Star Wars: A Series Retrospective
Star Wars: A New Hope -- A
The Empire Strikes Back -- A
Return of the Jedi -- A
The Phantom Menace (Episode I) -- B+
Attack of the Clones (Episode II) -- B+
“Star Wars” is one of those cultural phenomena that define a generation. Born in 1975, I was on the tail end of the initial group of Star Wars fans created by the first trilogy of movies, and like most other kids, I saw the movies many times and, yes, naturally had the action figures growing up as well. In comparison to the more heady (and oversaturated) "Star Trek" series, the appeal of Star Wars stretches across all generations and all cultures—plus, you know, "Star Trek" doesn't have anything nearly as cool as light-sabers. Now, on the eve of the release of Episode III, it’s proper time to discuss the entire series as a whole.
It could be said that the last decade of the “Star Wars Era” hasn’t been quite as nice as the first two. It started with the “Special Editions” released in the mid-nineties where many fans were dismayed over Greedo shooting first and other ‘blasphemous’ changes to their beloved movies, and continued with the prequel trilogy starting in 1999 which has had a ‘mixed’ response to say the least. And, it’s not hard to think that the recently concluded “Lord of the Rings” series has taken some of the air out of the prequel trilogy’s sails. (Certainly, those movies have staked a stronger claim to be this generation’s defining cultural event—one that people will still be watching and discussing decades from now--than the newer “Star Wars” movies have…)
While Marc Antony declared “I have come not to praise Caesar, but to bury him”—I have come not to bury or praise George Lucas, but perhaps a little of both. I am not a prequel hater—they are both passable, B+ quality entertainment that have many weaknesses, yet recognizable strengths at the same time. Before Episode III makes its release and the Star Wars canon is closed (for the time being), let’s discuss the good and the bad of the Star Wars series in general, and the prequels in particular.
One of the beauties of “Star Wars” is that it takes place within a fully realized universe. As did Tolkien with “The Lord of the Rings”, George Lucas has created a vast world in which the Star Wars adventures are set, 99% of which is never used or even mentioned in any of the actual films.
For example, test yourself on the following questions (in increasing order of difficulty)
(1) What are the names of the pint-sized furry creatures featured in “Return of the Jedi”? (Ewoks)
(2) What’s the name of the race of large green pigs acting as guards in Jabba’s palace? (Gamorreans)
(3) What planet are Wookies from? (Kashyyyk)
(4) What’s the name of the lizard bounty hunter standing beside Boba Fett in “Empire Strikes Back”? (Bossk)
Note that not one of the answers above is actually mentioned within any of the original Star Wars movies themselves. Yet even cultural illiterates know the answer to the first
question, and any true Star Wars geek can answer the rest of them without breaking a
sweat...
All the planets, races and people featured in Star Wars have names, and the
movies themselves have a ‘history’—hinted at directly by the somewhat odd “Episode 4”
caption above what seemed to be the
first Star Wars movie. Both Luke and Leia can casually mention “The Clone Wars” in their Episode 4 dialogue the same way someone might mention “World War II” in a non-fantasy movie—without anyone ever explaining
within the movie
what they were. The characters know what the Clone Wars were, of course, even if the audience doesn’t, and
that's all that matters. “The Emperor” from the original trilogy has always had a real name (Palpatine) and a Sith name (Darth Sideous)—which true Star Wars
fans have always known--long before either one of them were mentioned in the newer prequels.
Volumes have been written about the original trilogy, so I won’t try to add anything above what’s already been written, other than a couple of points:
(1) Amidst the complaints about the newer movies, there seems to be a popular misconception that the original three movies were paragons of good acting and dialogue. Re-watch those older movies (again) and really listen objectively, and you’ll find a number of clunkers and bad acting performances as well.
(2) “Return of the Jedi” gets a lot of criticism from a lot of Star Wars fans as being by far the weakest of the original three, although I’m not sure why. The scenes between Luke, Vader, and the Emperor at the end are the best scenes in the entire series, bar none. The closing space battle, and the intro sequence with Jabba the Hut are among the best self-contained action set pieces in the series as well. If there was any of the original three that I would want to watch again at any given time it would be this one. Those people must
really hate Ewoks…
I’ve remarked before that the Star Wars prequels have the greatest number of haters who still went to watch them three or four times in the theater than any other movie in history. As mentioned, I’m not a prequel hater, and I’m not convinced the massive vitriol thrown towards the prequels isn’t more due to (1) the pre-release hype surrounding them, to which even Lucas himself remarked was out of control, and (2) a somewhat ‘rose-colored’ view of the original trilogy due to watching them when everyone was younger. It was not likely that anyone was going to have the same experience at 27 that you did when you were 7, and thus were set up for disappointment no matter what happened in Episodes I
and II.
