Debunking anti-PT articles/videos

Yesterday finished the second part of this series. It will be about the dialogue editing. The research of several screenplays.

Originally read this article years ago.

mythicscribes.com/analysis/star-wars-prequels/


What Went Wrong?

"But the great man never came. We were treated to the tale of a whiny, arrogant brat who continuously defied his teachers and thumbed his nose at tradition. We were expecting a wise and powerful Jedi master. Instead, we were given a one-dimensional caricature of Maverick from Top Gun, minus the coolness."


Never seen Top Gun, but Anakin wasn't one-dimensional at all. He was torn between his loyalty to the Jedi and Republic and his personal desires, whether to pursue romance or save his wife from death. Even as a child, he was torn between his mother and the future he'd always wanted.

"Whiny arrogant brat"_ I'll admit I used to think this too about Anakin, having been influenced by popular opinion. However, a perfect protagonist like the one this article is expressing desire for would be much less interesting than a character with flaws. Anakin is disobedient, he thinks highly of himself. But he shows redeeming qualities in all three prequels that cancel out the negative traits discussed here. Is Luke free of flaws? Is any good protagonist?

Nothing in the OT suggests that Anakin was flawless, perfect, or saintly before falling to the dark side. It's most logical that he wasn't, considering how he was tempted in the first place by the Sith.

What Could Have Been:

"But in this case the error was so egregious because of what Lucas set up in the original films."


Again, the OT never said that Anakin was perfect, or even particularly wise. He was a good man in Obi-Wan's eyes, but logically, he must have had detracting qualities too.

"What George Lucas should have done was delivered on what he promised: the story of a great man and his fall into darkness."

He promised the fall of a man into darkness. As far as the man being "great" goes, he wrote a character whose flawed nature made him a believable candidate for being tempted by the dark side.
No one would buy Obi-Wan falling for Palpatine's trickery.


"He could have centered the first two films on an intelligent, thoughtful Jedi master who was lured to the Dark Side. The third film would have then chronicled the crusade of a tortured, badass Darth Vader who traversed the galaxy hunting down Jedi. That would have been epic."

So for two whole movies, Anakin is Obi-Wan-esque before turning to the dark side in II so quickly that in III he is Vader the whole time, slaughtering Jedi?
I've never agreed with the criticism that Anakin's fall to the dark side was too quick. But even if you think it was, this proposed story would have to see him to a 180 so fast that the Millenium Falcon couldn't keep up with it.

A Jedi Purge spinoff might be cool. But there would be very insufficient tension to III if Vader's climactic choice had been made in the previous film. Especially if he had been the character that the author wanted to see for two whole movies beforehand.


I'm new at debunking, this is probably not as well-conceived on my part as it could have been.

I know what you mean about school.

More on the subject, I don’t believe any character in the OT but Obi-Wan (who was as you say afflicted with understandable nostalgia) described pre-suit Anakin as a good man. Yoda referred to him as having “a lot of anger.”

Again, this doesn’t mean Anakin was necessarily a bad guy before becoming Vader, but it indicates that he was flawed. Moreover, Yoda wasn’t close to Anakin, so he is more willing to address Anakin’s flaws even without revealing that Anakin turned evil.

My second attempt:


www.dailygamecock.com/article/2020/01/head-to-head-prequels-suck-lee-arts

“One of the biggest downfalls of the prequel trilogy was the complete creative control George Lucas was given. Though Lucas was the incredible visionary behind the original trilogy, he had a team to help him. He had other people direct "Empire Strikes Back" and "Return of the Jedi," and people helped write the stories and clean them up.“


Key word being helped. It was still his story. He directed the prequels. Not a specific enough critique


“In "Attack of the Clones," Palpatine brings Anakin and Padme closer together by assigning Anakin as Padme's bodyguard. However, he tried to have her killed at the beginning of the movie and continues to do so throughout the movie's entirety.
If Padme had died, what leverage would Palpatine use to turn Anakin later?“


Palpatine may have been allies with Nute Gunray, but Nute’s desire to kill Padme was his own prerogative.
Even if Palpatine was planning Padme’s death in AOTC, his foresight powers were not unlimited. We don’t know whether he knew as far back as AOTC Padme’s pregnancy, and there’s no good reason to think so. However, he could possibly have manipulated Anakin into blaming the Jedi for Padme’s death. There are a number of ways he could have used her death as leverage.


