= recently updated
Index
IntroductionThe Living Force and the Training of the Twins
Bad Dialogue and the Love Story
C'mon, Lots of People Hate the Prequels
Lucas is Making Everything Up as He Goes
Actors Don't Work Well with Blue Screens
Help me keep this site updated! Please email me with your own experiences regarding the criticisms and defenses of the prequel movies! boggeyb@fashionablearmchair.com.
I think first, and most basically, we (the fans) must remember that Star Wars is a space opera of the serial sort and that it is we (the fans) that insert so much sci-fi necessity for explanations and such. I believe that to Lucas it is a sort of fairy tale that was to be enjoyed by all ages and not to be picked apart by the vultures of sci-fi consistency -- the same people who plague poor William Shatner with mind-numbing questions about episode 224 and the quantum mechanics of juggling turtles or some such.
It is my intention with this site to unabashedly defend the Star Wars prequels. It has become quite popular to loathe these movies. Of course, at one point Michael Jackson was very popular. And I believe at present Britney Spears is. The popular opinion is often wrong, riddled with inconsistencies, prejudice, and bad taste. And as such, I think we will find many of the complaints lodged against the prequels suffer from these problems.
This site was inspired by debates with my friends and coworkers, as well as the good argumentative people of theforce.net. This will of course not be the last word and the haters will continue to hate. Join the dark side have they. Lies, deceit, creating mistrust are their ways now...
As more lies and deceit come up, I will be sure to post the haters hatred and any and all rebuttals I find.
All that said, I am one of those very sci-fi vultures. I love to pick apart Star Wars and think about it far more than was ever intended. I sometimes have to remind myself to step back and enjoy the story for what it is, and not be pissed about things like R2 flying or an eopie farting.
The Living Force and the Training of the Twins
Someone over at theforce.net forums was complaining because it seems in Episode III there is a chance that Yoda will ask the newborn twins not to be trained until they are older. Specifically, this person said, "From the Motee's spoiler, it appears the explanation will be: Well, Obi-Wan and I are just going to have to wait on the will of the Living Force to tell us when to start training the twins and we're just going to have to totally rely upon them - neither Obi-Wan nor I can help anymore with any type of leadership or participation. What?! That's nuts. That makes no sense. Lucas has a twenty year time gap and we need a better explanation than that."
Actually, it is a fine explanation -- even from a vulture's perspective. Maybe you want it to be otherwise, but that doesn't necessarily make it so. The kind of patience that would be demanded by following the will of the living force might well take up to 20 years. It might take longer. Who knows? That's the whole point. Trying to control things may well have contributed to the Jedi's demise. It is learning to understand the will of the living force and not seek the power to control or alter the events of the universe that is important. This could be a thematic break for what the Jedi of the Old Republic stand for, and a fairly important thematic juncture as well. I couldn't really ask for a better explanation. The idea that the Jedi have to simply hide to avoid death while explanatory also adds nothing to the spiritual/mythological/thematic nature of the story, whereas the "will of the living force bit" does. Furthermore, it helps substantiate TPM and Qui-Gon Jinn amongst those who would like to discredit them from the saga.
This same person, whom we call Darth Worrier, continued to say, "Think about the clearly more creative, and sensical, ways Lucas could have explained this gap and glaring lack of activity for the two most powerful good guys in the galaxy at that time. For example, Palpatine has his henchman searching all over the galaxy for Yoda and Obi-Wan; they had to hide to save themselves. At first, the rebellion had to be organized secretly. Yoda's and Obi-Wan's presence in this sense would have hurt the early rebellion. Doesn't this make more sense than the Living Force explanation?"
First of all, I think this is a given. The Jedi go into hiding to save their asses. If this rumor is true, Lucas is simply adding another layer. How are both explanations not possible? Darth Worrier acts as though they are mutually exclusive. Isn't it possible that Yoda and Obi-Wan are both hiding and waiting for the right moment to help "return" the Jedi? Isn't it possible that the rebellion is being formed in secret, and the Jedi know that the most opportune time for them to assist will be when the living force has brought the siblings back into their lives? I don't understand why Darth Worrier views these two explanations as exclusive of one another.
Darth Worrier says, "I still for the life of me don't understand why the twins can't be trained at a young age, just as all Jedi are. Wasn't one of the main problems with Anakin that his training was begun too late and therefore his attachments, to his mother and wife, were too strong?"
Where Anakin went wrong is still up for debate, especially until Episode III hits theaters. One possible explanation is that Obi-Wan wasn't ready to train and tried to control him too much instead of the letting the will of the living force dictate Anakin's actions. Another explanation, and one I like, is that Anakin had to turn to the dark side. Qui-Gon believed that Anakin would return balance to the force. One of the likeliest candidates for "upsetting" the balance would be Emperor Palpatine, whose power was so great that he was able to hide amongst the Jedi. The only person strong enough to kill him is Anakin, who eventually does, but only by seeing his son nearly fried before his eyes. It is possible all these events are the will of the living force. In fact, the whole concept of the living force is immense and a very difficult-to-grasp way of viewing the world. It returns much of the mystery to the force that many of the haters believe was stolen when Qui-Gon mentioned midichlorians.
Darth Worrier then says, "Then you say, "Taking Luke to Tatooine, to be raised by his step-uncle and step-aunt, on the same farm where Anakin stayed while searching for his mother, is NOT hiding Luke. At least someone had the common sense to change Leia's last name; LUKE EVEN USES THE SAME LAST NAME AS HIS FATHER! Yoda and Obi-Wan don't want the Emperor to know about Luke, and yet look where Obi places him? Again, nuts. Folks, I'm sorry, but it just is."
Not nuts at all. I heard one explanation that had Obi-Wan hiding Luke in the "one place he knew Anakin would never return." Perhaps Anakin has such terrible memories of Tattooine that he would never set foot there again. You know, that of being a slave, and of seeing his beaten and abused mother die in his arms -- not to mention his first big step towards the dark side, slaying women and children in cold blood. It is quite likely that Obi-Wan, being his mentor, knew of Anakin's psychological issues with Tattooine and knew that hiding a sibling there would be quite possible. Furthermore, the name "Anakin Skywalker" no longer holds any meaning for Darth Vader. Perhaps part of his oath to the Sith involved a sort of aescetisim, removing himself from who he was entirely. Perhaps he simply wanted to forget who Anakin Skywalker was. Either way, perhaps he was in a sense forbidden (either by himself or as a Sith) to return to Tattooine.
If the average fan is not willing to accept "the living force" (aka. the "way of things" or "mystical") as the answer to why Luke and Leia could not be trained until they were older and as a great thematic bridge between the prequels and the OT, what would they accept? An encyclopedia-length description of how the force works, what the difference is between the unifying and living force, and how one goes about living according to each, and how that pertains to raising a Jedi powerful enough to persuade Lord Vader to return balance to the force?
theone
Many plotholes will be further dealt with later on. This is more of a generic defense of what some people inaccurately call plotholes. For example, Darth Worrier claims all of his worries are plotholes. They are not. For one, nothing can really be a plothole until Episode III is released. A rumor most certainly does not a plothole make. Furthermore, I've offered viable defenses for each of his worries if they turn out to be true and none by any stretch of the imagination are plotholes.
For example, a friend of mine (whom we will call Darth Republican), claims that midichlorians are a plothole. This little space of the web deals more intimately with midichlorians, but let us examine a more general reason why midichlorians are not a plothole.
Darth Republican says that midichlorians are plotholes because if they are living organisms within the blood, why can one not simply get an injection or sprinkle some midichlorians are their Cheerios to get in tune with the force. But we are not given the limitations nor extent of "midichlorian biology." This worry amounts to saying a plothole is anything that I can think of that the movie hasn't explained. Maybe this sounds okay to you, but it is not. At some point, one must accept (if one is to enjoy) the rules of the universe created on-screen -- not the rules of the real universe. For example, Lord of the Rings might seem to have some mighty big plotholes if one didn't want to accept some of the unspoken limitations of Tolkien's/Jackson's universe. Why the hell doesn't Gandalf use his wizardly powers more? Why can't he kill the giant death-on-a-flying-lizard but the bitch can?