In May of 1999,
I didn’t camp out in line for Episode I tickets. I saw it, went back to work afterwards, and,
in short, went on with my life. In other words, I treat Star Wars as a movie, not a religion—and as a movie it was decent, but nothing more. I wasn’t disappointed,
if only because I had no particular expectations to begin with…
Having said that, though, I am a Star Wars fan, and a movie fan in general, and upon analysis, there
are significant weaknesses which make the prequels much less solid than the original trilogy. Even though I’m not one of those who puts “Jedi” for my religion on census forms, I can still analyze the areas that are lacking, as well as make note of what
did work. Let's discuss the strengths and weaknesses as I see them:
Strengths:
Artistic Vision
LucasArts is always on the cutting edge of digital graphics, and the worlds and life forms depicted in Star Wars reflect their skill. You could spend movie after movie just in Coruscant alone, not to mention all the other interesting planets featured (however briefly) in the series.
The alien design throughout the series is creative and original as well. Compared to “Star Trek” where alien races tend to be just “humans with funny things on their foreheads”, Star Wars aliens have a certain…‘alienness’ about them. While it’s hard to beat my personal favorite--the hammerhead shark thing in the Episode 4 cantina--the design of creatures such as Yoda, Jabba, and the cloners of Camino come close. Even those despised Gungans are triumphs in art design...
Palpatine and the Fall of the Republic
This is the biggest strength of the prequels and the sole reason that I give them a B+ versus something lower. The ability for one man to use a democratic system of government and slowly gain power until he becomes a dictator is fascinating stuff. A while back I suggested to a friend that a great research paper to write for school would be to compare and contrast the fall of the Republic and rise of the Empire in Star Wars with the fall of the Roman Republic and rise of the Roman Empire in 1st century B.C. (I was being completely serious--someone should really do this…)
In the Republic of Rome (and I’ll try not to turn this into a big history lesson) the government was run by a Senate, and two consuls—“co-presidents”, essentially--who served one year terms and couldn’t serve again until ten years had passed. There were numerous checks and balances for the purpose of limiting the power of each area of government…yet there were exceptions. When large masses of Germanic barbarians from the north invaded the territory of Rome in 104 BC, the Senate allowed the great Roman general Gaius Marius to break the rules of government and become consul five years in a row specifically so he would have full authority to deal with the menace. Later, after a brutal civil war between Marius and his former associate Lucius Cornelius Sulla, Sulla was appointed Dictator for an indefinite period of time while he put Rome back together. (He eventually served for three years before retiring) After another civil war between Julius Caesar and Pompeii, Caesar was also given Dictator status, later amended to “Dictator For Life”, and became a de facto Emperor over what had once been a completely democratic republic. After Caesar’s death (and yet another civil war), his grand-nephew Caesar Octavius (later Augustus) became the first true emperor of the Roman Empire and the Republic was officially dead…although the seeds of the fall of the Republic had been sown much earlier through Marius, Sulla, and Caesar.
The logic in giving great power to one individual in extreme cases is that one man making the decisions can get things done a lot faster than a ‘checks-and-balances’ government, which is frequently inefficient and unwieldy. Palpatine quite brilliantly works his way up the ladder without attracting attention, and--recognizing that the Republic will only break the rules of government for a real crisis similar to the invasion of the German tribes—he arranges for a ‘crisis’ (the Separatists, whom he controls) in order to provide the incentive for the government to give him more authority. With the excuse of putting down the Separatists, and the new clone army at his disposal (which the Republic handed to him), he has essentially made himself Dictator…all with the full support of everyone else in the Republic.
Palpatine is the second-most compelling character in the Star Wars universe, and, in fact, Anakin’s underdevelopment (see below) makes him the most interesting character by default. The scene in Episode I, where Palpatine is convincing Queen Amidala to present a vote of 'no confidence' in the current Chancellor is very carefully framed with Palpatine speaking over Amidala’s shoulder just like those cartoons where the tiny devil appears on your shoulder whispering temptations into your ear (“Do it! You know you want to…”) Palpatine’s rise to power is something the prequel series does very right.
