Umm, yes, better than the original the prequel is.
Credit: Caricature by Josh Hughes | ©Timothy Sexton 2007
The Star Wars Prequel is a Much More Profound and Politically Relevant Work of Art Than the Beloved Original Trilogy
It verges on treason to suggest that the Star Wars prequel is in any way superior to the original trilogy. Well, it won't be the first time I've been accused of treason. I do consider Star Wars episodes I through III to be the better trilogy, with the caveat that Attack of the Clones is without question the worst Star Wars movie of all. But taken as a story arc, the first three episodes in the saga of Anakin Skywalker are deeper, better structured and more politically astute than the original. That is also a pretty decent explanation for why the original trilogy is so much more popular.It is probably not incidental that the Star Wars trilogy that people have embraced is the one that presents a far less complex universe. Episodes IV, V and VI reflect the Cold War milieu in which they were created, offering up a comforting us-versus-them story told in bold strokes. That isn't to say that times have changed much; with the exception of the The Phantom Menace, the second and third installments of the prequel were released to an America that has embraced absolute views even more so than the original trilogy. The difference being that the original trilogy was a reflection of the simplistic moral perspective of the Age of Reagan, whereas the prequel trilogy stands in defiant counterpoint to the even more simplistic moral absolutism of the Age of Bush. There will come a time when it will be as difficult to find an American willing to admit to having voted twice for George W. Bush as it was to find an American willing to admit to having voted twice for Richard Nixon; the voting tallies tell a far different story. Grandchildren will hear stories about the ballot box denial of the simple comforting lies of Bush that simply aren't true.
- Episodes IV, V and VI reflect the Cold War milieu in which they were created, offering up a comforting us-versus-them story told in bold strokes.
- The Americans love the original trilogy has much to do with placement of ourselves in the role of the inheritors of the mantle of the Jedi.
- There is no scarier scene in the entire Star Wars canon than the one where Anakin and Amidala discuss the disadvantages of democracy in Attack of the Clones.
Comments
Christopher Bartol
(Guest)
(Guest)
01/09/2010
We have to remember that when Lucas wrote the original series, he had his wife at the time (a fairly competent writer) edit his scripts.
That aside, the romance between Anakin and Padme was forced and had no chemistry, the acting on Christiansen and Portman's part was hammy at best, all three prequels were just littered with plot holes, and Jar Jar was the worst thing to happen to star wars.
Watching Jar Jar Binks as a character act out his pseudo "oh I be whitch you an all massa" routine was like watching the racial sensitivity equivalent of a Michael Bay film.
Matt Kimmich
(Guest)
(Guest)
01/08/2010
The Prequel Trilogy may have had the potential to be better than the Original Trilogy, but most of its potential was wasted due to George Lucas' inability to direct actors, write coherent lines, be consistent in his plotting etc. etc. The prequels aren't complex - they're a mess. With a major rewrite by someone who isn't a hack when it comes to scriptwriting, and with a different director at the helm, the prequels might have been both worthy successors to the original trilogy's space opera and a deepening of what Star Wars can be. As it stands, though, I honestly think that the majority of this article is talking about some imaginary, ideal PT, but not the one that ended up on the screen.
I prefer the Original. There's too much poorly done computer animation and Yoda just left in the middle of fighting the Emperor. "Oh my cloak fell off. I need to rest." In the end it's all just preference.
M Taylor
(Guest)
(Guest)
09/18/2009
The prequels sucked. No character development, lame, repeatative, dialog, no chemistry between characters, a lame love story, boring villains, they barely showed Darth Vader, poor pacing in the lightsaber duels. I could go on and on.
Oh yeah, Mark Hamill was a regular Robert DeNiro. And the story of Return of the Jedi is right up there with Chinatown. I have watched the original trilogy movies several times lately (as a Rifftrax included) and it is more than clear that these three movies are pretty awful. As for characterization, I suppose if you enjoy the whole simplistic black/white good/evil thing without the slightest bit of gray so that you don't have to work too hard thinking about the movies then the original trilogy is perfect. I am absolutely certain that Bush much prefers the original as it is about as taxing on the intellect as Two and a Half Men.
Ezra
(Guest)
(Guest)
06/06/2009
Yeah, as long as you got politics who needs things like good storytelling, acting, decent characterization, and consistency.
(Rolls eyes)
R. Powell
(Guest)
(Guest)
09/15/2008
I feel that ATTACK OF THE CLONES is a lot better than A NEW HOPE. The latter is fun, but there is a one-dimensional quality to it that leaves me wincing every once in a while. Whereas, I love CLONES because it shows the SW saga at its most ambiguous. I perfectly understood the story.
In fact, Lee is correct. I have undergone a considerable re-estimation of Clones. While it is certainly the most uneven of all the SW movies, its better qualities raise it far above Return of the Jedi. In fact, I'd say the better qualities of Clones make it about even with A New Hope, or close to, anyway.
Lee Jones
(Guest)
(Guest)
08/29/2007
Personally, I find it hard to accept that the Prequel Trilogy is better than the Original Trilogy. I tend to view the two trilogies as "equal in quality, but different in theme". However, you claimed that ATTACK OF THE CLONES was the worst Star Wars movie that you had ever seen, yet you used it more than the other two movies to prove your point that the PT was better than the OT. Curious.
RosieP66
(Guest)
(Guest)
06/07/2007
The person above complained that Lucas took an iconic villain and turned him into a whiny and complex individual. Why is it so important that fictional characters maintain some kind of superficial and simplistic trait in their nature? When Darth Vader was revealed to be the more complex Anakin Skywalker, he became more interesting to me.
Comments 1 - 10 (of 21)
Next >>
|
|