“Then, in "Revenge of the Sith," Anakin finds out Palpatine might be a Sith lord and reports him to the Jedi Council, only to betray the council and turn to the dark side 15 minutes later.”

Anakin may have held lingering feelings of duty to the Jedi, but the seeds were planted in his mind already. Padme’s life was more important than anything to Anakin, and he decided that the dark side was worth saving Padme.
It just didn’t happen in an instant. Goes to show that Anakin’s turn was gradual and not a sudden 180.



“But that's only one example of many. For instance, how did Jar Jar Binks become a senator? After finding out Jango Fett was working for Count Dooku, why didn't Obi Wan realize the clones of Jango Fett were evil? What purpose does having Anakin be a child in "The Phantom Menace" serve?”


He never became a Senator in film canon. Padme named him as her Representative in her absence. She trusted him with the job despite his faults.

Nothing in AOTC suggests that Obi-Wan is a fan of the clone army. However, the Republic was facing a war, and the clone army was just what they thought they needed. Obi-Wan couldn’t argue that the Separatists were a threat that needed to be dealt with with more than the usual force.


About Anakin being a child, it means that he will develop a long history with the Jedi Order and have time to develop a deep bond with Obi-Wan, driving the conflict between the light and dark sides and creating tension when Anakin is tempted. Also, everyone was a child once.

“Aside from these arguable plot holes, the dialogue is another apparent problem with the prequels.“

No movie or trilogy is flawless, but is the dialogue so bad compared to the OT and other movies to make it a dealbreaker?


“Everything concerning Yoda in the prequels is completely ridiculous.
The originals portray him as an old wise man and a powerful force user. However, the prequels have him commanding armies, jumping and flipping in lightsaber duels and failing to make one smart decision throughout the three movies.”

Are the two descriptions of the character mutually exclusive?

He was a powerful Force user in the PT too, and had more chances than in the OT to demonstrate this fact. He was still wise, but he was manipulated by Palpatine’s genius. Being wise doesn’t make you infallible to manipulation by another powerful being, especially one who is part of a thousand-year-old plan to infiltrate the Republic.

Also, nothing in the OT suggests that Yoda never used a lightsaber. We know from ANH about the Clone Wars, so is it surprising that Yoda, a Jedi, fought in said conflict?


“It's understandable why children would enjoy the prequels, but when you are old enough to understand — or at least to try to understand — what is going on, there is no reason to enjoy these movies.”


Now that I am an adult, I have fallen BACK in love with the prequel trilogy more than anything. My age has helped me stop being influenced by popular internet opinion alone.

I’ve seen the idea that he should have been a fully trained and Obi-Wan-esque Jedi for the first two episodes, and then suit-Vader for all of III enacting the Jedi Purge. Imagine how quick of a 180 that would take.
The gradual but pronounced transition we got was better in my opinion.

Eh-heh-hem...

I prefer the term paladin of Naberrie Fields. Thank you kindly.

But all kidding aside:

I'm beginning to think this thread has become unwieldy. I think our discussion forum may benefit from an additional "debunking" board where people can debunk individual articles in individual threads. Jamming them all into a single thread is inelegant. There isn't much of a natural discussion flow here; rather, discussion is proceeding in fits and starts, according to each article. And it's hard to keep track of all the articles. What say you, Arch Duke? 

Eh... it's complicated.   

"The Motion Picture" is an elegant film and Gene Roddenberry's most uncompromising, undiluted take on the whole concept. Here's a nice (if short) video about that:



And here is an articulate, enjoyable review that reminds me of Ingram 's writing style (but it's not a total celebration: it's fairly critical in places):

thisislandrod.blogspot.com/2010/08/star-trek-motion-picture-1979.html

It's also the case that Roddenberry was basically kicked off the production and unfairly blamed for TMP's difficult production history and mixed reviews following release. Super detailed article here:

memory-alpha.fandom.com/wiki/Star_Trek:_The_Motion_Picture

After TMP, GR was given the relatively meaningless title of "Creative Consultant" as a sop to fans, and he no longer had any power over the direction, tone, or style of the sequel films -- sound familiar?



(Photo dates to 1987 and credit belongs to Dan Madsen. See here for more information about this sublime moment in time).

