![]() This is supposedly so subtle that everyone missed it.įull disclosure, I’m only addressing the first page of Mr. The argument is that similarities between Episodes I-III and IV-VI mean the stories resonate with each other, creating a greater whole. Wait, you already knew that? Because this manifesto on Star Wars Ring Theory insists that those similarities are proof that the prequels are brilliant, and none of us are clever enough to see it. Many scenes and plot threads from the prequels are similar to those found in the original trilogy. Let me tell you something that will blow your mind. That’s part of why they’re so bad in the first place. Politics, action, a sprawling world, poop jokes, forbidden love, the list goes on. The original trilogy wisely kept a tight focus on what it was good at: emotionally charged action scenes. How did a senator from backwater Naboo end up in the running for Supreme Chancellor, and why didn’t anyone find it suspicious? Why did so many systems want to leave the Republic in the first place? Why did the Jedi think that was worth fighting over? The politics have so little context that they’re impossible to care about. The political storylines of Episodes I-III are equally ambitious, and equally bad. We learned the Jedi were a bureaucratic, sex-negative cult. We found out the Republic is an organization that makes decisions for the entire galaxy but has no means to enforce them. True, they did show us a lot about the Star Wars universe we didn’t know before. The Mary Sue article also praises the prequels’ worldbuilding. A well executed, small-scale story is better than a flop with big dreams. Ambition doesn’t matter if it doesn’t get results. Night Shyamalan’s Last Airbender tried to fit an entire season of television into 90 minutes. Star Trek V was a film about meeting God and finding out that God was an evil alien. We pay money to see films because we want to see ideas executed well. Any random Star Wars fan can give you a long list of big ideas for how they’d have done the prequels. They’re full of big ideas, going further than the original trilogy ever dared. The Prequels Were Ambitious, so Cut Them Some SlackĪccording to this admittedly well written article from The Mary Sue, the prequels deserve our respect because they swing for the fences. It makes us better at telling our own stories, because we’ll a void the mistakes of others. If you care about something, you want it to be better. It means you’re thinking, which is never a bad thing. It’s le veled at social justice advocates all the time, and now it’s being wielded in defense of the Star Wars prequels.īeing critical doesn’t make you less of a fan. It’s a reactionary statement from people who don’t want to think critically about something they like. No true Battlestar Galactica fan could have a problem with the “let’s throw all our technology into the sun” ending. ![]() Real Trekkies must like all Star Trek, even Enterprise. This idea is so absurd I almost didn’t include it, except that it’s so common! To call yourself a fan, you must love every element of a property unconditionally. If this article from Furious Fanboys is to be believed, disliking the prequels means you’re not a real Star Wars fan. You Loved the Original Trilogy, so You Have to Love the Prequels Similar threads run through each of these defenses, and they’re all nonsense. Were we mistaken? Were we too hard on Lucas and his vision? No, we were not. In recent years, people have taken to writing defenses of Episodes I-III. And yet, I sense a disturbance in the internet. Rarely have films been so roundly and rightly criticized. We all remember Anakin’s virgin Force birth, the midi-chlorians, the romance dialogue, the awful plotting. This should not be a controversial statement.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |