How The Last Jedi saves the prequels.

The CGI in those films were revolutionary. The special effects were certainly better than the OT. "Bad CGI" has been a internet criticism for films ever since and it's typically a poor one. If the prequels were remade today it would likely be an improvement. The central story isn't the issue. It's just the execution.

 

Well, I disagree. Even back then I didn't like how they approached with the clonetroopers, and today it looks more artificial than ever.
Same goes to battle of Coruscant at the beginning of ROTS. The space battle of Endor, for example, it looks much more realistic and it was made 20 years earlier.
The best visual effects with CGI, I still think are in TPM.

 

There are films from the same era with less CGI that is less dated now and still hold up compared to the virtual sets with actors floating around in them.

If you look at the conference room scenes in A New Hope and compare them with the prequels' Jedi council meetings or meetings with Palpatine in his office you'll see what people mean.

The prequels also have lots of very very good CGI, where it was necessary. Although CG characters still to this day are hit and miss. Not just in Star Wars.

 

With every fiber of my being, I completely DISAGREE with this video essay. I was inclined to laugh, but instead felt disgusted to my core. I had such hopes for "The Last Jedi" before it hit the theaters. But after watching it, I found myself left with the feeling that Rian Johnson's attempt to capture the moral ambiguity of the Prequel Trilogy and "The Empire Strikes Back" had only resulted in a badly written movie with very little originality. What I found even more laughable is that he ended up winning a Saturn Award for his screenplay.

 

Lucas followed the rule of cinematic storytelling by showing the audience how problematic the Jedi were, instead of insulting everyone's intelligence by telling. And how did Luke learn about the Jedi's mistakes, other than Obi-Wan and Yoda's lies and evasions about Anakin? Did Rian Johnson consider this? And I found that whole thing of using the slave boy to show how "everyone is Force sensitive" either laughable, frustrating or both. Lucas had made it clear in both the Original and Prequel Trilogies that the Force exists in all living beings. Also, not everyone is Force sensitive. Only certain sentient beings are. Aside from the Skywalkers, there were no families of Force users, due to Anakin's high midichlorian count. All other Force users - both Jedi and Sith - were the only members of their respective families who were Force sensitive. Disney Studios ruined this scenario by making Rey a granddaughter of Sheev Palpatine in "Rise of Skywalker". One last thing . . . the whole slave boy who is Force sensitive at the end of "The Last Jedi"? What on earth was that? What was Johnson trying to prove? Did he really forget that Anakin's story arc had begun with him as a slave boy on Tatooine? The fact that Johnson, the media and certain fans thought this scene was profound is simply laughable to me.

 

The Jedi order in the prequels sort of became a reflection of George's impressions of and struggles with the movie industry. It was like a club run by old men, with indentured working practices, obsessed with seniority and ill prepared to entertain young upstarts and innovators who might usurp tradition. The few instances where a younger outsider was given power they wound up being burned by it or condemned for actually using it.

I think the fact that George makes them nominally the good guys, and they are, shows a bit of George's eccentric sense of humour. He can either be very blunt or the joke can be so obscure that it borders on private. I'm sure the similarities between the council and the dinosaurs he and his movie brat friends hoped to make extinct (it's arguable that they never did) is not lost on Lucas. But he never had the intention of beating the audience over the head with it.

I'm all for that kind of ambiguity. But the lack of commentary from anyone but Qui Gon (briefly before he died) and from Anakin (who is somewhat evil so not a reliable narrator of the Jedi's shortcomings) sort of leaves it dangling a wee bit unhelpfully. Especially when George has taken every opportunity to spell it out that Anakin is the one at fault. He wanted to possess his mother (?) and wanted to possess his wife (?) and was too greedy to allow people he loved to die and so on and so on. Lucas telling us who is bad and who is at fault and not mentioning the Jedi order's problems is kind of conspicuous.

When Luke started on the Jedi order in TLJ and criticises their perceived legacy, I was like "YESSSSSS. THANK YOU!!!!" Not because I want the Jedi to be trashed, cancelled or whatever. But just because the saga was in dire need of someone like Luke simply asking the question "What's so great about the Jedi anyway?", knowing that a gratifying answer which upholds their legend would eventually be forthcoming.

You cannot go nine films without being a little bit self reflective.

 

I always saw the Jedi as a bit like a very strict religious order, like Catholicism in its 'purest' form, or any religious movement that demanded its followers forgo relationships such as spouses and children. I also liked Luke's opinion of them...Luke in TLJ actually reminded me a lot of myself; when you're young you're full of ideals...then you become a grumpy old man/woman!
But, seriously ...the biggest appeal TLJ held for me is that it challenged the 'old rules', and that it at least tried to bring in 'shades of grey'...Luke pointing out the 'flaws' in the Jedi Order, DJ showing Finn that the line between good and evil can be blurred, and especially Poe getting half his squad killed for the 'greater good'...I saw a touch of Saw Guerrera there, and the potential for a not so saintly Resistance, which would have been refreshing.

I can't help if the dislike of TLJ stems from that...a lot of fans didn't want SW to 'grow' and instead wanted it to remain forever a 'good guys v bad guys' kind of fairytale. Which is ironic as the moment we discovered Luke's father was Darth Vader was also the moment we discovered that 'good' and 'evil' isn't so cut and dried as it seems. And that of course, was waaaaay back in the OT.

 

"It's ironic. The Sequel Trilogy saves the Prequels, the same way Anakin saved.... Padme."​

 

I think it's fair to say that the spiritual element of Lucas's saga was his quasi Buddhist critique of Christianity and western religion. The Jedi are undoubtedly the good guys in that arena. Whereas the quasi-revolutionary Sith were at the (inevitably) satanic end of Christian ideals. In spute of what Palpatine promises, Anakin is ultimately made to sacrifice everything, not for the republic or for his Jedi brothers and sisters. But for Palpatine himself. (In a sense that is what Christians are asked to do for their Master/Lord/Saviour and so on. With "immortality" as the reward.)

I think that politically speaking (with a small "p") though, the Jedi definitely aren't as heroic as they might nominally be perceived. They were not progressive. At least not enough. And it cost them.

 

This shows that even good people can do great mistakes. The question is can we forgive them. Return of the Jedi shows us that forgiveness is possible to the bad guy. But somehow we tend to be less ready to forgive the good guys. TLJ eventually shows Luke forgiving the Jedi at the end with Yodas talk, about what great of a teacher failure is.

 

Right. And that also enabled him to, somewhat, tacitly forgive himself.

 

Or as someone else once said. "Let the past die..... Destroy it if you have to. It's the only way to become who you were meant to be..."