Wednesday, December 26, 2012

Things I *GASP* Dislike About the Star Wars Saga

I don't really want to do this, since my whole point is to be celebratory and combat the hate machine. However, nothing is perfect, not even Star Wars. I hate the people who feel like they have to rag on some part of the Saga just to prove that they aren't sheep, so I'm not going to go that route. I'm going to try to be as tactful and matter-of-fact as possible because, as I'll reiterate and expand on at the end, these nitpicks don't amount to much. However, I have to be honest and forthright with all of you that not all is sunshine and daisies (though, it really mostly is).

And so, I present a short list of all the things, film by film, that bother me about Star Wars.



Episode I: The Phantom Menace
* As much as I think Jake Lloyd gets far more flak than he deserves, the goodbye speech to C-3PO was horribly done and nearly overshadowed the rest of the performance for me.
* Younging up Yoda doesn't make any sense since he's already centuries-old. So glad the Blu-Ray fixed that with the more familiar digital Yoda.
* This doesn't bother me while I'm watching the film, since it's paced so perfectly. However, the more I think about it in my spare time, the more I do kind of wish they were able to give Obi-Wan more to do.

Episode II: Attack of the Clones
* As much as I'm sure it was a nod to the classic "Tusken Rock" from IV, the poorly-animated Dug in the Coruscant chase bugs me to no end.
* Shmi's death gets me far more emotionally invested on repeat viewings, but my initial reaction was that it was only slightly less funny than Madonna's death in "Dick Tracy." I apologize profusely to everyone who worked on that (beautiful and chilling) scene.
* I like bad puns, but "This is such a drag!" was almost too much for even me. Almost.

Episode III: Revenge of the Sith
* As much as I understand what's actually happening, Anakin going from "What have I done?!" to "I shall do whatever you ask" still seems a smidge too fast on screen.
* She's lost the will to live?! Again, I understand it was the medical droids being stupid, but I think it could have been explained better in the film. Sure, it fits on a poetic level, but it just rings a tad hollow for me given what we know about Padmé. I think she was dealt a massive blow, both physically and emotionally, and that was shutting her body down. But I doubt her will, especially to protect her children, was truly lost.
* I would gladly have delayed the film's release as long as it took to get Liam Neeson to make an appearance as Qui-Gon's Force Ghost.

Episode IV: A New Hope
* The whole movie seems small and claustrophobic compared to the ones it spawned. This is a casualty of being the first, but it's the main reason why it's my least favorite (though I still love it to death).
* To me, Luke is far more annoying in this film than his father ever was over three (to be fair, I think he gets better and I generally like him).
* Speaking of the "Tusken Rock," regardless of '70s cinema charm, it's still a bad effect that take me right out of the picture.
* SE only, but for the love of cake could someone please get the Jabba model right? I mean, the 2004 model is a VAST improvement over the 1997 model, but it's still not quite there (It IS one of my favorite scenes in the film, though, even in spite of this).
* The obviously British Imperial officers are badly dubbed with bad American accents, as are many of the Rebels. I don't know what version this started in, but it's one of the most rediculous things in Star Wars to me.
* Again, mostly in comparison to the other five and without disregarding its thematic and emotional purposes in the slightest, but Worst. Lightsaber. Battle. Ever.
* Another thing that I wouldn't think twice about had it not been for the other five, the Rebel's readout screen on Yavin 4 is miles behind what the technology we've seen everywhere else, even accounting for them appropriating an ancient temple. It always bothers me.

Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back
* Any time anyone says they hate Anakin/Padmé but love...whatever the hell Han and Leia are doing, I kind of want to slap them. There's an annoying onscreen romance with little chemistry for you (though I'll grant that "I know" was a decent ad lib and totally in character). I'm sorry, I said I wouldn't take that tone here, it just...it boggles me.
* SE only, but as much as Ian McDiarmid IS the Emperor, they could have easily made him look closer to how he appears in Jedi as opposed to how he appears in Sith. Also, I didn't quite like the line changes in the 2004 DVD and glad they got changed back for the Blu-Ray release. Again, still a great scene and I'll take Ian any day, regardless of makeup and dialogue.
* The Bespin scenes before Luke comes to the rescue really drag the film down for me. As much as the film tries, I just kinda sorta don't care. But that's just me.

Episode VI: Return of the Jedi
* Okay, so these next two I really have to take "that tone" with because it's my biggest problem in the entire Saga.
* Luke, Kenobi's ghost just told you you have a twin sister. What are you going to do? Pull Leia's name out of your butt and say nothing else when Obi confirms it. Bull.
* Leia, you just found out that the guy you've been having adventures with kissed twice is actually your long-lost twin brother. What are you going to do? "*beat* I know. Somehow, I've always known.".....BULL!
* Again, I'm sorry I had to take "that tone", but man...
*This is another fridge complaint, as in it only bothers me afterwards and not during a screening of the film, but I would blame nobody for thinking it was going back to the well with Death Star II (Electric Boogaloo), and I do kind of wish they had come up with a different threat. Only kind of, though.
* SE only, but as much as I like Hayden and the fact that he's there, I wish they had aged him up slightly. Heal him, sure, but make him look a little older. However, if Hayden makes an appearance as a Force Ghost in VII-IX, it won't bother me enough to list it here anymore.

So that's about everything I dislike about the Star Wars movies. Yet they're my favorite films of all time, all six of them. I love them to death and defend them and George Lucas' to the death. Because as much as I don't like what's listed above, they pale in comparison to everything I really do like and indeed love about the films. I love the story, I love the characters, I love the world it takes place in. If you think I'm going to let a couple of nitpicks ruin that for me, then you've got another thing coming. I repeat: I am not going to let what amounts to a handful of nitpicks ruin my enjoyment of everything a film does right. If you're the type of person who does, then it strikes me that you didn't really like the work in the first place.

38 comments:

  1. There's a lot of things I really like about the Han/Leia subplot, mostly in its subtlety and how it connects with the overall themes of the film (that being of identity and self-discovery). But I think what harms it is its resolution in Return of the Jedi, where its treated as just another bog-standard romance and they were clearly 'meant' to be together or something like that.

    Knowing that the original version of Return didn't make Luke and Leia siblings, and that it was originally much more bittersweet than outright happy, I get the impression that the romance wasn't supposed to end happily and we're not supposed to be entirely moved by what's going on. The whole of Empire seems to be setting Leia up for a choice- does she choose Luke (who is obviously the right man) or Han (who gives her a new sense of identity and purpose)?

    The failure to actually follow up on that set-up and adequately resolve the romantic triangle (instead copping out with a lame brother/sister revelation) is, IMO, Return's biggest flaw.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think the idea of the brother-sister relationship works, it was just executed poorly.

      Delete
    2. Mmhm, plus it jars heavily with the prior two films (to compare- Vader being Luke's father wasn't something that was seriously considered until the scripting of Empire, but it's a twist that makes perfect and total sense in the context of that film and Star Wars before it. Luke and Leia just don't cohere in that same fashion).

      Delete
    3. That's why seeing Sith before Jedi can soften that sense of "Whaa?!" because you're seeing them born. That's how the twist of the twins works. It's still an unsatisfactory resolution, but it doesn't seem quite as out of left field.

      Delete
    4. I'd still argue that the way they're written and developed in the previous two films abandons the notion of them actually being related (the kiss being just one example), which is why the twist feels out of left field a bit.

      Also, dug up a quote to support my original point:
      " One of the reasons Jedi came out the way it did was because the story outline of how Jedi was going to be seemed to get tossed out, and one of the reasons I was really unhappy was the fact that all of the carefully constructed story structure of characters and things that we did in Empire was going to carry over into Jedi. The resolution of that film was going to be quite bittersweet, with Han Solo being killed, and the princess having to take over as queen of what remained of her people, leaving everybody else. In effect, Luke was left on his own. None of that happened, of course. "

      From IGN's interview with producer Gary Kurtz, seen here:
      http://www.ign.com/articles/2002/11/11/an-interview-with-gary-kurtz

      Very fascinating interview if you haven't already read it.

      Delete
    5. And that's a very good thing that didn't happen that way. Goes against the whole point of Star Wars.

      Delete
    6. That *was* the point of Star Wars. They had written it to a very specific way which was then abandoned in favor of an outright happy ending (partly because of the change in Hollywood that happens between 1977 and 1983, but probably also for marketing reasons). I don't really see what 'point' it is that the changed ending supports.

      Delete
    7. Beyond that only being a point established within Return of the Jedi, there's no indication that a more bittersweet ending would necessarily contradict that. The battle is still won, but the responsibilities and consequences still must be dealt with. It's not nearly as reductive as basic good vs. evil (which is part of what Empire was all about setting up to be developed through in Return).

      Delete
    8. A bittersweet ending for Luke, Han, and Leia simply would not have worked (I feel Anakin's ending was bittersweet).

      Delete
    9. Because after all they and the Rebellion had gone through, they deserved unabashed celebration. I personally would have felt cheated, as would many others, if they didn't have their happily ever afters (whatever VII-IX may bring).

      Delete
    10. Yes, they deserve celebration and victory, but just because they win the battle doesn't mean that everything is going to turn out 100% hunky dory. That's what the 'bittersweet' means- it's not tragic, just not completely happy.

      I mean, that's a large part of what Empire was developing towards, especially with its breaking down the barriers of simple 'good vs. evil', by showing us a villain who had good within him, and a friend capable of betrayal. The initial outline for the prequels showcased this as well, with the Emperor being a good man twisted and used by the bureaucracy. So for that to be set up and then reset to a basic black and white, good vs. evil sort of deal is...disappointing, to say the least.

      Delete
    11. Palpatine is much more effective as a chessmaster. You still have the shades of grey thing in Anakin and how the Jedi handled him.

      Delete
    12. I don't really see him as more or less effective either way- it's just two different takes on the character (personally, I find the initial idea more interesting than 'most evil man in the galaxy', but to each their own).

      And yeah, we get shades of grey with Anakin, but the base premise is still reverted to a very reductive good vs. evil sort of deal. It's a regression from the moral complexity of the initial two films, if not a complete one.

      Delete
    13. New Hope had little moral complexity if any. I-III, on the other hand, have an abundance.

      Delete
    14. You're right about the original film- the moral complexity is more retroactively present through Empire. But I don't really see a lot of it in the prequels, especially with how clear-cut the villains are.

      Delete
    15. The villains aren't always clear cut. Palpatine is very hidden until Sith; only people who recognized the character name or know Ian's face well can tell. And the Jedi are shown by their actions to be just as responsible for their own downfall. They raise a lot of questions of who is really to blame for the fall of the Republic (the answer, after some analysis? Everyone).

      Delete
    16. But the way the movies portray the good guys and the bad guys makes it seem very black and white. We're never in doubt that the Sith are bad and the Jedi are good, and it's not meaningfully questioned in the film itself. Most of the questionable stuff from the Jedi comes off as more accidental than purposeful.

      The base actions of the characters don't really matter as much as how they're portrayed and interpreted within the film itself.

      Delete
  2. I actually don't see a real problem with Return of the Jedi. The real point of the story was to see the final part of Darth Vader' redemption, and for Luke to help him fulfill that, while at the same time, bring an end to the Sith and the Empire. I also agree that a bittersweet ending for Han, Luke and Leia would not have worked, because the story is already overly tragic with Revenge of the Sith acting previously. The point of Star Wars changed, the story was improved in order to fit in into the message George wanted to portray. Whether you like the discovery of brothers between Luke and Leia, (which I personally do) that is a different story.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I like the twist, I just don't like how it was essentially glossed over and not really addressed in Jedi. It was just an "oh, that happened" kind of thing.

      But I really don't want to harp on it. I still love Jedi and all of Star Wars. This ship runs on happy faces!

      Delete
    2. I should clarify that I actually do like Return as a movie and think for the most part it works. It's just that I also think it wastes a lot of the potential set up by the previous two films, and what we get is a much less interesting film. I like it (and it has a huge amount of nostalgic value for me), but I'm also frustrated with it at the same time.

      Delete
    3. Yes the Sith are evil, but while the Jedi stand for good, the movies portray the order as out of touch. Are the senators good or bad? The clones? The Trade Federation are an unsavory bunch, but calling them evil may be a stretch.

      Delete
    4. It really depends on the senator as to whether they are good or bad. the clones are simply in service of the Chancellor, and well, they did murder the Jedi. Nute Gunray at least I think can be casted as evil, but never as evil as the Sith.

      Delete
    5. Ooh, it had me reply to the wrong comment. Sorry.

      My point was that the character morals are far more ambiguous in I-III. IV-VI have Han, Lando, and eventually Vader, but everyone else is more clear-cut.

      Delete
    6. See, and I don't think they really are in the prequels. I mean, yes, not everyone can be deemed outright evil in the way Palpatine is, but the morals of each character aren't really questioned in a meaningful fashion- the Neimodians and later Separatists may be manipulated by Palpatine, but the films still treat them as 'the bad guys' and don't offer up a lot to make them more complex than that.

      I think a large part of the problem is that there's a gap between what Lucas is trying to say and what he actually ends up saying- the Ep. III crawl tells us "there's heroes on both sides", but we never actually see this, and the film basically presents itself as "the good Jedi vs. evil Sith and robots". We're not really forced to, as an audience, think about the actions and consequences of these characters as something other than their base role in the story- we're meant to treat what the Jedi do as smart and wise and the Separatists as misguided. About the only ambiguity present is the corruption of the Senate, but even that just reads as being satirical of the government (he even slips in a Bush reference into Ep. III) rather than anything meaningful about the actions of the characters.

      In the end I do think it's the execution that hampers the complexity of the prequels- there's a lot of potential for ambiguity and intricacy, but the way they're handled in the film is just the very basest "good vs. evil".

      Delete
    7. I'll grant that the complexity is more fridge brilliance (that it doesn't hit you until you get a snack from the fridge later on), but the whole saga is like that, really. How much of what you say about IV-VI honestly struck you the very first time you saw it?

      Delete
    8. I saw this all for the first time as a kid, so I can pretty much say it all went over my head.

      And I don't disagree most of the saga is like that (though it's really not an excuse- only the original can get away with it on account of it being the first one). The only one I argue has the kind of complexity I'm talking about is Empire, and likely the original version of Return (though since that likely wasn't ever scripted I thus haven't read it and cannot make an assumption like that).

      Delete
    9. You know what though? It is an excuse. It's very subtle, and there's nothing wrong with subtle. Besides, like it or not the target audience for these films has always been 7-12 year-olds. That it has stuff to offer older viewers is a bonus and what makes the saga great, but still...

      Delete
    10. Subtle is one thing, but I never feel as if it's even purposeful in the films, and when it is present it's only in the script- what characters directly say or do. Nothing about the actual films (the cinematography, blocking, direction in general) actually develops the ambiguity it's trying to put forth. Which makes it feel accidental or underdeveloped.

      Delete
    11. You keep bringing up blocking and cinematography. IV-VI have the same kind of blocking and cinematography. I see no difference in it. So either you're giving IV-VI too much credit or I-III not nearly enough.

      Delete
    12. I'm mostly talking about Empire when I bring up the good stuff, but there the visuals help to enhance or develop the themes within the film, and the visuals are varied in their construction and editing. I don't see that at all in Return through Revenge, though if you'd like to elaborate on how the visuals help to develop the story, be my guest.

      Delete
    13. I'd say start with Lard Biscuit's analysis on Clones (I'd link, but I'm using my phone so you'll have to Google it). There's a chapter there that talks about the visual symbolism of that film. Sure, you could argue that some of it may have been a happy accident, or done more subconsciously, but you can make that argument about all of the saga, even Empire which I think you're putting on too much of a pedestal. Of course, I doubt much of anything in any of the films is really an accident.

      Delete
    14. Thanks for the recommendation, I'll give it a go and get back to you when I've read it.

      Delete
  3. Yes, the Star Was films have things we like and dislike, and this applies to all films in general. All films are far from being perfect and show that, despite the mistakes and shortcuts, we can still admire them or despise them with the utmost passion of living. I think that sometimes, the films' mistakes turn into the films' triumphs in the grand end of things and that filmmakers learn from their mistakes when all is said and done. George Lucas certainly learned from his mistakes, and even if he continued to make them, he made a lot of triumphs as well that made me forget all about the mistakes and just enjoy whatever he brought forward.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I have one nitpick. Han shot. No Greedo shooting or whatever. The near simultaneous shots in the Blu-rays is a decent compromise, but changing that scene does change Han's story a little. Other than that - I'm fine. I watch these movies through a kid's eyes, those of nine-year-old me in 1977. So much of the technical stuff, the acting or the story issues are of no real concern to me. And Jar Jar rocks.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I kind of have a knee jerk when I hear the "Han Shot First" argument because it always seemed to be making a huge deal out of a minor issue. I do understand the sentiment since I'm the opposite way (I.e. my first viewing of the scene had Greedo shoot first and any alternate felt wrong until the latest one), but not the vehemence most people take with it.

      But you're obviously not most people, so you rock.

      Delete