tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12380553.post6469471472860492134..comments2024-03-29T04:57:26.162-04:00Comments on John Kenneth Muir's Reflections on Cult Movies and Classic TV: Ask JKM a Question: Phantom Menace Respect?John Kenneth Muirhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15629979615332893780noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12380553.post-7887262824805561602015-05-28T11:56:56.615-04:002015-05-28T11:56:56.615-04:00Oh, and I forgot to sign the previous posts. Ratko...Oh, and I forgot to sign the previous posts. Ratko H. here. <br /><br />Thanks for letting me stand on my soapbox for a minute!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12380553.post-85556012922221058552015-05-28T11:54:13.362-04:002015-05-28T11:54:13.362-04:00Part III
But in retrospect, I think I see what my...Part III<br /><br />But in retrospect, I think I see what my main gripe with the prequel trilogy was. It was not the CGI or the wooden acting - it was a total lack of interesting characters. There's only a few characters unique to the prequel trilogy that I can even remember offhand, and bear in mind that I've seen the prequels multiple times. <br /><br />The original trilogy gave us a lot of cool or likeable characters; the sequels - not so much. Sure, Qui-Gon was pretty cool, and there's Darth Maul, maybe Padme, and, uhh... I guess, Watto? There's not much else to choose from. Most of the other characters are the younger versions of the characters we knew previously, but almost always they're the inferior versions. Boba Fett was a bit of a let down, Anakin was awful in every incarnation and Ewan McGregor as Obi-Wan was pretty good, but in no way comparable to Alec Guinness. <br /><br />I hate to drag out the old Hobbit trilogy comparison, but in this case I think it's necessary. The reason why The Hobbit films worked better, in spite the overabundance of CGI, and got a far more positive reaction, were the characters. Young Anakin was almost universally hated no matter who potrayed him, but I've yet to hear of anyone disliking the younger Bilbo. <br /><br />What made The Hobbit a success, however, were the new characters: Thorin, Bard, Balin, Thranduil, Smaug, Tauriel, Kili... heck, even Alfrid and Radagast worked for me. Not to mention Bofur, Beorn, Azog or the Gobling King - and I'm still leaving out some interesting side characters! Compared to that, the prequel trilogy was truly bare bones. <br /><br />In my opinion, the lack of interesting characters unique to the prequel trilogy is the main reason why it failed so badly. If it had its own Han Solo, maybe it would have gotten somewhere, as it was, it just had a petulant child in Anakin. <br /><br />There really isn't much room here for reassessment, except to say that the prequels weren't truly bad films, just misguided ones. <br /><br />As for the new film, it might work well if it introduces a lot of interesting new characters, but to do that it can't be a film about the new adventures of Luke, Leia and Han - they need to become background characters with Luke taking on the Obi-Wan role - and the focus must be mainly on the new cast.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12380553.post-19637383476250965012015-05-28T11:51:58.947-04:002015-05-28T11:51:58.947-04:00Part II
In 1999 I was a bit too old for the prequ...Part II<br /><br />In 1999 I was a bit too old for the prequel trilogy to become my holy grail of cinema, but I did see "The Phantom Menace" when it came out, and I thought it was alright. Not great, not bad. It had some things going for it, including my favorite Star Wars setting - Tattooine, as well as Darth Maul and Liam Neeson as Qui-Gon Jinn. <br /><br />I'm not sure that I completely agree about the lack of a nostalgic connection for fans of the older trilogy. Yes, there's Yoda and Palpatine, but there's also Boba Fett, Jabba, R2-D2, C-3PO, wookies, the sand people and even Darth Vader makes an appearance in the final film. I'd say that there was plenty of ways to make a nostalgic connection for fans of the older films. <br /><br />The problem was in the CGI. Suddenly, there was simply too much of it in a franchise that had, thus far, been very much based on practical effects. As a result, the movies felt fake. <br /><br />The other problem with the prequel trilogy, for me, were the Gungans. Not just Jar Jar - ALL Gungans. Every single one of them. They looked and sounded dumb. The Ewoks were cutesy, the Gungans were dumb and annoying. <br /><br />Then there were the ridiculous battle droids. Yes, the stormtroopers were equally ineffective, but at least they looked cool and seemed like they might actually be a threat to our heroes. The battle droids, on the other hand, looked about as threatening as Calista Flockhart and their voices were, well... cartoonish to say the least. <br /><br />Another mistake that Lucas made was killing off Darth Maul and replacing him with another non-threatening robotic villain in general Grievous. It was almost as if Lucas was afraid of having actual human beings on screen. Although, having seen the atrocious acting of Jake Lloyd, perhaps Lucas had a point there. I almost wanted to replace Lloyd with an Ewok. Even a CGI Ewok would do. There certainly aren't many child actors worse than Lloyd out there. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12380553.post-24048334182926053692015-05-28T11:50:10.734-04:002015-05-28T11:50:10.734-04:00Part I
