HitFix

Grabulous IN ADDITION, I find this article to be an indictment of the kind of Insider-focused reporting that you, Drew, have become addicted to, a habitual taking sides with the industry, the directors, the creators, and against the audience, who you seem to believe should always shut up and turn over their money, (and in this case, their kids) to the "artistic" efforts of people they don't really know. Last time I heard, you, Drew McWeeny, had been banned from Skywalker Ranch for some reason. This article smells suspiciously of being an attempt to worm yourself back into the good graces of Lucas and Lucasfilm so that you can once more geek out as an insider to Lucasfilm approved and controlled set-visits and Lucas asskissing events. Your article practically shouts "LOOK AT ME, I'm ATTACKING those mean people who are attacking you, Lord Lucas! Let me serve you once more!" This bootlicking servile behavior is not a very "adult" behavior, but something a child in a disfunctional family would do to ingratiate himself with an abusive parent "Look, Daddy, the other kids are being bad! I'm the good one though". It's infuriatingly pathetic, and I would have liked to think that you, Drew, had grown intellectually and emotionally, but you are still a stunted "man-child" projecting your issues onto everyone else.

September 7, 2010 at 5:44PM EST Reply to Comment

Grabulous Drew, I think that it's normal for an ADULT to want to share with his/her children the stories that moved them as a child, pass on what the adult found valuable. Lucas has actually prevented this normal adult desire by insisitn on his new versions being the most commonly found versions. I actually find it CHILDISH to turn over one's children to the world of movies and television to "let them decide". That's turning over parenting to others. I think it's particularly CHILDISH for an adult to cling to the image of George Lucas as a benevolent story teller, whose every revision and addition to the "Star Wars" universe must be treasured and forced upon one's children. I'm with those friends of yours who are horrified that you would force your poor children to experience the "context" of the prequels, deferring to Lucas before considering your kids. You as an ADULT should be sifting and picking out the best for your kids, not turning them over to Lucas's cynical marketing strategy of indoctrinating your kids into toy buyers, with rather boring and morally suspect stories. You have the option of filtering for your kids and giving them the cream of Star Wars, (and everything else) instead of insisting they live your Man-Child fantasy of Lucas as Daddy. Real grownups learn to see the flaws in their idols. Man-Children like yourself who never grow up treat their children like toys at the mercy of their whims, whether it's forcing them to appreciate Lucas's "full vision" involving the prequels and the Special Editions, or naming his first born "Toshiro Lucas". (seriously, that was a really childish, selfish, stupid thing of you to do). You are the last person in the world who should be accusing anyone else of being a "man-child". Adults do filter and critique the kinds of stories that are told to their children. If ADULTS don't want to worship at Lucas's feet and turn over their kids minds uncritically (the way you do) they should be applauded for it. And ADULTS critique artists for telling bad stories, not claim "it's up to the kids" to really judge Lucas's lousy latter efforts.

September 7, 2010 at 5:23PM EST Reply to Comment

Mr. Gunderson Finally got around to reading this and I'm glad I did. The only thing I'd say about the RedLetterMedia thing (which I've enjoyed) is that if you haven't spent the last decade reading the criticism of the prequels, it does provide a lot of insight. May be redundant for those who have but I hadn't heard many of those arguments.

Don't want to get into a debate about the originality of his arguments but I found the videos more entertaining because of them.

April 12, 2010 at 1:23PM EST Reply to Comment

Trekscribbler You know, for what it's worth, isn't this the same level of vitriol stirred up as a result of the Browncoats? Isn't this what helped split fandom into diametrically opposed camps, one claiming "good storytelling" vs. "bad storytelling"? There were some of us, at that time, trying to say, "Hey, look, it's great that you're embracing your 'new master' but can't we all just get along?" The end result was "no." I can't even begin to recall the number of chatboards I was chucked from b/c I didn't like SERENITY. Aren't these the same anti-Star Wars folks? I'm not accusing; I'm only asking ... b/c a lot of the rhetoric seems very similar.

Drew isn't any idiot b/c he doesn't embrace what Plinket has done. As I've said, I think Plinket's dissection of TPM was pretty well spot on, BUT I'll ask why it took him X numbers of yrs to put it together. If he's so prescient, then why didn't he put this out immediately after TPM's release? That's b/c not all of these points had been made by others yet, and, yeppers, he gathered these together over years and assembled his own work. And you know what? Like I said, there's absolutely nothing wrong with that. In fact, it's precisely what some good film criticism is. We need the maturity of time to distance ourselves from these events -- to experience new things, to achieve new levels of intelligence and understanding -- in order to look back at a film and, perhaps, bring something new to the table by re-examining the finished product. And, of course, with each passing year, new pieces of history are revealed -- new advances are made with technology -- and it's definitely worth looking at earlier works to see how we got from there to here. How many film student papers are being written each year on CASABLANCA, on CITIZEN KANE, on ALL QUIET ON THE WESTERN FRONT, on even I SPIT ON YOUR GRAVE, with each of them trying to bring something new to the table?

