Is the PT really all that bad?

And I'm tired of people saying it was "all planned from the start" when there is so much evidence to contrary. Was RJ given complete control, or was he beholden to what Lucasfilm wanted and said? Was Ben Solo always going to be redeemed, and if so why was Colin Trevorrow's version of Episode IX so much different? Was Rey always going to be a Skywalker, and if so why did Trevorrow's Episode IX end with her taking the name Solana?

Long term planning makes more coherent movies in theory, and that is the point. I don't care much for the video either, but the point I was trying to make with it was that the PT is tied together by a singular vision, as is the OT. It's clear as day.
The ST isn't, or was done so poorly that it certain doesn't feel that way to thousands of people. Not just on YouTube, where it's popular to hate Star Wars, but in Star Wars communities all over the internet, and in my day-to-day life.

Which singular person decided that setting up Snoke, killing him to set up Kylo as the Big Bad, and then bringing back Palpatine to return Kylo to Big Bad Wannabe status? Which singular person was in charge of Finn's romance with Rose, and then decided it wasn't working and completely erased it off-screen in a tie-in novel? Which singular person was in charge of Rey being the mystery box character, then a nobody whose fate is determined for herself, then a Palpatine and all of her powers coming from there? Which singular person decided that Hux, the most fanatical member of the First Order who had a petty-yet-interesting rivalry with Kylo should be reduced to comedic relief, and then against all odds become a spy for the Resistance?

There were dozens of changes in these movies by multiple people who each saw the characters as differently as you and I see them (Abrams, Kasdan, Johnson, Terrio), and that led to vastly different interpretations and arcs. And this isn't always a bad thing, but we can't claim it to be consistent or planned out from the start.

Also, it's not like the ST wasn't looking back to Star Wars source material to adapt, so it too should be included in those book adaptation categories: Rey is simply a force sensitive Ania Solo; Finn is Yalta Val; Ben Solo is simply Jacen Solo with Ben Skywalker's name, and this wasn't the first time Palpatine has been cloned in Star Wars history.

Oh no, I completely understand the reasons you like this film. I just think that they don't work as well as you do, and are a detriment to the story if they're forced in for the sake of themes rather than working naturally; and that's just a difference of opinion. Some of it I begrudgingly admits works well (such as: PT - Palpatine corrupts Skywalker; OT - Skywalker resists corruption from Palpatine & Skywalker saves Skywalker; ST - Palpatine resists corruption from Palpatine & Palpatine saves Skywalker). I GET IT. But some of the material leading UP to that don't make sense.

I remember that too. I saw grown men cry during Celebration (heck, my roommate and I were in one of the reaction compilation videos!). I remember the cheers during the teasers and trailers and trying to get all of the books for Force Friday and read them all and find out all of the little connections. I remember seeing everyone dressed up for TFA (and seeing it more times in the theater than I had ever seen a single movie before...and debateably since). I remember seeing all of the little girls dressed up as Rey, or as Kylo Ren, or in stormtrooper armor.

And saw so little of it for the TROS. Our experiences differed greatly. I asked friends, family, co-workers, and random strangers I met what they thought of the movie when they saw it, and barely a single person admitted to loving it. No one said "these films flowed together so well." But that wasn't the point of the video, nor of my statement. The point was that the PT had a cohesive vision that gave them a special touch, be it for better or for worse.

You love the film, and I'm happy for you for that. I just can't in good conscience call this film a good story in relation to its place a sequel, a finale, the final film in a trilogy, or the final film in a trilogy of trilogies. (And that's fine, there are things I like that I wouldn't even call good. My favorite Superman comic is Superman: Godfall, and it's terrible!). Is it a good film? Maybe, but not a good nor coherent story as a whole.

I eagerly await the day when we can agree on other Star Wars stuff again, outside of TROS and the ST (which, mind you, I DO enjoy for the most part).

 

The rest, we already covered well our differences, and I think we're both pretty cool with that.

Here's the thing. My issue with this criticism isn't anything to do with how the quality of the film is viewed. It's that it implicitly asserts that the film is not good in part because of bad production development planning.