This is an interesting question. I'm i...Part I<br /><br />This is an interesting question. I'm in a fairly unique position of being relatively objective because I was never a huge fan of Star Wars in general, and my childhood also fell in between the two trilogies so I never really got too caught up in either one. <br /><br />Tellingly, the sci-fi franchise that most caught my interest appeared in 1994, five years before Star Wars became a big deal again - it was Stargate. I also quite enjoyed Star Trek at the time, but Star Wars... the original trilogy was almost forgotten by then, and the prequels were still far off in the future. <br /><br />Admittedly, my childhood was hardly typical - I grew up on a steady diet of John Ford westerns, courtesy of my father - and my favorite movie was "The Godfather". I was an anomaly, to be sure. Perhaps that made me more open to experiencing movies from before my time, which, I'm beginning to see, is hardly a trait that many share. <br /><br />The other day I was talking to a 20 year old, and was shocked to hear that he has absolutely no interest in watching movies made before 2010. After some wrangling he agreed that maybe 2000 would be a more fair cut off point, but everything before that seemed dated to him, and talking to some other members of his generation I came to the conclusion that he's not exactly in a minority. For a lot of them, '80s and '90s special effects are completely unconvincing, and quite honestly, rather ridiculous. <br /><br />But for me, someone who grew up regularly watching films made 40-50 years before his time, this kind of attitude was rather incomprehensible. However, as I came to realize afterwards, perhaps I was an exception in my own generation. Still, I'd like to think that enabled me to better appreciate film as an art form. <br /><br />Now, I know that this was a rather long and rambling preamble, but hopefully it will help explain where I'm coming from. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12380553.post-14126758474546561612015-05-05T20:39:48.975-04:002015-05-05T20:39:48.975-04:00I think you are spot on with this one John. Us old...I think you are spot on with this one John. Us old time fans will have a hard time seeing past the fact that the Star Wars prequels we imagine were not the films that Lucas wanted to make. It is really hard for me to step back and see those films for what they are. Many if the issues I gloss over in the OT get no quarter when I watch the prequels. I suppose the fact that I'm aware of this issue means I'm on the road to recovery. "Admitting you have a problem is the first step." :)<br /><br />That said, the visuals of PT have always been one of the high points to me. I also appreciate the political and mythic structure that Lucas sets up in that film. It all flows nicely (on paper anyway) into the the OT. I found it interesting that the novelizations of the prequels worked really well, but fell flat on the screen for me.<br /><br />Part of it is the pacing and overall structure of those films. PT is especially cumbersome and awkward. It isn't a very engaging film at all. So while I can appreciate many elements of it, I find it really hard to like the film. <br /><br />That said, I think Abrams is a better fit for the Star Wars universe, then he was for the Star Trek universe (although I enjoyed both of his efforts for that franchise). I'm looking forward to this new film, and especially John Williams new Star Wars score. That is one element that has been top notch in all six films, and I doubt the Maestro will disappoint this time.Roman J. Martelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09545497713474664555noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12380553.post-68776363321288063212015-05-05T12:49:18.985-04:002015-05-05T12:49:18.985-04:00I think that maybe once these kids grow up a bit m...I think that maybe once these kids grow up a bit more at least some will find the original trilogy intriguing in its own ways. Even though I'm a fan of slow (boring?) movies, with age I get so much more from them. <br /><br />-T.S.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12380553.post-50232307065439475402015-05-05T11:44:14.004-04:002015-05-05T11:44:14.004-04:00Not a huge Star Wars fan at all, yet I agree with ...Not a huge Star Wars fan at all, yet I agree with the analysis. Darth Maul and the ensuing light saber is the best villain/duel of the franchise. The movie went hard at that moment.<br />But Jar Jar Binks, imo, is hands down the absolutely, most annoying character in the history of film. Outside of the "comedian" Gilbert Godfried, Binks is the most annoying entity in the known universe. For that reason alone, this movie is unwatchable twice. Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17071265466289453423noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12380553.post-47623664473723570032015-05-04T21:28:57.285-04:002015-05-04T21:28:57.285-04:00Your analysis about the "The Phantom Menace&q...Your analysis about the "The Phantom Menace" is so spot on. The visual design of this movie (and the entire prequel trilogy) is so carefully considered and every aspect from the costumes (and as you pointed out the ethnicity) to the Palpatine's beginning use of Imperial guards can be tied into a historical event or regime, the era in which the films were written (late 90s to early 2000s), and serve as foreshadowing markers for episodes 4-6. Granted, this may have been done at the expense of pacing and the pulpy thrills of the original films, but TPM and the prequels are far smarter and complex than they are given credit for. <br /><br />I agree, TPM will never be re-evaluated or not-hated by most fans who grew up on the original. And no matter what anyone says or would like to think, they are part of "Star Wars" and did come from the mind of the same creator.James J. Caterinohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01457868136494514710noreply@blogger.com