Action Scenes
It’s hard to screw up a light-saber battle…and neither
Episode I nor II does. (In fact, the only sub-par light-saber duel in the series is in Episode 4 between Darth Vader and Obi-Wan where, because
of the fragility of the props they were using, they couldn’t swing them very
hard) The other action scenes involving blasters, spaceships and the like are
also well-designed and well-executed...
Problems:
Action Scenes:
...however, they are not perfect. What the action scenes in Episodes I and II possess in technical prowess, they lack in any kind of emotional context. Darth Maul versus the two Jedi we can understand, but do we really
care when the Gungans are fighting the Trade Federation robots? Or why the Naboo fighters need to knock out the droid command ship? Or when the clones are fighting
the Separatists on Geonosis? (Compare that to the battle against the Death
Star, where there was really something significant at stake...) Many of the prequel action scenes lack a compelling subtext—a reason to care who wins, above and beyond who represents the ‘good’ side and the ‘bad’.
Dialogue and Acting
I’m not a great writer, but even I could have written better dialogue for Episodes I and II. The second time I saw each of them in the theater, I was actively
rewriting the dialogue in my head as I watched each scene—and I like my version better. Maybe one day I’ll actually sit down and type up my “Director’s Cut” of the first two prequels just for comparison—but the point is…the dialogue distracted from rather than added to the movie experience.
The acting is also mediocre, although I don’t believe it is necessarily the actors’ fault. There really isn’t much you can do with the dialogue as written, and since Lucas has never been an
"actor’s director", you know they didn’t have a lot of guidance during shooting. (If you want proof that the actors really can act, see Hayden Christensen in “Shattered Glass”, Ewan McGregor in “Moulin Rouge” or “Big Fish” and Natalie Portman in “Every Single Other Movie She’s Ever Been In”)
Some performances such as Qui-Gon, Anakin’s mom, and Palpatine in particular do rise to the occasion, and can be considered ‘above-average’ at least. (Don’t get me started on either 8-year-old Anakin, or Jar-Jar…)
No Han Solo
Not that the prequel series needed Han Solo, the character—just someone like him. Someone who’s a little more laid back, a little cocky too—someone who gets himself into trouble all the time, but finds a way to get himself
back out of it...with a smile! All the characters in the prequel trilogy seem so
solemn—we need at least one person who doesn't take himself so seriously,
who's somewhat of a 'scoundrel', but loveable at the same time. Where are
the characters you'd actually want to hang out with?
Plot Contrivances
Lucas went a little overboard in the prequels (1) tying things directly into the later Episodes, and (2) explaining things that did not need to be explained. For (1) these would include minor things like having Greedo
be one of Anakin’s friends, and Chewbacca being in Episode III at all. The
universe is extremely huge, and there’s no reason to think the same people
would be running into each other time after time throughout all the movies.
Probably the worst example of (1) is having C3P0 be Anakin’s creation. That’s a
little too much coincidence to swallow—and there’s no purpose for it,
either. Sure, you want to introduce Threepio and Artoo to the series, but why do they need ‘origins’ at all? Why not have them
already running around together from the very beginning of Episode I, like they’ve been together for years (or decades) without ever having to explain how they met or who created them? They just
are…and continue being throughout all six movies and beyond.
The idea of ‘midichlorians’ behind the Force is an idea Lucas should have rethought a time or two. One, the information is meaningless—we don’t need to know anything about how the Force really works to understand it’s role in the Star Wars series. That’s like coming up with a detailed physiological explanation of how the X-Men’s Cyclops can throw energy out of his eyes. Not necessary…
Two, having a scientific explanation contradicts some of the ideas from the original trilogy, that the Force requiring ‘faith’ of a sort. How could both Han and the Imperial leader who questioned Vader on the Death Star ever express doubt in the ‘religion’ of the Force if there is a scientifically quantifiable explanation for it?
Anakin’s ‘Virgin Birth’ and the whole idea of ancient prophecy about a Chosen One opens up even more questions that I don’t think the series is prepared to answer. Had Lucas been willing to go all the way and show Anakin as a ‘Christ-figure’ of sorts that would be one thing, but there’s nothing in the end of Episode I or the whole of Episode II that shows Anakin as being particularly ‘special’ in terms of galactic significance. Sure, he plays a part in defeating the Jedi and creating the Empire, but even that’s mostly due to Palpatine’s
efforts. Does defeating the Emperor at the very end of the series bring 'balance to the
Force' as prophesied? What does that mean, exactly?