We owe the existence of Star Wars, to some degree, to Star Trek. And we owe the existence of "The Motion Picture", to some degree, to Star Wars. We also have Star Wars to thank, to some degree, for the form the sequel installments took, just as we owe J.J. Abrams' stint on Star Trek to the form the Sequel Trilogy took. These "star"-roving franchises have been influencing each other from the beginning. "[Star Wars and Star Trek] form a symbiont circle. What happens to [one of them] will affect the other." Did you know that ol' Cryo himself got his taste for message boards by joining one for the first time in the year 2000, at the tender age of 17, dedicated to Star Trek? 

Anyway, the other Star Trek films are still entertaining. I actually do enjoy the so-called "Genesis Trilogy" a small degree. Shatner's film, "The Final Frontier", might be the best of all the sequels (underrated). "The Undiscovered Country" is okay (if a bit obvious). The TNG movies -- fine. I like 'em. It's actually only the JJ films I have a serious problem with. The earlier Star Trek casts make their movies work. And my all-time favourite television series is "The Next Generation".

There is a lot to admire in what Gene Roddenberry got going. Even parts of TNG are very clearly his handiwork (he was brought back and given a more active role to help realise it to the screen -- though his health wasn't the greatest at the time, and he soon had little involvement and passed away in 1991 at only 70 years-of-age). Indeed, with TNG, it's accepted that he generally revived his earlier ideas for the abandoned television series "Star Trek: Phase II" (parts of which became "The Motion Picture"). Riker, for instance, is the new Decker, while Troi is Ilia, and Data is Questor (from another television series of Roddenberry's that didn't get too far: "The Questor Tapes").

Like Lucas, Roddenberry never met an idea he wouldn't re-use. They are both rugged individuals with a visionary quality -- and each was rewarded with a fanbase that has tended to massively downplay and denigrate their boldest and best ideas. A whole book could be written, for example, on how the eclectic sensualism of Roddenberry and Lucas has come in for particularly fierce detraction from various quarters, especially since the dawn of social justice, which is theoretically meant to break the shackles of religious puritanism, and supposedly seeks to challenge and repudiate 19th Century attitudes toward sexual expression and personal liberty.

Need to blow off some steam.



www.google.com/amp/s/www.seedsing.com/seedsing/2017/1/25/defending-the-star-wars-prequels-doesnt-mean-you-are-a-nerd-it-means-you-have-bad-taste-in-movies%3fformat=amp

Most rage inducing one I’ve seen.

“First off, JJ Abrams revived "Star Wars" after the disastrous prequels. That is a fact with no alternative version.”

Disastrous? Pretty subjective, but that’s the point I guess. Also subjective that JJ revived Star Wars outside of bringing in more income from it.

“Second, with all the "remakes" or "updated versions" or "prequels" being made now, I applaud the fact that "The Force Awakens" hearkened back to the greatness that was "Star Wars", "The Empire Strikes Back" and "Return of the Jedi". Those were great movies, as is "The Force Awakens". Again, there is no alternative telling of this fact.“

The third category is completely separate from the first two, which mean the same thing. Also, TFA absolutely is a remake and an updated version. I am an OT fan too, but being a great movie is not a fact.

“Third, all the new characters are great. Finn, Rey, Poe, BB-8, Kylo Ren, all of them are perfect for the "Star Wars" universe. Anyone's alternative view of this fact is just plain lying.”

He doesn’t explain WHY they are great. I can explain why not, but he offers no points in their favor. Rey and Kylo especially destroy the legacies of the heroes of the movies that this author praises.




“Now, I am not popular by any means, but I do not consider myself a "nerd" either. Also, I do not care if you identify as a "nerd", but the people that are condemning "The Force Awakens" and now saying that the prequels are better, stop it with that nonsense. The prequels are an unmitigated disaster. Those movies are absolute garbage, and anyone with functioning eyes, ears and taste can accept how bad those movies are.”

This guys claims that PT fans identify as such only to combat the paradigm of nerd culture being mainstream. As if there weren’t prequel fans between 1999 and 2005, when they were facing hordes of criticism. Have those fans only just now started praising the prequels?
All of us here have functioning eyes and ears, and there is no arguing taste as Anakin thinks in the Stover ROTS novel. Being a nerd has nothing to do with it. There are nerds who like the ST, whether or not they also like the PT, and vice versa.


“I know that Anakin became Darth, but he was a new character, and all he did was whine and complain. He was a brat. Padme, who could have been as badass as Princess Leia was instead, a "damsel in distress".

Selectinf a few scenes to summarize Anakin’s character. Pretty one aided. I’d argue that, while this was reduced in ROTS, Padme was at times more badass than Leia, and with deeper characterization.



“Watto was just stupid and clearly a "lets see how far we can take CGI" excuse for a character. The only cool new character was Mace Windu, which they barely used and then killed in the third prequel. The prequels are trash.“

Watto wasn’t smart, but he played his role just like any other character. He just happened to be a physical shape not imitable by a human actor. Are we singling out Star Wars for its use of CGI, just because its earlier entries were made before the technology was invented?
This guy is inconsistent when he says that Mace was the only cool character, when earlier he said it was Jango. Which is it? Of course Mace was going to die. Again, he served his purpose to the story which was building up to its second half which we already knew, and in which Mace was not a part. He was cool though.


“The people that are condemning "The Force Awakens", and defending the prequels are contradicting themselves, and just trying to regain their "nerd" status. As I have said, if you talk to anyone that does not care about their status, or how "nerdy" they can truly be, they will tell you all the same stuff I have just written, and then some.“


I was a nerd when I first saw TPM, I was a nerd when I first saw TFA, and I was a nerd when I had positive and negative things to say about both. What aspects of geek culture I choose to embrace does not affect my place in it. There’s nothing that was lost, so there’s nothing to regain.



“I am no "Star Wars" expert, but I do know what a good and a bad movie looks like, and "The Force Awakens" is good, and the prequels, they are a flaming pile of trash.”

He has still not remotely touched on why he thinks TFA is good. And again, are the opinions of TFA critics and PT fans less valid than his? If so, he hasn’t explained his qualifications beyond what you see here.

“There is plenty of other stuff that the people that want to act like "nerd" culture isn't cool anymore can glomb onto. They do not need to bash "The Force Awakens" and defend the prequels.“

I don’t care if nerd culture is cool or not. Never did.


“To help the nerds so desperate to be different, I have some things for you to consider. How about comic books? Who really reads those anymore? That could make you feel "nerdy" again, if that is what you want so badly. Or, you can memorize who is on your favorite college football team. I can name every player on Michigan's football team, their coaches and their AD. Doesn't that sound super "nerdy"? I also know as much as there is to know about the mid 90's NBA. I know this stuff is sports, but I have put in as much effort and time as "Star Wars" "nerds" have put into knowing these minute, stupid, non essential things. Doesn't that make me just as much a "nerd" as die hard "Star Wars" fans.“


I feel as nerdy as I did 10 years ago, if not more. I’ll be myself and everyone else is free to do the same, whatever that looks like. And yeah, he may be as into the football team and comics as people are in Star Wars, but is one less “stupid and non-essential” than the other?

Don’t know if it makes him a nerd or not, but my nerdiness is a result of my interests,, not the other way around.
I imagine it’s the same for him and anyone else.

“What it all really boils down to, you can still like "The Force Awakens" and be a "nerd". So what if the movie is widely acclaimed and loved. So were the 3 original "Star Wars" movies. You do not need to defend the prequels. I do not think defending the prequels makes you more of a "nerd", it just shows me that you have shitty choice in movies and I need to stay away from you whenever you suggest a movie you'd think I'd like”

Yes, you can like TFA and still be a nerd. I’ve never seen anyone say otherwise, not even harsh critics. There is no mandatory curriculum for nerds to qualify under that label.
It doesn’t matter what is acclaimed and what isn’t.
I’m not going to measure my nerd level against someone else’s.






“I'm sure "Star Wars" fans will come at me, but the prequels are truly awful, and there is no argument to be had otherwise. Just accept that "nerd" culture is now cool, and no matter how far away you try to get from being a "nerd", you are now the popular kids that a lot of other kids want to be like. This is a good thing. But, defending the prequels is a bad and stupid thing. Those movies are dreadful and thank goodness for "The Force Awakens". It is a great movie, and you don't have to be a "nerd" to like it.”


No good arguments to what makes the prequels bad, just what he personally dislikes about them. Star Wars fans are unaffected by his view. Haters gonna hate hate hate hate hate hate, shake it off.

I’m not like the popular kids, but that has little to do with TFA or the prequels. I’m not trying to be far from the nerd label, I embrace it, whether if means that I like popular entertainment or not.
He still hasn’t explained what makes TFA a better movie than the PT.