I disagree with this criticism because it makes it seem as though good films can't be made with bad production development planning.

If someone thinks TROS is bad, then its production planning is not a good point to rest its faults upon because poor production quality is no excuse for the resulting entertainment quality.

There are plenty of films, but by far the easiest example is Die Hard.
Die Hard is easily the most screwed up, poorly planned, made up on-the-spot film nearly ever made to hit a major box office from a major production studio.

They shot chronologically because the script pages literally did not exist one to three days before each shooting. They shot in their production studio's new skyscraper that was being built and had to use whatever section they could get into when they could.
The fights and obstacles were picked by the writer because they were things that were present in the building.
And so much more. The making of is worth watching.

And this mess created a cultural icon of society that's right up there with Jaws and Alien.
I can write, "Yippee-ki-yay ..." and everyone reading will have thought the rest of that phrase.
As to filmmaking...action writers refer to Die Hard as a 'before and after' mark in the industry. It was to action films as Star Wars was to spectacle science fiction. It broke almost every rule and made a new era of action.

That...is a film made with as close to zero production design planning as is possible.
...And it still became a huge success in being seen as good entertainment.

So pointing to a film and saying that it's bad, and then criticizing the production planning is absolutely irrelevant and practically offers the film a handicap as an excuse.

The production is irrelevant. If the film sucks, then it sucks. If the choices were crap, then the choices were crap.

Production planning doesn't get to enter into the measure of the entertainment quality.

Cheers,
Jayson

 

...motherfigure

 

Yes, it absolutely does. To claim otherwise is downright absurd. That's like saying your wife cheating on you shouldn't influence your opinion on the time you two spent together.

You only get to decide what can and cannot positively and negatively impact your own viewing experience. People absolutely do tend to be more forgiving when it comes to films that had bad production schedules, and enjoy the end product more as a result. This is because they stop taking a bias one-sided approach and start judging the film in a fairer light. And just as knowing production issues can increase one's enjoyment of a film, it is also allowed to diminish it as well. People have the right to be disappointed in something, knowing a better version could've been made.

For example, people's negative feelings towards the Hobbit trilogy has lessened over the years since Peter Jackson's BTS video came out talking about all the complications and issues he faced writing and filming the trilogy. People have stopped viewing it through the lens of 'being the next LOTR' and started judging it for what it is despite all its setbacks. The general consensus now is that the first two are average films. However, on the opposite side of the fence, some people now view the films even more negatively, knowing what it could've been if PJ had been given proper time and preparation.

 

They aren't bad to me but they're just overall the weakest of the franchise or at least episode 1 and II

 

It's not the JUST the production design, however. The ST was sold on the promise of a coherent story from beginning to end, because that's what trilogies are supposed to be, and everything points to that promise not being fulfilled.

Like JJ can't say "I knew where Kylo's arc was going the whole time," or "I know who Rey's parents are," when he had no power to influence where the movie was going after he finished TFA and clearly what thought he wanted to set up was NOT what Rian Johnson wanted to set up. Kathleen and JJ can't say "we intended to bring back Palpatine this entire time," and then spend an entire movie trying to justify it. If it was the plan all along, the story should have justified it before it even became a problem.

I don't mind changes in production - movies like Iron Man had entire pages missing of the script too and it did fine! Casablanca, usually touted as one of the best - if not the best - movies of all time had dozens of production problems as well. Heck, JJ is notorious for writing parts of his scripts WHILE filming, and I still enjoy Star Trek and LOVE Mission Impossible III and TFA. Lucas himself changed things in the middle of his trilogy, such as cutting down Jar Jar's screentime due to the massive backlash.

Heck, I remember being ecstatic when JJ went on interviews and said he finished TROS's script before they started filming, because maybe Star Wars could have more than one film without a sort of production controversy (and now they do! ...and all of the vitriol (and regardless of how you feel about the movie personally or how deserved it is or the amount there is, there IS vitriol) came after the release...).

But none of those people above tried to hide those actions for those films. They owned up to it and said, "yeah, this is what happened, and we're thankful it paid off."

But not all films are this lucky. The Fantastic Four reboot had dozens of problems behind the scenes that clearly affected the movie, and to say that "the production was irrelevant" is patently untrue. The same is true for the Justice League movie, although that one was far more tragic (and far weirder).

Things in production change the film, sometimes in better ways, other times in worse. They are intrinsically linked.

THIS!! Openness ideally brings compassion, and with that a measured hand and holistic & measured analysis. This is also true for books, comics, and pretty much any other source of entertainment.



When one sells a story such as a trilogy with the promise a beginning, middle, and end, on the promise of coherency and then fails to deliver, you have to wonder. Episode 7 was never going to be a standalone like Die Hard or Casablanca; they had already chosen directors for the entire ST (along with release dates) before the first one started filming. Are you telling me it would have been too much of an effort for them to sit down either in person or on a conference call and see where they all wanted the story to go and plan it out from there?

But since we're seemingly not going to agree on anything, can we agree to disagree and call it a day? I feel like we're pretty close to pulling this whole thread off-topic...assuming we haven't already...

 

@GingerByte @Use the Falchion

Forgive me here, but I feel like you two are missing the point here.
The point isn't whether you can complain about the production.

It's that a production isn't an excuse when countless films have horendous productions and still made films that were great films.
If I hated TROS, I wouldn't be found pointing to the production as criticism, because pointing to the production gives the film an excuse to suck, and my entire point is that a bad production doesn't give an excuse to a film to suck.

If you don't like how a film went, don't give it an excuse by blaming the production, because...again...scores of films didn't need that excuse.

Cheers,
Jayson

 

I'm...not going to address this, not because I don't have something to say, but because this isn't the thread for it. Peace.

--- Double Post Merged, Apr 20, 2020, Original Post Date: Apr 20, 2020 ---

Great opinion! Heck, even in the weakest movies, the PT carries with it some of the best soundtracks in all of Star Wars!

 

Which singular person was in charge of presenting a love triangle that, turns out, included two siblings? Which singular person was in charge of giving Leia memories of a mother who died giving birth to her? Which singular person was in charge of Anakin, the “great pilot”, being a pint-sized drag racer. Let’s be fair here. Even with one guy calling all the shots, a story can veer where it’s want to veer.

I get your point though, I’ve been beating that drum since 2014. Their aim at the onset was to make a trilogy - a three part contiguous story. In essence, one six hour movie.

When you make a movie, you don’t just work on the first act - write, film, edit, post-production - and then leave the rest for later. You work it all out on paper from start to finish FIRST, THEN enter pre-production (if you can).

That’s not to say it couldn’t work that way, but like steering your car with you knees, I’m not sure why you’d choose to make it more difficult for yourself when you don’t have to. The result will probably be more disjointed than necessary. Splitting your focus with ‘spin-off’ movies also seems more overcomplicated than needed to me (but that’s another topic).

That being said, I’m not sure why it matters whether there was a ‘divine plan’ for this tryptic. If it was ‘intelligent design’ over ‘evolution’, there’s no guarantee it would have been any more successful with the dissatisfied portion of the audience. That “one singular person” could have been tens times worse. There’s no way to know.

In my mind, the ST got off on the wrong foot by aping the circumstances of the OT. It starts and ends there, I feel. I don’t see how granting JJ oversight for the whole lot fixes that. But that’s me.

 

No doubt that the OT and eventually the PT are riddled with some plot holes that look like 'Lucas was making this all up as he goes.' What I'm talking about is the big story arc for the PT and ST, and how they work as one big story with the OT.

When I watch the 1-6, I see what Lucas was trying to accomplish from a big picture perspective. He was essentially telling 2 stories: The Macro Story of how a Republic can fall to a dictator through Palpatine's arc, and the micro story on how a hero can become a villain, and be redeemed by his son. That's a damn cool story if you think about where Lucas started in 1977. My problem with the ST is there is no macro story at all, and the micro story is a rehashing of a Skywalker redemption arc.

Again, I can live with the little inconsistencies in the PT, OT, and ST as it's going to happen since these movies are not taken from novels like Harry Potter or Lord of the Rings. I don't get mad at Padme dying in childbirth, even though it contradicts Leia's memories. I don't get mad that Rey was a perceived somebody in TFA, a perceived nobody in TLJ and eventually a somebody in TROS. I watched the ST and I just felt there was no big story arc in there that justified it being called 7,8,9, as it felt like more of a Trilogy to please the OT fans like me. And I say that from someone who enjoys the movies as I think 7,8,9 are very well done. The PT has it's hiccups (which we have all discussed for 20 years, LOL), but there is a big picture story in there that is relevant and justifies itself to be called 1,2,3. That story isn't for anyone and I have no problem if you choose to ignore 1,2,3. But you can't deny that Lucas tried to tell a new story in a different way than the OT that marries everything together. You can hate the PT, but atleast appreciate what Lucas was trying to accomplish, that's all I'm saying.

 

I'd say from conversations, it's more that the macro stories others see in the ST, you're not sympathetic with accepting.

Cheers,
Jayson

 

It’s woefully underdeveloped, but there is a macro story there, and it does relate directly to its micro counterpart. The premise of the ST is that a war weary galaxy, so desperate for peace, is willing to tolerate the expanse of extreme intolerance in a vain attempt to maintain the status quo. As a persona, the galaxy is crippled by its past trauma and incapable of making progress toward its own betterment.

That’s the basic principle behind the story’s three main figures as introduced. Rey is arrested by her family’s abandonment and content to toil away in the desert, awaiting their return, instead of realizing her full potential. Finn is conditioned by the First Order to unwaveringly fear their dominance to the point of negating his natural inclinations for compassion and charity. Kylo Ren is so wrathfully obsessed with his own inadequacies in regard to legacy, that he’s willing to allow it as a yoke to be pulled around his neck.

Fast forward to the final act and what we have at the macro level is a similar circumstance to the OT, but with a distinctive resolution. Again, it’s a rebellion battling an empire over the fate of the galaxy. But this time the conflict is instead determined by the galaxy itself (or the people of it rather). In a similar fashion, the conflict being waged between Jedi and Sith over the fate of the Force (more or less) is instead determined by the Force itself (or the people of it rather).

The people, who represent the galaxy, count themselves as part of this new rebellion and add their strength to defeat this revived empire. The Jedi that came before, who exist now only as extensions of the Force, count themselves as part of Rey and add their strength to defeat a revived Emperor. In a literalizing of the mantra we’re all routinely familiar, the Force is actually WITH her.

I totally agree the ST really falls down in clearly defining what the state of this broader world is and how it parallels the immediacy of our characters’ development. But their was an intent there. There was an attempt to build that support. It just got lost along the way and it's up to us to dig for it after the fact . . . or not . . . either way

 

Here I go speaking blasphemy, but the OT's political plot was about as developed.
We don't spend really any time with it, and what we get is bits and pieces of sound bites referring to things off screen more than on.

The whole bit with the generals at the table in ANH was about as good as it got, and that was a rush of exposition.

The ST pretty much did the same. We were informed of the political story. It's no PT about it, but...honestly...thank god.

Cheers,
Jayson

 

I definitely don’t see it that way. I feel the heavy lifting for the OT’s landscape was handled so expertly in ANH that it serves as the framework for the rest of the trilogy. Its subsequent episodes don’t have to do much beyond reinforce, because that groundwork was already thoroughly laid.

Everything about the plot of ANH is in service to the political/societal state of affairs of this far away galaxy. From the opening crawl to the medal ceremony, the crux of that story is all about the menace of the Deathstar, what its existence represents to each opposing side, and what its destruction would symbolize for them.

Through that lens, we’re educated about the totalitarian ethos of the absolutist Empire, and the desperation of this insurgent Rebellion to regain liberty while merely surviving. A great deal of care was put into clearly defining the stakes of this ‘civil war’ and is at the heart of the real world allegory Lucas was attempting to portray.

Absolutely not. The core of THAT story is all about locating Luke Skywalker. That's the focal point. That's what incites all the incident. Luke will aide the Resistance . . . somehow. The Resistance is supported by the New Republic . . . somehow. The New Republic has an uneasy coexistence with the First Order . . . somehow. The First Order rose from the ashes of the Empire . . . somehow.

The First Order’s only actual stated goal in the story is - not to conquer the galaxy, not to reclaim what was once theirs - but to destroy Luke Skywalker specifically. In fact, THEIR planet killing super weapon (which just shows up unceremoniously in the second act) is only employed to annihilate the New Republic in order to cripple this meager Resistance and prevent them from reaching . . . one guy. So that one guy doesn't 'maybe' restart the Jedi Order. Which would be bad for the bad guys . . . somehow.

Beyond that, this ‘New Republic’, whatever the hell it even is, doesn’t actually factor into the narrative. Removing it from the story would barely have any adverse effect. “Without the Republic fleet, we're doomed.” Really? Why? Seems you’ve been doing OK without it thus far. "The First Order, their shadow is spreading across the galaxy." Oh yeah? Doesn’t seem like THEY gave much of a d@mn about this Republic and their super terrific fleet we never see.

Again, there really was a societal message at the onset. It was about the self-destructive nature of non-involvement - turning a blind eye and minimizing the true peril of a growing threat. It was relevant to history, to the climate of the time, and to the existing themes of the franchise. It was, however, functionally omitted from the final product and, in my opinion, diminishes the ST as a whole.

Oh, wow, you managed to bring it back to the actual topic. Um . . . let's see here . . . uh, Ben Quadinaros - what's up with that guy, amiright?

Sorry for going so far off topic, @ . . . well, everybody

 

I don't know.
To me, ANH, politically, was always a handful of bits about crap we know next to nothing about.
That's how it will always seem to me.
I mean...I could go on about "somehow" with ANH pretty easily, but I'm alright with a difference of view.

Point was, it's a skeleton to hang the meat on, unlike the PT which struts up and down plotical avenue in its Sunday finest. It's a breath away from being Star Wars: The West Wing.

Cheers,
Jayson

 

This is now the Disney+ show I want more than anything

 

I have respectfully disagree. I think people overstate the politics in the PT as it's alot less screentime than your analogy. The Senate and Political scenes do not dominate the PT movies, as this isn't like the movie 'Lincoln.' LOL They are in there just enough to give the viewer a few things: The corruption in the Senate, the arrogrance of the Jedi Council, and the behind the scenes plan by Palpatine. They are all relevant in the 3 movies and sets up everything in the OT, so they can be more character driven and less politics.

The ST needed more politics like the PT simply because it was restarting the galaxy after 30 years, so we had to know what was going on and where we are at. Plus, the PT/OT already told this grand story, so the ST sort of went backwards instead of forwards in that respect. Star Wars in 1977 started off as a simple good vs evil adventure. ESB and ROTJ than took the Trilogy to a much deeper place as it was really about a father/son redemption. The PT then took that story and expanded to flesh out the galaxy and gave you a backround as to why the galaxy was at war and how The Emperor came to power with Vader/Empire. The ST never expanded that storytelling as it went back to the 1977 fun adventure with hints of a bigger story that we just never got. TLJ hinted at things like 'good guys, bad guys, it's all a machine,' angle, and balance of the force, but that was never developed in TROS to give anything an interesting arc. I think the 'good guys, bad guys' could have been a cool macro story for the Trilogy.

I'll be honest, you take away the politics of the PT, and the Trilogy doesn't work for me. I am lukewarm on the Anakin story, but LOVE the Palpatine arc so that story interests me everytime in pop in 1,2,3. If the ST made a compelling macro/political story with Snoke and the First Order, than I probably would have gravitated to the Trilogy the same way. The ST just ended up being a story of Rey/Kylo, two characters I really liked, but the story arc just doesn't hold up after multiple viewing because it's essentially the same story as the OT.

 

It was hyperbole for making an amusing point of comparison between the OT and PT.

Cheers,
Jayson

 

I used to hear ‘The PT is like watching CSPAN in a GFFA’ all the time during that era, so it’s really not a hyperbole by a segment of the fanbase.

 

Well...I mean...they do walk and talk, stand and talk, and sit and talk quite a bit.

Cheers,
Jayson