I see Anakin as just a man who has a good heart and
much talent in the Force, but who falls prey to pride and temptation. In my opinion, the series would have been better if it didn’t treat his existence as something of great and eternal importance, above
all the other characters, when the movie doesn’t really follow through on it. Is there really anything Anakin does in either prequel that shows he has higher
Force abilities than any of the other Jedis? (We’ll see what Episode III has to say on the matter…)
Lack of Focus
In a way the prequels were superfluous, since the back history of the Star Wars series was already known among fans. If they
were going to make prequel movies, though, it should be entirely focused on the character of Anakin—who he is, and what happens in his life that leads to the Dark Side.
Wait, you say, isn’t that what Episodes I and II do already? Well, actually no...
The character of Anakin is present, and we see a little bit about where he comes from and the events that happen around him, but the movies aren’t focused enough on his
character, such that we get to know him as a person. Episode I really tells us nothing about Anakin the person, nor (had you not seen Episodes 4-6) would you really have any idea after watching it what was coming in the future. Episode I was kind of a wasted opportunity to really introduce Anakin the character. Episode II was better in the character progression area, yet still not deep enough. Is Anakin really that different from the beginning of Episode II to the end? Focusing more on (1) his goals and desires in life, (2) his relationship with Obi-Wan, (3) the development of his relationship with Padme (with better dialogue, obviously), and (4) the effect of his mother’s death on his psyche. The seeds of all of these elements are present in the movie, but it’s not deep enough—I think some of the other action/plot elements could have been reduced for more character development. (And, yes, I realize that doing this would have made others’ complaints about Episode II even
worse, but that’s just the kind of movie I was looking for.
Character studies are always more compelling to me in my ‘old age’ than action
scenes.)
The other area that deserved more focus is the plight and downfall of the Jedi, and the Republic in general. We see the machinations of Palpatine to gain power but not as much about the societal weaknesses that allowed him to do so in the first place. The Jedi (as remarked on by Yoda in Episode II) aren’t as strong as they used to be. Their minds have been ‘clouded’ such that they don’t recognize a Sith Lord in their presence, and it appears complacency has set in with many of the Jedi Knights such that their ‘in-tuneness’ with the Force is lacking. (A lot of them die in the battle against the robots in Episode II—a complaint of many fans, in fact--but I found this acceptable, and wish it had been expanded upon to show why the supposed greatest warriors in the universe had difficulty with near-mindless droids.) A little bit of additional detail about the current condition of the Jedi
(taking up some of the wasted time in Episode I, for example) would have gone a long way to make their eventual fall more meaningful.
In conclusion, the Star Wars movies (old and new) have strengths and
weaknesses, just like 95% of the other movies out there. The flaws are
undeniable, but I also think the prequels have received some unfair judgments.
Just having "Star Wars" in its title raises expectations, and I'm not convinced
the fans who didn't like the prequels wouldn't have been able to enjoy them on
their own merits if it was a completely new series without any relationship with
the older trilogy. At the very least, initial reports on Episode III have
been positive and it seems the series will be able to go out on a high note and
maybe--maybe--some of the 'haters' will give the prequel trilogy in
general the benefit of the doubt in the end...
Answers to Star Wars questions:
Q: So, does the Star Wars trilogy take place in the past or the future?
A: Most people view the opening tagline (“A long time ago in a galaxy far, far away”) as saying the movies take place before our modern day society, in a distant galaxy. Not necessarily. The tagline could also imply that the Star Wars saga is being retold by some future people recounting the legendary stories and major events in their galactic history. Thus the movies could be taking place in our future, but ‘a long, long time’ before the era of those future storytellers, who are retelling their past…
Q: Are the storm troopers seen in the original trilogy all clones, like the clone army in Episode 2? They look similar...
A: Yes, although this is never mentioned in Eps 4-6. You can surmise it from a few offhand comments:
(a) When Luke enters Leia’s containment cell in Ep.4, she says: “Aren’t you a little short for a storm trooper?” Luke isn’t a remarkably short man by any means—this statement only makes sense if storm troopers are always the same height…
(b) Later when the storm troopers are investigating the Millennium Falcon after being captured by the Death Star, the commanding officer demands, “TK-421, why aren’t you at your post?” Having a ‘serial number’ for a name implies something mass produced, like a clone…
Q:
So, why don’t the storm troopers in Eps 4-6 have the same voice as Jango Fett in Episode 2?
A:
Should they? 20-30 years pass between Episode 2 and the original trilogy… I don’t know the science behind ‘cloning’, but the original batch of clones created for Episode 2 would most likely be too old and useless to be an effective army by then. It seems to me they would most certainly have created a new batch of clones in the interim…and since Jango Fett isn’t available any more, they would have used a new DNA source, hence a different voice. Of course, Lucas apparently doesn’t agree with me, and had the storm troopers’ voices re-looped in the DVD release of the original trilogy with the voice of Jango Fett—an unnecessary edit, in my opinion…
Q:
What does Han Solo mean when he brags the Millennium Falcon made the Kessel Run in “less than 12 parsecs”. Isn’t a ‘parsec’ a unit of distance, not speed?
A:
Well, the (*ahem*) ‘official’ explanation now is that the Kessel Run involves flying close to black holes and only fast ships can fly close enough to them to avoid being sucked in. Thus a fast ship can complete the run in a shorter ‘distance’ by not having to take the long way around each black hole.
In reality, of course, this is just a silly attempt to cover up a mistake in the
original screenplay caused by Lucas undoubtedly forgetting what a ‘parsec’ was…
Q:
So, Anakin created C-3P0 in Episode 1? Don’t you think C-3P0 would think it was funny when he’s bought by
Luke Skywalker in Episode 4, when his creator was an Anakin Skywalker?
A:
As mentioned earlier, this was a silly plot point by Lucas, but not necessarily a mistake. Luke’s uncle mentions having the droids’ ‘memory wiped’ as if this is a fairly simple procedure--like reformatting a hard drive. Clearly, the droids’ memories will have to be wiped in Episode 3 for this to be consistent at all… (If this doesn’t happen in Episode 3, then, yes, this will be one of the biggest continuity problems in the series…)
Q:
I’m confused about Naboo’s system of government...
A:
So am I. Having Padme be Queen of Naboo at the age of 14 is fine—queens are usually based on lineage, and she could have been just the next in line. She’s young, but
happened to possess the birthright, and does the best she could at ruling the world despite her youth.
Then, we learn in Episode II that ‘Queen’ is an elected office. I suppose Lucas figured he couldn’t have Padme still be Queen and
still participate in all the other prequel adventures away from Naboo…but, seriously,
an elected office? That means that a majority of Naboo citizens felt like voting for a candidate who was
14—that she somehow represented
the best available choice for world leader. It makes you wonder
about the people she was running against... (Insert John Kerry joke
here)
Q:
Why doesn’t the Death Star just destroy Yavin at the end of Episode 4, instead of waiting to rotate around it to get to the moon with the rebel base?
A:
Well, destroying a planet instantly is a little unrealistic to begin with (at least as quickly as it does…we’re talking a lot of mass and energy here), but you’d have to imagine it take a LOT of power. Certainly the Death Star wouldn’t be able to just destroy planets like a machine-gun with its energy beam…
If it destroyed Yavin first it would probably have to wait a long while before it had enough power to fire again…
Q:
When Ben says to Vader, “Strike me down and I will become more powerful than you could ever imagine…”, what does he mean? He doesn’t really do anything ‘powerful’ the rest of the series, other than appear in ghost form to Luke…
A:
Um...hmmm...that’s a good question. I don’t know this. Perhaps he can make Luke stronger in the Force by sacrificing himself, but again there’s nothing conclusive that shows that this helped…
Q:
Why doesn’t Qui-Gon disappear when he dies at the end of Episode I, like Yoda and Obi-wan did?
The obvious difference is that Yoda and Obi-wan chose their moment to ‘die’ and become one with the Force. Qui-Gon died in battle (unwillingly), as did many of the other Jedi in Episode 2 without disappearing. I’m sure that’s a big part of it…
This is a missed opportunity, though… Qui-Gon and Obi-Wan had enough difficulty beating Darth Maul together, so what if Qui-Gon sits down to meditate when they were separated by the red fields…and then allows Darth Maul to strike him down without moving? If a Jedi sacrificing himself is such a good thing, Qui-Gon could release his Force energy, and make Obi-Wan stronger—enough to defeat Darth Maul on his own. This would also provide a precursor for Obi-Wan to do the same thing later on the Death Star when he was older to help Luke—and provide more of an explanation for what Obi-Wan’s sacrifice in Episode 4 was supposed to mean…
