Star Wars: The Complete Saga (1977-2005)

[MechaGodzilla]

I'm having a Star Wars marathon, watching all seven films in chronological order. This time around I've decided to just relax and take the movies for what they are instead of pointlessly fretting over how this and that could have been different and all that.

Yesterday I saw Attack of the Clones, and while I've never outright disliked the film I was surprised by just how much I enjoyed it this time around, I really got into it. Yes, some very corny and awkward dialogue and delivery of said dialogue in Anakin and Padmé's scenes together, but even that I could mostly accept. I think I understood what Lucas was going for, having them speak in "poetry" more than natural conversation.

Where it really shines though is as an action/adventure film, which is what Star Wars is really about when it comes down to it. Obi-Wan's little detective subplot is great fun, there are some brilliant action set pieces like Obi-Wan vs. Jango on Kamino, the asteroid field chase, the final battle and even the droid factory shenanigans. The latter really reminded me of Peter Jackson's more indulgent moments (the dinosaur stampede in King Kong and the barrel and chariot sequences in the second and third Hobbit films come to mind) and I just enjoyed it for the silly roller coaster ride it is.

The overall film, for whatever faults it has, just feels so much more "alive" than The Phantom Menace to me. TPM does have some great action (mostly thinking of the pod race and final duel), but for the most part the pacing feels so mechanical and the actors almost seem bored a lot of the time. In AOTC it's like Lucas wakes up and is really getting into this directing thing.

Originally Posted by octagon

I agree that at the end of the day there should be a coherent narrative without too many glaring gaps but I hope they resist the urge to cross every T and dot every I. I really liked the Sifo Diyas storyline in AotC and one of the things I liked most about it was that that thread was more or less left hanging.

I share Geoff's appreciation for how Clone Wars filled in some of the gaps, but I do agree the Sifo-Dyas storyline actually works very well as it is in the film. We're given these bits and pieces: Kamino has been erased from the Jedi archives, the clone army was secretly commissioned by this guy Sifo-Dyas who was killed over ten years ago, Count Dooku also left the Jedi order ten years ago, Jango says he was hired by a man called Tyranus which we later find out is Dooku's Sith title, Dooku's last (well, intended) words to Mace Windu are that he's "worthy of recognition in the Jedi archives".

It's easy enough to connect the dots and figure out what's going on here, even if we don't know every detail. I actually appreciate that Lucas encouraged us to do some thinking.

[Geoff D]

Uh, the Sifo Dyas thing is one of the reasons why I hate that first half of Clones, it's Lucas pulling a crucial plotline out of his ass at the last minute (because it was originally intended to be someone called Sido Dyas a.k.a. Sidious who ordered the Clone Army) and he just left it hanging there until Clone Wars S6 FINALLY came up with some crucial answers. I'm all for a bit of mystery in a film's storytelling - bear in mind I'm the sole loon who prefers the theatrical cut of BvS because it doesn't hold my hand every step of the way - but taking something as huge as who ordered the Clone Army and just throwing it away like that was utterly moronic IMO. Let me reiterate: I don't need or want every little thing spelled out, but for something as big as that I thought Lucas dropped the ball big time. IIRC he actually said that the Sifo Dyas thing would be resolved in Ep III! But then when that came out he said "Jango said that Dooku hired him, the bad guys did it, The End". Pfffft.

But then Lucas had written himself into a corner as he so often did on the prequels: once it was no longer Palpatine in disguise who ordered the Clones - which was a fairly straightforward plot line as he fiddled the Republic's books to cover the cost - then it become this actual Jedi who we'd never heard of who conveniently died. If only Lucas had, y'know, thought further ahead than one movie at a time he could've seeded it in TPM, both Sifo Dyas and Dooku could've been referenced.

[MechaGodzilla]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Uh, the Sifo Dyas thing is one of the reasons why I hate that first half of Clones, it's Lucas pulling a crucial plotline out of his ass at the last minute (because it was originally intended to be someone called Sido Dyas a.k.a. Sidious who ordered the Clone Army) and he just left it hanging there until Clone Wars S6 FINALLY came up with some crucial answers. I'm all for a bit of mystery in a film's storytelling - bear in mind I'm the sole loon who prefers the theatrical cut of BvS because it doesn't hold my hand every step of the way - but taking something as huge as who ordered the Clone Army and just throwing it away like that was utterly moronic IMO. Let me reiterate: I don't need or want every little thing spelled out, but for something as big as that I thought Lucas dropped the ball big time. IIRC he actually said that the Sifo Dyas thing would be resolved in Ep III! But then when that came out he said "Jango said that Dooku hired him, the bad guys did it, The End". Pfffft.

But then Lucas had written himself into a corner as he so often did on the prequels: once it was no longer Palpatine in disguise who ordered the Clones - which was a fairly straightforward plot line as he fiddled the Republic's books to cover the cost - then it become this actual Jedi who we'd never heard of who conveniently died. If only Lucas had, y'know, thought further ahead than one movie at a time he could've seeded it in TPM, both Sifo Dyas and Dooku could've been referenced.

Sorry but I have to agree with Lucas on this one. Again, if AOTC had remained the final canon word on who ordered the clone army I could have lived with that. We know this mysterious Sifo-Dyas who supposedly ordered the clone army died ten years ago, around the same time Dooku left the Jedi order (hell of a coincidence) and the clone army is ready for use at just the right moment for Palpatine to benefit from it. We can infer from this that the Sith were pulling the strings, and I honestly think that's good enough. But now we did get some elaboration on that plot point in Clone Wars anyway, so yay.

I totally agree with you that Lucas could have done a much better job of planning ahead though, and that's always been my main problem with the PT. Characters like Sifo-Dyas and Dooku could have been established in TPM and Grievous could have been established in AOTC, instead of all them coming out of nowhere in the second and third films while, at the same time, we're told they're very significant and have a connection to the events and characters we've been following in the preceding films.

They were making it up as they went along with the OT too, but I think the major difference is that they expanded on characters that were already introduced or at the very least name-dropped. We heard about the Emperor in ANH, so when we first saw him in TESB and were then introduced to him proper in ROTJ it wasn't as jarring. Same with how Jabba was built up over the first two movies so there was a payoff to seeing him in the third. Likewise the "family twists" in Empire and Jedi were "reveals" about characters we already knew. It all came together in a way that felt more natural, and if I have one regret with the PT it's that Lucas didn't take the time to map it all out in advance.

[Geoff D]

Yep, it's not that the OT didn't do that, like introducing Han's old buddy Lando or Boba Fett in Empire for example, but as you say: the key difference is that Lando and Boba didn't have some intrinsic value to the over-arching mythos, whereas pulling Dooku and Sifo Dyas and Grievous out of the ether felt so weird because they were supposed to have been there all along...but the truth of the matter is that they simply didn't exist until Lucas wrote the scripts for those particular movies. [edit] Wait, that line is a pedant's gift: I know that no movie exists until someone writes it, but you'd think that with almost 20 years of time to think upon the prequels Lucas could've come up with a proper structure to the whole trilogy instead of winging it like he so clearly did.

It worked in the OT because the narratives were basically about Luke and his lineage, but there are so many plates spinning in the PT that you can't throw major new characters in like that and expect them to just work. And Sith isn't even showing Grievous at his most badass, he's amazing in the Clone Wars (Tartakovsky) S2 finale, but even then it's not like we got any info on who he is (or rather, was) because they'd already tried and ditched one kind of 'uber droid' character in the form of Durge in S1 of the Tartakovsky show!

[MechaGodzilla]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Yep, it's not that the OT didn't do that, like introducing Han's old buddy Lando or Boba Fett in Empire for example, but as you say: the key difference is that Lando and Boba didn't have some intrinsic value to the over-arching mythos, whereas pulling Dooku and Sifo Dyas and Grievous out of the ether felt so weird because they were supposed to have been there all along...but the truth of the matter is that they simply didn't exist until Lucas wrote the scripts for those particular movies. [edit] Wait, that line is a pedant's gift: I know that no movie exists until someone writes it, but you'd think that with almost 20 years of time to think upon the prequels Lucas could've come up with a proper structure to the whole trilogy instead of winging it like he so clearly did.

It worked in the OT because the narratives were basically about Luke and his lineage, but there are so many plates spinning in the PT that you can't throw major new characters in like that and expect them to just work. And Sith isn't even showing Grievous at his most badass, he's amazing in the Clone Wars (Tartakovsky) S2 finale, but even then it's not like we got any info on who he is (or rather, was) because they'd already tried and ditched one kind of 'uber droid' character in the form of Durge in S1 of the Tartakovsky show!

Clone Wars is just another example of how sudden and, er, unplanned General Grievous' entrance to the saga was. Lucas allowed Tartakovsky and crew to introduce Grievous in their series, but as he hadn't yet decided what the character should be like they were left to just make something up. Then the movie comes out and it's a completely different character, which felt like it kinda rendered his introduction in the show meaningless and left many fans (a teenage me included!) disappointed that this badass Jedi killing machine from the cartoon was suddenly a coughing coward.

I was also left with the feeling that he was kind of inconsequential to the narrative; he mostly runs away and then they get rid of him halfway through once it's time for Palpatine to reveal himself as the puppet master. I've said it before but I think Grievous should just have been another character, like either give his role to Dooku to squeeze a bit more screen time out of Christopher Lee, or why not make him a returning Maul in cyborg form (which eventually happened anyway) to add another layer to Obi-Wan's pursuit and eventual defeat of him.

[motorheadache95]

Originally Posted by MechaGodzilla

Where it really shines though is as an action/adventure film, which is what Star Wars is really about when it comes down to it. Obi-Wan's little detective subplot is great fun, there are some brilliant action set pieces like Obi-Wan vs. Jango on Kamino, the asteroid field chase, the final battle and even the droid factory shenanigans. The latter really reminded me of Peter Jackson's more indulgent moments (the dinosaur stampede in King Kong and the barrel and chariot sequences in the second and third Hobbit films come to mind) and I just enjoyed it for the silly roller coaster ride it is.

The overall film, for whatever faults it has, just feels so much more "alive" than The Phantom Menace to me. TPM does have some great action (mostly thinking of the pod race and final duel), but for the most part the pacing feels so mechanical and the actors almost seem bored a lot of the time. In AOTC it's like Lucas wakes up and is really getting into this directing thing.

.

I don't think I've ever seen such a case of we're watching the same movie but we're watching completely different movies at the same time!

I really hate Attack of the Clones for the most part. I hated the Obi Wan detective stuff. I didn't think any of it was interesting at all-- from going to a cheezy 50's American Graffitti diner, to Yoda and the little kids, to the archive room, to Kamino, to looking at the clones, to going to Geonosis.... It's all so BORING to me.

I did like Obi-Wan and Jango's fight scene, and I kind of enjoy the Geonosis battle on a kind of chaotic, noisy level, but ugh... that droid factory scene is awful. It was a last minute add-in and it should have been left out.

And I hated how characters would talk about people that you don't know anything about. Not just Sifo-Dyas, but even Dooku, who finally shows up towards the end of the movie, after the beginning of the film with people going: "I think Dooku is behind it!" and "Oh, no, he was a Jedi, he wouldn't do that!"

I actually like The Phantom Menace more. As awful as that film is, it still kind of has some heart to it, even if the plot is boring and non-sensical and the characters are irritating. For me, Attack of the Clones was just a completely empty, horribly written dull mess of a movie.

TL, DR-- I didn't care for it much

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by MechaGodzilla

Clone Wars is just another example of how sudden and, er, unplanned General Grievous' entrance to the saga was. Lucas allowed Tartakovsky and crew to introduce Grievous in their series, but as he hadn't yet decided what the character should be like they were left to just make something up. Then the movie comes out and it's a completely different character, which felt like it kinda rendered his introduction in the show meaningless and left many fans (a teenage me included!) disappointed that this badass Jedi killing machine from the cartoon was suddenly a coughing coward.

I was also left with the feeling that he was kind of inconsequential to the narrative; he mostly runs away and then they get rid of him halfway through once it's time for Palpatine to reveal himself as the puppet master. I've said it before but I think Grievous should just have been another character, like either give his role to Dooku to squeeze a bit more screen time out of Christopher Lee, or why not make him a returning Maul in cyborg form (which eventually happened anyway) to add another layer to Obi-Wan's pursuit and eventual defeat of him.

Agreed, if Lucas wanted to ram home his "prequel baddies as components of Vader" theme e.g. Dooku is a fallen Jedi and Grievous is a cyborg, he should've brought Maul back as this mysterious 'droid general'. It would have also tied in nicely with Palps sensing Vader being in mortal danger near the end of Sith, as he'd have done it once already when rescuing Maul on Naboo. Alas, it wasn't to be.

[MechaGodzilla]

Originally Posted by motorheadache95

I don't think I've ever seen such a case of we're watching the same movie but we're watching completely different movies at the same time!

I really hate Attack of the Clones for the most part. I hated the Obi Wan detective stuff. I didn't think any of it was interesting at all-- from going to a cheezy 50's American Graffitti diner, to Yoda and the little kids, to the archive room, to Kamino, to looking at the clones, to going to Geonosis.... It's all so BORING to me.

I did like Obi-Wan and Jango's fight scene, and I kind of enjoy the Geonosis battle on a kind of chaotic, noisy level, but ugh... that droid factory scene is awful. It was a last minute add-in and it should have been left out.

And I hated how characters would talk about people that you don't know anything about. Not just Sifo-Dyas, but even Dooku, who finally shows up towards the end of the movie, after the beginning of the film with people going: "I think Dooku is behind it!" and "Oh, no, he was a Jedi, he wouldn't do that!"

I actually like The Phantom Menace more. As awful as that film is, it still kind of has some heart to it, even if the plot is boring and non-sensical and the characters are irritating. For me, Attack of the Clones was just a completely empty, horribly written dull mess of a movie.

TL, DR-- I didn't care for it much

Well like I said, I even surprised myself. I got really into it, I can't explain what happened.

[happydood]

You're not alone! I'm WELL aware of the many faults and inconsistencies of the prequels, but I'm still amazed at how much hand-made charm resides in half-a-billion dollar movies. They have a voice and LOT of heart, though they're pretty clumsily handled. But I'll take the heart over polish any day. I think Sith is great for this reason.

[StingingVelvet]

I don't rate the prequels highly at all really but my issues with them are all about dialog writing, performance and too much of a digital look. The plot stuff is iffy in places but never really bothered me, and I like the overall idea of a Roman style democracy>empire transition and Palpatine being a master manipulator.

[Markgway]

I watched half of The Phantom Menace and then gave up.

I never bothered with Episodes II and III.

[HeavyHitter]

Originally Posted by StingingVelvet

I don't rate the prequels highly at all really but my issues with them are all about dialog writing, performance and too much of a digital look.

I completely agree with this. I still visit them from time to time just because I am a big Star Wars fan, but there is no denying these flaws as I cannot ignore them.

It's kind of interesting: there's been seven Star Wars movies in the last 39 years and many would say only the first two were really good.

[HeavyHitter]

Originally Posted by JohnCarpenterFan

The Force Awakens killed all optimism I had for upcoming Star Wars sequels. It made me realize that Star Wars has went the way of the MCU. These films are just going to get pimped out by the numbers every year, they're all going to be pretty much the same (derivative, flashy action films) and Disney knows that if they just make them "good enough" then people will be content.

All I care about at this point is the unaltered Original Trilogy and I'm hoping that we'll get it next year for the 40th anniversary. Then I'll have all the Star Wars I'll ever need.

I agree, the gold is with the (hopeful!) unaltered original trilogy restoration. Once I have that, I don't care about much else.

But with that said, let's see what happens with Episode VIII. Disney has done a great job with a number of the Marvel movies, so there is still a new hope.

[balthazar_bee]

Originally Posted by Markgway

I never bothered with Episodes II and III.

Shame, that; I'm always a bit disappointed to see "the prequels" painted with a single shitty brush, given how strong III is on its own merits.

[zafisher94]

Originally Posted by HeavyHitter

It's kind of interesting: there's been seven Star Wars movies in the last 39 years and many would say only the first two were really good.

It depends on what you consider "many". On online communities such as these, yes, they get a lot of hate. However, I've never met anyone in person, particularly in my generation or younger, who feel negatively towards them. In fact, I'm normally the one preaching about their flaws, despite my enjoyment of them.

[HD Goofnut]

Originally Posted by StingingVelvet

I don't rate the prequels highly at all really but my issues with them are all about dialog writing, performance and too much of a digital look. The plot stuff is iffy in places but never really bothered me, and I like the overall idea of a Roman style democracy>empire transition and Palpatine being a master manipulator.

I have always felt exactly the same way. If I want to watch Star Wars on a whim I hardly ever pull the prequels out either.

[Fabs]

Originally Posted by HeavyHitter

I completely agree with this. I still visit them from time to time just because I am a big Star Wars fan, but there is no denying these flaws as I cannot ignore them.

It's kind of interesting: there's been seven Star Wars movies in the last 39 years and many would say only the first two were really good.

I think why Empire and A New Hope are considered by many to be the best, is that all the elements we love about Star Wars are the most perfect in those two.

[motorheadache95]

Originally Posted by zafisher94

It depends on what you consider "many". On online communities such as these, yes, they get a lot of hate. However, I've never met anyone in person, particularly in my generation or younger, who feel negatively towards them. In fact, I'm normally the one preaching about their flaws, despite my enjoyment of them.

It's funny how that works, because I rarely meet people in real life that do like the prequels, and I've only ever seen people write defenses for them on online communities such as these.

Of course, I'm 34 and I don't know too my of you damn millenials-- now go love your prequels and play pokemon go

[kidglov3s]

Originally Posted by motorheadache95

It's funny how that works, because I rarely meet people in real life that do like the prequels, and I've only ever seen people write defenses for them on online communities such as these.

Of course, I'm 34 and I don't know too my of you damn millenials-- now go love your prequels and play pokemon go

Under most scales you are technically a millenial too, ha ha.

courtesy of Wikipedia:

A minority of sources start the generation in the 1970s. A 2014 report from Synchrony Financial describes Millennials as starting as early as 1976,[19][20] and a 2009 report from MetLife defines the generation as being born between 1977 and 1994.[21]

In 2009, Australian McCrindle Research Pty Ltd used 1980–1994 as Generation Y birth dates, starting with a recorded rise in birth rates, and fitting their newer definition of a generational span as 15 years.[22] In 2013, a global generational study conducted by PricewaterhouseCoopers with the University of Southern California and the London Business School defined Millennials as those born between 1980–1995.[23] In May 2013, a Time magazine cover story identified Millennials as those born from 1980 or 1981 to the year 2000.[24] In 2014, Dale Carnegie Training and MSW Research described Millennial birth years as being between 1980–1996.[25] Gallup Inc., an American research-based global performance-management consulting company, uses 1980-1996 as birth years for this cohort.[26][27][28]

Pew Research Center defines millennials as being born from 1981 onwards.[29][30] Each year, for now, new 18 year olds are added into the millennial generation.[31]

Authors Strauss and Howe use 1982 as the Millennials' starting birth year and 2004 as the last birth year,[1] but Howe described the dividing line between Millennials and the following Generation Z as "tentative" saying, "you can’t be sure where history will someday draw a cohort dividing line until a generation fully comes of age."[32]

In his 2008 book The Lucky Few: Between the Greatest Generation and the Baby Boom, author Elwood Carlson defined this cohort as born between 1983–2001 based on the upswing in births after 1983 and finishing with the "political and social challenges" that occurred after the terrorist acts of 11 September 2001.[15] In 2016, U.S Pirg described Millennials as those born between 1983 and 2000.[33][34][35]

So I guess it's time to learn to stop worrying and love Jar Jar.

[HD Goofnut]

Originally Posted by kidglov3s

Under most scales you are technically a millenial too, ha ha.

courtesy of Wikipedia:


So I guess it's time to learn to stop worrying and love Jar Jar.

I was born in 1982 as well, but everything I do is indicative of a Generation X person.