Why? Well, because it's a fantasy universe. We don't know the exact reasons as to why Gandalf doesn't use his wizardly powers more (although some fans of the book might). We don't know why the bitch gets to kill death-on-a-lizard when it made Gandalf quiver in his boots.
Or, if you prefer to stay within Star Wars, why can't Yoda just use the force to make the Death Star explode? Not sure. We don't know the exact mechanics of the force, but that seems to be beyond his ability. Why do Jedi actually fight? Since they seem to be able to use "telekinesis," why don't they just let the lightsabers dance around in front of them? Why the use of hands? Furthermore, since they can move objects, why even bother to use weapons? Why not thrust brains into throats?
All these questions are fun to ask, and the movies don't answer them. But that doesn't make them plotholes. Raising questions that are completely outside the realm of information presented within a story doesn't represent plotholes or even good criticisms of a story. A plothole must at the very least be something that is contradictory of two separate ideas that are presented within the same story.It is not explained how lightsabers work. We know that lasers in real life can't be "stopped." Why can they in the Star Wars universe? Is this a plot hole? No. It is a fun question to ask using the information we have from our world about a fantasy world. Nothing more.
You can invent any question you like about a story. That does not in itself make a plothole.
Artoo flies in Episode II. Believe it or not, this has upset a lot of people. Kind of a strange thing to find troubling, I know, but then the haters pride themselves on finding things to hate.
In defense? Artoo gets around. His wheels go through the desolate sands of Tattooine and over the lush forests of Endor. In Empire Strikes Back he manages to roll through grime and mud - not to mention, swim! Face it. He's always full of new tricks, and how R2 gets around was always meant to be more fun than logical. If you're going to let this bug you, you may as well pack your up your fun-bags and head to the soundless-space galaxy. Sometimes, stuff happens in Star Wars because it's more fun. We hear lasers and explosions amongst the stars, and a little droid manages to migrate through more environments than most mammals. It's typical Star Wars. You're wanting an explanation where there doesn't need to be one. Get over it.
This is a big one for a lot of people. Especially Darth Republican. They really hate midichlorians. Darth Republican has gone so far as to say he would mostly like the prequels were it not for midichlorians. At some length he argues they are plotholes and at some length he argues that they detract from the "mystery" of the force. We will deal with the latter first.
First of all, to my understanding midichlorians are used to communicate with the force. They are not "the force." If you think they detract any mystery or mythical/spiritual meaning from the idea of the force, that is silly. We can take various substances to alter many of our thoughts, but this does not detract any mystery from the concept of "thinking." Whiskey or Prozac are not thoughts, but are very capable of changing how we think about the world. In much the same way are midichlorians simply agents for interacting with the force.
Then some argue that this is contradictory somehow to the original trilogy. This is of course asinine. When Luke says the force runs strong in his family, these people must have thought he was talking about his pubic hair or saliva. To most of us, this meant it ran in his blood. Basically those who like the explanation of "it runs in my family" over "it runs in my blood" are feuding over connotations and nothing more.
Darth Republican says that since midichlorians run in the bloodstream, there is no mystery any more to the force. But midichlorians are simply the biological agents that allow one to communicate with the force -- not an explanation of the force. This criticism doesn't hold water. Furthermore, he wants to know why the Jedi or Sith don't simply inject babies with more midichlorians, or take pills in the morning, or any other such nonsense. Well, first of all, these are not plotholes. Why does Yoda not destroy the Death Star with his mind? Why do ships make sounds in space? The truth is, we don't know much about midichlorians. We don't know why they can't be transferred from body to body -- we only know that they aren't. We don't know why a lightsaber's laser stops, but we know it does. It's the "logic" that makes the universe work. Maybe it's unethical for them to "impregnate" a body with more midichlorians. Maybe midichlorians don't surive the transfer process. Maybe the body rejects them similar to many transplants in real life. The point is, there are as many invented answers as there are questions about midichlorians, and I cannot fathom why the "mystery" of midichlorians detracts from the "mystery" of the force, or why a story shouldn't have two mysteries as opposed to one.
