said, teddy bears are innately cute to people, and we can debate why that is; given that real-life bears can tear a person from limb to limb if angered. When that one Ewok dies in battle and the other mourns him, it's very touching and predicated on a certain "cute" factor inherent to their design. Back in 1983, Lucas said in an interview for Rolling Stone magazine that the maxim was "Dare to be cute".

But yes, the Ewoks have no fear (well, except when Threepio is recounting their adventures and describing Darth Vader, or when Luke levitates Threepio in the chair), and they turn into savage little warriors when the moment arises. After all, until Luke surreptitiously sways them, they seem intent on cooking Luke, Han, and Chewie. And that one Ewok is surprisingly adept with an Imperial speeder bike. And their traps are pretty effective. Lucas enjoys his exploration of opposites.

Quite a lot to unpack there, Joe. Don't forget to add some thoughts of your own when inputting a link!

Hmm, yeah. Where to go with this? Although Ach Duke doesn't want any Disney discussion in this thread (which, to be honest, makes my job easier), it's amusing that TROS has a whopping great entry; while as far as the OT goes, ANH and TESB are excluded entirely. Here's how that list stacks up by word count:

TPM = 328 words
AOTC = 411 words
ROTS = 172 words
ROTJ = 156 words
TFA = 300 words
TLJ = 272 words
TROS = 1,743 words

Someone seems a little sore about TROS, don't they? Then again, it's packed with side characters, so I can see why.

By "trilogy", here are the word counts:

PT = 911 words
OT = 156 words
ST = 2,315 words

Not really a contest, is it?

But ignoring the other bits of the saga and focusing solely on the PT:

The Phantom Menace


The film would be much better with Boss Nass instead of Jar Jar? That's a new one. No. Only Jar Jar could possibly go on an epic adventure with two uptight, lofty Jedi warriors. That's the film Lucas chose to make; and it makes perfect sense the way he chose to make it. The assertion that Jar Jar is "terminally unfunny" is their opinion only. As is the strawman notion that Jar Jar is only there as comic relief and/or to sell toys. The idea you can reduce complex characters to Platonic absolutes is the most funny thing of all. Jar Jar has many layers, reflecting the fact that Lucas has called Star Wars his "onion", as another member recently pointed out. Jar Jar embodies a range of textures, ideas, energies, and conceits simultaneously. And yes, he's amusing. Or I think so. It can't just be mindless light relief, however. It has to have a purpose. There's an underlying teleology to Lucas' choices, and that's something almost everyone seems to have missed.

Darth Maul was only intended to play the role of an assassin. You could always flesh these characters out in ancillary media. In fact, when people lay this charge at the Disney films ("You shouldn't have to read books, comics, etc."), they seem to miss that Star Wars is perfect for that. Maul is there to perform a monadic (or even a monastic) function, and he does it well. The assertion that "Lucas realised how much he messed up" is their fantasy projection. Lucas knew that Maul would prove popular, but as he has always said: all he wanted to do was tell a story. Characters have to fit the context they were designed to sit within. And these films are only two hours long. Moreover, creating a sense of mystery adds to the ambience of the piece, and some of the fan obsession with fringe characters like Darth Maul and Boba Fett is probably down to the fact that they look interesting and menace the heroes without being dwelled upon in the movies themselves. In other words, it's a credit to Lucas and his supple imagination, rather than a demerit.

Obi-Wan should have been Qui-Gon? No. That's not the story Lucas wanted to tell. Obi-Wan is the green, by-the-book learner, and the more conservative of the two. It's a nice inversion of the trope that plays out later with Anakin, where Anakin, as a teenager, is classically the rebellious one, while Obi-Wan is then older and still conservative in his outlook (but more relaxed than in Episode I). In TPM, the real rebel of the piece is Qui-Gon, whose unorthodox sayings and actions have a profound effect on the other characters and their ultimate trajectories (and dare I say it: the viewer). The film clearly establishes a father-son motif with Qui-Gon and Anakin, setting up the downfall of the latter. Qui-Gon, compared to Obi-Wan, is an avatar of compassion, peace, and serenity, allowing him to partially return from the netherworld of the Force later on, bringing back an ancient secret about retaining one's consciousness after death: something with enormous implications for the rest of the saga.  

Qui-Gon is far more mysterious than Obi-Wan; and in Episode I, Lucas was imbuing his saga with a renewed sense of mystery and sublimity, and establishing all the motifs that would ripple down the rest of the saga. It's neat to note, as Pyrogenic also has, that Qui-Gon is paired visually with Jar Jar. Jar Jar, as Pyrogenic has also said, is like his spirit animal. Think of the teaser poster where the shadow of Vader looms behind Anakin. We see the same sort of thing with Qui-Gon and Jar Jar on Tatooine. This is the planet where Lucas eases the film into a more relaxed gear and explores some neat esoterica. Qui-Gon is the linchpin of the saga, not Obi-Wan. Well, in fact, they both are. It's like Socrates and Plato, or Plato and Aristotle. One mentors or inspires the other and, in combination, they have an enormous impact on the "cosmology" of the saga. I think the entry saying that Qui-Gon creates a huge "continuity snarl" is interesting. Let's take a brief look at that:

tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ContinuitySnarl

(Partial quote)


Continuity Snarl.
Continuity Lock-Out.
Crisis Crossover.
Continuity Porn.
Plot Hole.

It might seem like pointing out the obvious, but they love their jargon, don't they? That's five specialist terms in just fifty-four words: about one specialist term every ten words. Pretty silly stuff. I don't know if we can take any of these accusations and assertions all that seriously.

Did you know that I actually like the idea that Obi-Wan is relegated to a tertiary role in TPM? I'm fine with him just hanging around and sitting things out. Well, this he does on Tatooine, at least. It's a little dishonest to stretch that out to the rest of the film; even if the Tatooine portion is the lengthiest part and Obi-Wan is notably relegated from the main proceedings. I like it because it adds to the dry, surprising nature of the movie; which is often more deadpan than people realise. I mean, one way to describe the performances and situations in TPM is to say: "This is a movie about people having their guard up." And Jar Jar massively contrasts with that; and also, in several ways, Anakin.

Obi-Wan being stuck on the ship also has a weird resonance with Maul who basically remains on his ship and uses probe droids to find the Jedi (or Qui-Gon and possibly Anakin: a "vergence" in the Force). Like, these two characters "go" for Anakin in a collateral sense: Maul tries to run Anakin over on his speeder bike, while Obi-Wan metaphorically runs Anakin over ("Why do I sense we've picked up another pathetic lifeform?"; "The boy is dangerous") when upbraiding Qui-Gon. Both have only a distant regard for Anakin and are more mission-focused. They show a contempt for the small and the vulnerable. Yet, in order to slay Maul, Obi-Wan has to call on the power of Qui-Gon by beckoning Qui-Gon's saber toward him. Maul thinks he has Obi-Wan beat, while Obi-Wan obliquely embraces the idea that he still has much to learn.

I don't much care that Sam Jackson or Terence Stamp were "underused". Again, this is their opinion only. They're there playing characters that serve the plot. Star Wars is not about great actors from other movies hogging the spotlight or having well-motivated parts to play. It's a spectacular adventure story with a strong focus on a core "trio" of characters and their unique entanglement; one that sometimes condenses to just two characters, or expands to four or five. Beyond that, other characters sometimes peek over the horizon, or momentarily pass within the bubble of the core characters, but never for prolonged periods. If these were five-hour-long epics, maybe they'd have a point. But they're not. There's a lot of ground to cover in a short space of time.

Threepio has to stay grounded on Tatooine. It's one of those plot items that informs the gravity of the thing that Anakin is undertaking. He's leaving home, including his possessions, to become a Jedi. That he gets to be with Artoo a while is something of a bonus. It shows him easily forming new bonds with other characters, including machines. His life is very colourful and quite a blur at this early stage in his journey. Note that Threepio is naked and the last time we see him is in Anakin's bedroom. Wait. That didn't come out right. What I mean is: symbolism! Threepio is still in a raw state and still surrounded by the trinkets/artifacts of "home". Like Anakin. Even when Anakin leaves Tatooine to go on an exciting (if difficult) new life, he's still thinking of home. Lucas also milks some irony from the situation when he has Anakin flippantly saying goodbye to his creation and reassuring him, "I'll make sure mom sell you or anything." He's precisely putting himself in no position to do any such thing: because he's leaving and surrendering all power to his mother, to Watto, and to the hands of fate. One of many moments that is more poignant and darker than it first seems. This movie is wiser than its critics.

Perhaps someone else would like to tackle AOTC and ROTS. I feel that suffices as a basic defence of the PT against some of the, yes, idiocy, or decadent carping, of TV Tropes. Just another platform to lob stones at the PT. Not only the PT, but it's just too easy for them in their little glass house, isn't it?

Right. Not to get into negativity, but I'm more inclined to agree with their criticism of ROTJ, in terms of sidelining Leia. She is a major character, after all, being one of the two children of Anakin and Padme. And Carrie Fisher had more to give. Of course, ROTJ is still enormously effective as a dramatic vehicle, wrapping the OT up very nicely. But where Leia goes, I think the sequels do better on this front; at least in terms of giving the Skywalker twins a bit more "time in the sun" and a powerful (if indirect) impact on the unfolding storyline of a new generation. 

Thanks, Joe. And Joe: I don't mind you soliciting my opinion, but remember to add some thoughts of your own. 

Those Jedi are kind of punked by Palpatine in ROTS, are they not? They barely last more than a few seconds, and all go down very easily. It's not a new complaint. Some prequel fans have expressed dismay at how quickly they are taken out.

The article immediately launches into hyperbole, however, by stating: "One of the biggest problems fans had with Star Wars: Revenge of the Sith was the attempted arrest of Chancellor Palpatine, after Anakin Skywalker confirmed that he was indeed the Sith Lord the Jedi had long been searching for."

One of the biggest? I don't know about that. But I do recognise its problematic nature. I'm fine with it in 2020, but I did rail against the sequence in 2006 and couldn't resist poking some fun at it. Here's what I said: