Questions about George Lucas & Star Wars

If I spent virtually every weekend of my childhood watching Return of the Jedi, I replayed The Empire Strikes Back at least half as often. Of course, as a nine-year-old, the heavier material of the second movie in the trilogy went over like a lead weight. I inevitably found myself turning back to the toy bin during the long hour between Hoth and Bespin.

You are probably correct, unbongwah, that, as a child with limited exposure to other media, the original trilogy seemed far more original than the prequels. Watching in the mid-1990s, I was probably also less critical of the slapstick comedy. As a rabid fan of G.I. JOE, one supposes that I must have had little reason to suppose that the Stormtroopers, all “bad guys,” were ever intended to be anything other than disposable (and therefore dim-witted) henchmen.

Nevertheless, I think that the prequels, and especially The Clone Wars, shift the trope-milking into much higher gear by comparison. Jabba was hokey yet believable. The Nemoidians were simply caricatures of Japanese capitalists. The Stormtroopers, who proved so ineffective against the main characters in the original trilogy, were clearly more than a match for the Rebel Alliance forces on Hoth. (As I recall, they also did fair slaughter among the Ewoks, and the fight came right down to the wire.) The Battle Droid armies of Phantom Menace were neat… until they were revealed as pathetic comic relief.

By the release of the prequels, I was also old enough to dock Lucas points for what his films weren’t as much as for what they were. I regretted that he’d chosen not to explore more deeply the question of whether the Jedi were, in fact, arrogating too much power to themselves, no longer confidence that “the common man” was capable of preserving the galaxy from evil.

Funny, that was and still is my favorite part of the movie.

Growing up in the UK, my exposure to sci-fi had a certain flavour.

Dr.Who (which i don’t like in it’s modern clothes) was pretty freaky stuff, as much horror as sci-fi in many ways (lots of uk kids will tell stories of hiding behind the sofa through many parts of the early (70’s-80’s) episodes.

Space 1999, also had some elements of horror, based on fears of the era over what to do with nuclear waste (and the issues of that), a great series but also with a fairly bleak feel.

Blake’s 7 had it’s bleak dystopian theme running through the core. All were essential viewing, but as a kid very much a reflection of the social troubles of the day, rather than just being lots of fun. And that made them important in their own way for ones general education about life growing up. It gave you a certain awareness of reality that fun ‘fluff’ would not have.

Still the big change to sci-fi viewing in the uk came with the american sci-fi series of that era, Buck Rogers, Battle Star Galactica etc. Suddenly sci-fi was not just a dystopian warning. Then Star Wars arrived in the cinema (and on TV, where i saw it first) and it was like all the best bits of those great usa tv series but with this morality tale that just rang ‘true’, especially for myself bought up on the british sci-fi as a warning thing.

I never did get into religion enough at school to be a ‘believer’, there were far too many faiths of equal relevance in my mind to be able to pick just one, so Star Wars filled an ethical void of sorts in that early education. It taught me about how power, or more importantly the lust for it, corrupts completely. How the fight for a good future for all is eternal against the back drop of the few evil minded and greedy people that seek power for themselves over others. It was expressed in a format so much more exciting and relevant than bored looking (and sounding) Vicars in church on a Sunday ever could manage. Star Wars was a moral message of it’s time, especially in the uk where the power and influence of the church in most peoples daily lives was strongly in decline.

Which is why the ‘just for fun/cash’ prequels are such a disappointment, there is nothing of believable morality in their story (even if the whole theme is meant to be about that in relation to Anakin becoming Vader etc), they feel empty and void of sincerity, because in part George had already become corrupted by power (and his lust for more), the thing the original’s were so good at warning about.

That’s because you’re watching the special editions. In the original 1983 cut, the ewoks sing their own little Yub Nub song, which has more of a tribal vibe.

Actually, the new song (& the drastic improvements to many of the cruder effects on Tatooine) is part of why I almost prefer the 1997 cut to the original, because I didn’t really like the old song. Of course, the Jedi Rock number in Jabba’s palace is enough to make me think twice about that judgment, but at least in 1997 they hadn’t yet replaced Sebastian Shaw with Hayden Christensen.

The first is still my favorite, too. Despite clunky dialogue, etc., it’s a very well crafted fun machine that knew what it wanted to be and nailed it.

To me the problem that begins with Return, and gets magnitudes worse with the prequels, is the tonal shifts in the movie to add child-like humor. There are not scenes like this in Empire or ANH, but in Return you get cute Ewoks.

How about Zulu? Lucas would/could not go there because he wanted the cute Ewoks, but crack troops against low-tech natives is about the sacrifice and bravery of the natives as they attempt to breach the ramparts and perish in waves. Would be a heck of an emotionally powerful scene.

Especially because he came so close to something meaningful. I thought the throwaway prophecy in Ep 1 would resonate through the trilogy, in that Anakin was to bring balance to the force by shattering the old order of Jedi who claimed all force-sensitive children for themselves (what happened to the wash-outs I wonder?) and enforced their own orthodoxy over the Republic. Balance means balance, not that the self-appointed good guys get to keep having their way. Yet there was never a moment of epiphany for any of the Jedi.

Subtle points could have been made but went unexplored. Instead, Lucas chose to show that conspiracy theories are real sometimes [insert Halliburton reference here] and that Anakin was actually good at heart but just loved too much. He only force-choked Padme because she wouldn’t listen, you see . . . .

+1, would buy the Lego set.

It is too great an assumption, I think, that the failings of the prequel trilogy can be adduced directly to “maniac commercialism.” One can point to numerous instances in which the later films included elements clearly designed to appeal to children, but it is hard to argue that a more serious film, anchored by stronger acting, would have sold fewer action figures and LEGO sets.

Instead, I think the reasons for the prequels’ relatively poor reception among adult fans can be explained with reference to (A) the relative growth of Lucas’s confidence in his own judgment relative to that of others, and (B) the fact that his adult fans had come to expect something that had “grown up” just as much as they had. There is some irony, I guess, in my assailing a morality tale on grounds that it lacked for grey space.

This is my new favorite catchphrase.

Umm, no, I think it just boils down to the fact the prequels are shite. I’ve rewatched the original trilogy at least a few times since the Anakin films came out; and - while its warts stand out more than they did when I was 12 - it still holds up just fine. The prevailing theory is Lucas either divested himself or was abandoned by all of the people who helped make the originals great; leaving only brown-nosing yes-men without the sense nor spine to tell the boss his work is shite. And insofar as that spares me the effort of coming up with a more credible theory, I’m willing to accept it at face value.

In another dimension, the Star Wars fans enjoyed a version of RotJ that was signficantly different.

“We had an outline and George changed everything in it,” Kurtz said. “Instead of bittersweet and poignant he wanted a euphoric ending with everybody happy. The original idea was that they would recover [the kidnapped] Han Solo in the early part of the story and that he would then die in the middle part of the film in a raid on an Imperial base. George then decided he didn’t want any of the principals killed. By that time there were really big toy sales and that was a reason.”

The discussed ending of the film that Kurtz favored presented the rebel forces in tatters, Leia grappling with her new duties as queen and Luke walking off alone “like Clint Eastwood in the spaghetti westerns,” as Kurtz put it.

Sheesh, no wonder he changed everything in it.

Yeah I’ve a hard time seeing that as an improvement.