People who paint, people who write, people who play music or are good at math -- they have a genetic predisposition to being good at these things. It "runs in their family." But it's in their DNA, and their DNA is in their blood. The force may run strong in Luke's family, but it does so through a fantasy element called "midichlorians" that live in the blood. Not that hard to grasp. Darth Republican likes to ask why, if the ability to use the force is genetic, they don't inject people with more midichlorians or sprinkle them on their cereal in the morning. Well, in "real" life, is there a chemical you can sprinkle on your cereal to become better at math? To write better music? Is there an injection that parents can give their children to make them great artists or businessmen? No. Not yet, anyhow. We know these abilities likely reside in the genetic make-up of a person, but we don't know how to alter that genetic make-up. Maybe in Star Wars a similar response is plausible. Maybe they understand something about midichlorians, but not enough to biologically alter a living being to have more.
Furthermore, let us not forget that when Qui-Gon was explaining midichlorians, he was doing so to a child. How would you explain DNA to your niece or nephew? Would you hand them a book on the subject or simply explain it as something like "blueprints for who you are in your blood." And then, if your niece or nephew, acting on given information speculates that there are literally pages of blueprints running throughout their blood and that they could surgically remove a sheet and give it to a friend -- are they right? Midichlorians are likely an incredibly complicated scientific lifeform. Because the explanation you are given is a child's explanation, that does not mean it is the full explanation. It also means the questions you raise are a child's question, and your criticisms are likewise sophomoric.
Yeah. That's a good reason to hate Star Wars. I can't think of any characters in the OT that were whiny <cough "Luke"> or complained habitually <cough "Threepio">. Gee, yeah, you've got a point about the difference between the sagas there. When Luke was a teenager, he never bitched about picking up power converters or when he was a padawan learner he never griped about ships being too big.
Or is it more likely that whining seems to run in the Skywalker family? But, wait, does that take some of the mystery out of whining for you? God, I'm sorry.
Bad Dialogue and the Love Story
Regarding the "bad dialogue" claim, and that this is somehow not Star Wars'esque, I really only have one response. Watch Episode IV with an open mind and tell me that the dialogue and acting aren't campy as well. Face it, they are. Furthermore, Lucas has admitted a million times that Star Wars is a sort of tribute to the campy hero-serials of long ago. Much in the same way that Sky Commander and the World of Tomorrow was. Only the strange thing is no one bitched about the corny dialogue or acting in Sky Commander and the World of Tomorrow. They understood that it was in many respects supposed to be like that. With Star Wars, this seems to be too difficult a concept for most to grasp. I guess Lucas should have filmed it through a funky glaze -- maybe then people could pick up on the serial, space-fantasy-opera style.
As for the love story, other people have already done a much better job defending it. Inkswamp says, "Many people posting have cited the relationship between Padme and Anakin as the thing that annoys them most about AOTC. Some people cited apparent bad acting. Some people cited the lackluster dialogue or awkward scenes, lack of chemistry, or whatever.I'm very definitely in the minority here, but I don't find the romance between Padme and Anakin terribly hard to believe at all. Strange, yes? Hard to relate to? Yes. But it is believable when you keep in mind a) who these people are and b) the fact that they already have a thing for each other but refuse to admit it. You don't watch them fall in love in AOTC. You watch them drop the pretense of NOT being in love.
As I remind people from time-to-time, the OT was about a ragtag band of misfits and the PT concerns the power struggles between the upper crust of the Old Republic. These characters exist in a totally different strata and behave as such. There won't be any Leia and Han-style romance here with arguments, smart-alecky dialogue and sloppy kisses. This is a romance between a [Jedi Knight] and a queen/politician.
Now, do I think the romance is one of the best scripted ever? No. I think it could have been better, but I think the basic idea is that we have two people whose lives are bound up in very high-minded activities and duties and who secretly have been lusting after each other from very early on. However, they both retain this pretense of "we're not in love and we both know it" which we see gradually breaking down. Padme is better at maintaining it (possibly because she senses Anakin's dangerous side.) Anakin, not so much. There is very little emotion evident in their scenes but that's who those characters are. I think over-the-top emotional love scene moments would be totally out of character for these two.
When Anakin explodes and rants about killing the sandpeople and bemoans the death of his mother, Padme gets a rare moment of seeing Anakin with all those pretenses gone and she sees actual emotion pouring out (good or bad) and thus, it tips the scales and she lets go of the pretense.
Odd? Certainly, but I find it fairly believable if you bear in mind who these people are supposed to be."
C'mon, Lots of People Hate the Prequels
At some point in most of my debates, someone has said something to the effect of either:
"You like the prequels? You're in the minority."
"I don't like them. And I'm not alone."
Good for you. Neither were the Nazis. Not to mention, I am pretty sure Titanic did hunky-dory at the box office, not to mention it was largely critically-acclaimed. Likewise, check the box-office tallies week after week and tell me all those Bruckheimer and Paul W.S. Anderson movies aren't doing well. That means those viewers weren't alone either. Boy, you must be in good company if the masses agree with you!
Lucas is Making Everything Up as He Goes
Okay. First of all, that's not a legitimate complaint. You sit down with a story in your head and see if the events of the story don't unfold chronologically in space and time. If they don't, you must be superhuman.
Secondly:
"Another galaxy, another time.
The Old Republic was the Republic of legend, greater than distance or time. No need to note where it was or whence it came, only to know that... it was the Republic.
Once, under the wise rule of the Senate and the protection of the Jedi Knights, the Republic throve and grew. But as often happens when wealth and power pass beyond the admirable and attain the awesome, then appear those evil ones who have greed to match.
So it was with the Republic at its height. Like the greatest of trees, able to withstand any external attack, the Republic rotted from within though the danger was not visible from outside.
Aided and abetted by restless, power-hungry individuals within the government, and the massive organs of commerce, the ambitious Senator Palpatine caused himself to be elected President of the Republic. He promised to reunite the disaffected among the people and to restore the remembered glory of the Republic.
Once secure in office he declared himself Emperor, shutting himself away from the populace...
Having exterminated through treachery and deception the Jedi Knights, guardians of justice in the galaxy, the Imperial governors and bureaucrats prepared to institute a reign of terror among the disheartened worlds of the galaxy. Many used the imperial forces and the name of the increasingly isolated Emperor to further their own personal ambitions.
But a small number of systems rebelled at these new outrages. Declaring themselves opposed to the New Order they began the great battle to restore the Old Republic.
From the beginning they were vastly outnumbered by the systems held in thrall by the Emperor. In those first dark days it seemed certain the bright flame of resistance would be extinguished before it could cast the light of new truth across a galaxy of oppressed and beaten peoples...
From the First Saga
Journal of the Whills"They were in the wrong place at the wrong time. Naturally they became heroes."
— Leia Organa of Alderaan, Senator
- ANH novelization prologue 1976
As young Anakin Skywalker flies about in space, he yells, "Yipee!" This has annoyed a great many people, and I have myself even made fun of it (in the same loving fashion that I sometimes whine about power converters).
A short defense here, folks. I've spent some time with my nephew. He says some pretty goofy things.
Likewise, many people have said they would have liked a different child actor for Anakin Skywalker. Regarding the auditions for Anakin, Shelley from the Jedi Council forums says, "There was another blonde, blue-eyed boy in the final three. Chris Gore, aka the Professional Basher Who Bashes Everything SW That Isn't ESB (and whom the media likes to hold up as representing all of SW fandom), gushed over the other blonde boy to an embarrassing extent, fawning over him like he was a mini-Laurence Olivier, saying he was so GOOD, he was so INTENSE (not really; he simply recited his lines as perfectly as he could, and seemed downright intimidated by Natalie), and he looked just like Mark Hamill!
So if Lucas was casting solely on the basis of looks, he'd have gone with the other blonde boy, and I doubt he'd have let the dark-haired boy into the finals.
Lucas chose Jake because he fit the part. He acted like a kid, not like a mini-adult. Yes, kids say 'Yippee!'and other stuff that sounds goofy to grownups."
Actors Don't Work Well with Blue Screens
Some people say that the reason the acting in the prequels is so dull (which it isn't) is because the actors have to work against blue screens (usually they are green, actually) and can't relate to any of the "imaginary" set pieces.
This is kinda strange, as when I go to the theater I never notice the actors being stunted by missing props. In fact, most stage actors have a knack for making people the audience believe in places a stage cannot occupy, or in props that don't really exist.
Someone on the forums has said, "Blue screen work is more comparable to theatre than you would imagine. Hence why Method trained American actors generally suck at it, while classically trained UK actors tend to excel."
Working against the "blue" screens in the prequels is hardly a detriment if the actor is talented enough.
"George never [lost his directing ability], it was the fans who lost the imagination. [Episode III] is just the hat trick of a great trilogy, and an even better saga." -sithscotti
"Right or wrong this is my movie, this is my decision, and this is my creative vision. And if people don't like it, they don't have to see it." -George Lucas
"Obviously, fans would love to see a movie about Darth Vader running around killing people. I'm not telling that story, and I'm not interested in that. That's not what the movie is. This first trilogy is really about the father, the struggles of a father, or a man, basically, to find himself, and at the same time fall into a trap of wanting certain powers, making a pact with the devil and basically spending the rest of his life regretting it." -George Lucas, Deseret News March 20th 2005
The Clone Wars Cartoons Versus the Prequels
I've heard quite a few people say that the "Clone Wars" cartoons got them "re-interested," so to speak, in Episode III. One person went so far as to claim, "Just when I had written Star Wars off as a total waste of potential, I found the Clone Wars cartoons. Now, while I enjoyed the cartoons, never did I think of them as somehow better than the films. For one, they are cartoonish. Everything that happens is "cartoonish." Greivous wields lightsabers like a Link-spin move from Legend of Zelda. Obi-Wan flies a speederbike up a building. Mace takes out an army three times the size of that which threatened the Jedi in Episode 2. Anakin eats bugs and claims it is because Obi-Wan always told him to "feed off the living force."
In other words, there are some truly stupid moments in the cartoons. Yet everyone is willing to forgive or look beyond these flaws because, well, they are cartoons. Yet when the movies come out, no one is willing to look beyond the "cheesiness" -- despite the fact that Lucas has said numerous times that Star Wars is an homage to the old-school Saturday serials of yesteryear, where cheesiness was not only cartoonish but melodramatic, expected and accepted.
The point is, from various people who loathe the prequels I've heard praise of the cartoons. Yes. It just goes to prove that the haters are looking to hate, and that brilliant, rational criticism isn't their objective -- their objective is to be contemptuous of that which they envy while pawning themselves off as saints of "objectivity."
Something else I heard is that the cartoons didn't seem to be aimed at children. It almost goes without saying that this is a ridiculous statement, but I'll say it anyhow -- the idea that a "cartoon" was marketed for adults is a little absurd, and the idea that the cartoons were aimed for any demographic the movies were not is likewise absurd. Just think about it.
Sorry if this part gets a bit angry. But there is stuff now that is canon. People continue to whine and gripe and moan (much like the Skywalker family) about Artoo and his "new" abilities every movie, about midichlorians, about the mystery of the Force, or about the less "likable" characters of the prequels. But the haters are looking to hate. They are not looking at the movies from a rational perspective. In the time of the prequels, the Jedi had existed for a thousand years. They had strict policies and stringent rules. Measuring midichlorians was one. Training those strong in the force young was another. The prequels are not about a heated rebellion, but about how one politician weaseled his way into office and created a conflict to destroy the Jedi.
But it comes down to this -- there are two ways of looking at and enjoying (or in the case of the haters, not enjoying) Star Wars: 1) It is an evolving entity. There are new story and plot and thematic points around every corner. 2) It was completed after Return of the Jedi, and you'd filled all the gaps in with your own mind, and when the whole thing didn't turn out how you had envisioned it, you stuck your middle finger to the screen and said, "Fuck you, Lucas."
The great thing about the flanneled-one though is that he doesn't listen. Greedo shoots first. There's now a musical number in Return of the Jedi. No matter how much you whine and moan from the armchair of the job market, Lucas managed to create an icon of pop-culture, his own fucking franchise, direct and produce his own movies (not to mention, special effects company and video game department), and every change you refuse to accept is, in effect, a "Fuck you, idiot who-mistakeningly-thought-this-was-all-your-idea-in-the-first- place."
It is late. I am tired. There are of course a dozen other "problems" with the prequels to be diagnosed and defended, and I will continue to update this as often as possible.
This gets a bit angry, and I apologize, but Star Wars is one of the few things left in my life that I still find something akin to "childhood enthusiasm" for. I am tired of that being beaten upon and picked apart.
Face it - you (haters) don't like the prequels because they are changing the way you look at something from your childhood. This is not a valid complaint. If it were, then imagine this scenario. When Episode IV was released, someone no doubt loved the black-and-white fairy-tale aspect of light versus dark. For example, my parents have often told me how much fun it was to see a movie where people "booed" the villain and "cheered" the hero at the theaters. To some, this could have been what made Episode IV great. Then along comes Empire Strikes Back, and instead of Lord Vader simply being a "boo'able" villain he is Luke's father! "What a bogus twist," they say. "Things were much better when he was a pure villain. This is soap-opera'ish and overcomplicated. This is not what Star Wars is about!" Then along comes Return of the Jedi and not only is Lord Vader Luke's father, but he is also the champion of the film. Not only that, but there are little fuzzy bears that help destroy the Empire! "This is not what I want Star Wars to be!" now cry the fans of the first two Star Wars movies. "Why didn't Luke destroy 'all for which they had fought and suffered?' Why was Yoda wrong? Why didn't Luke fall to the dark side? Lucas is a hack."
You know what? You don't get to write Star Wars. You haven't earned that privilege, because you never came up with any of it. You may not like the twists and turns it takes. You may not like ewoks or Jar Jar Binks. You may not like Yoda getting his ass handed to him by Palpatine. You may not like the fact that midichlorians are a biological necessity for communicating with the force, and the fact that Vader is more or less a gimped prodigy and it is for this reason the Emperor wants Luke to replace Vader. You may not like any of it. But you know what? It's the explanation. It's canon. And it's not your saga.
Go circle-jerk with your American Pie movies. Or do as so many others do -- grow cynical and learn to like less and less about the world. Whine because your new experiences are not as rewarding as your childhood experiences (and how could they be - an adult hasn't the enthusiasm to match a child). Invent reasons and excuses for your psychological inability to appreciate things as a child again. But do not doubt that the new prequels are as rewarding to a new generation of viewers as the originals were to you. I may not like Jar Jar Binks, but you know what? My nephew loved the silly amphibian when I watched The Phantom Menace with him. And that's when I realized, that character wasn't designed for adults. It was for kids. And it worked. Regardless of Jar Jar Binks, the point is most cannot step away from their nostalgia and original trilogy-prejudice long enough to really appreciate the prequels.
Whether or not you like the prequels, they are the now the story that is Star Wars. And a new generation will grow up with a similar fanaticism for the new films, even if you are for some reason incapable of dropping your self-imposed conclusions for the Star Wars universe. And if it doesn't happen with Star Wars (and it likely won't) I do imagine that someday many of you will sadly glance out around the world and realize you gave up too soon the fight to retain nostalgia, to have even the slightest of a childlike heart -- that you sacrificed your imagination for the bane of appreciation, criticism.
Help me keep this site updated! Please email me with your own experiences regarding the criticisms and defenses of the prequel movies! boggeyb@fashionablearmchair.com.