Now therein lies to point ... does the latest trend bringing anything new to the table, or are we just looking at the latest mash-up of arguments, criticisms, complaints, whines, etc., of what's come before?

I'll concede easily that Plinkett's work thrashing AOTC's didn't really bring anything new to the arguments until the last segment or two. Sorry, but that's just the way I saw it. I'll concede that, given the two films as completed projects, his deonstruction of TPM is one of the best collected pieces of perspective out there on the weaknesses of the Prequel Trilogy. I just think that -- much like the whiners' chief argument appears to be "George Lucas made the Prequel Trilogy b/c he wanted to cash in on the original trilogy" -- Plinkett made the second critique to cash in on the popularity of his first, which is far, far superior to his second. How do I know that? Look at how much screen time he gives to his metaphor of 'rape' as compared to his first time around.

It's art imitating art. He's cleverly demonstrating "this is what I feel Lucas has put me thru" so now I'm going to put you, my viewer, thru it, too. Nothing wrong with that. I get the point. But it became so much the central point of the second film that I'm not sure how much time he'll actually dedicate to analyzing REVENGE OF THE SITH instead of showing him hunting the escaped woman back into his custody. Isn't that the natural continuation of that metaphor? Isn't that what George Lucas did to all of your Star Wars haters? He went back out and forced the Prequel Trilogy upon you, despite the free will?

Bashing Star Wars because it doesn't rise to your own expectations is clever for only so long. Much like the Browncoats bashed the hell out of anyone who didn't embrace 'their rights to control the dialogue' at the time, it appears those sentiments have largely returned to the Internet with Plinkett in command. And there's nothing wrong with that ... I just think, like I said back then, you actually degrade Plinkett's work by calling anyone an idiot for not seeing the man's "clear brilliance."

Hint hint ... there's possibly a great article examining these similarities in fandom, should any Hitfix writer serious about the subject decide to pick up the gauntlet ...

April 12, 2010 at 4:05AM EST Reply to Comment

Jelperman Actually, the prequels did better with critics than the originals did when they were first released.

April 12, 2010 at 2:58AM EST Reply to Comment

Trekscribbler It's not an uncommon phenomenon for films that are inevitably labeled as 'classics' to get thrashed about by critics upon their initial release. If memory serves, CITIZEN KANE wasn't widely embraced, either ... or am I confusing that with CASABLANCA? I know neither are fanboy films, per se, but I think you get the point. And, come to think of it, how many critics who praised AMERICAN BEAUTY for hours on end have now come out and said, "You know, this really wasn't all that great of an instant classic?" As I said above, it's what the passage of time does to all great minds. You have to keep looking in the present in order to uncover some hidden truths about the past. That's what differentiates art from life. You can look at it again, and you can experience something totally different from the first time you saw it.
April 12, 2010 at 4:17AM EST

GoogleGuy "Philippe's film is an amazing display of hubris"

Whats arrogant?...

"an attempt to make a name for himself"

Which worked...

"If there was anything new in his movie, any argument that we hadn't already heard a dozen times before, then maybe there would be some value to the film"

There was value, it was told in an entertaining matter, making it stand out from the rest and thus garnering a near 2 million views...

I guess Hamlet should never be done again because it was already done once?

"Instead, it's a weakly organized hodge-podge of random points"

It's pretty obvious you missed the point and in actuality, towards the end of both reviews, he does reach an over-arching main point.

"It's not making nine-part videos in a silly voice in which you rehash the same points people have been making for a decade."

No, you are writing an article complaining about complaining like some jealous child in a manner that is nowhere near as entertaining, it's probably why I never heard of you until going through him. Whats your name again?

April 11, 2010 at 8:29PM EST Reply to Comment

JoeK Just because the crowd being indicted here laps up Plinkett's affirmation doesn't mean it has value. The point being made is that it probably doesn't precisely because this crowd is yet again bathing in their own vomit, which is now at least a decade old.

Drew has also gone out of his way to contextualize this story relative to the release of the new doc, though plenty of rants here are propped up in ways that conveniently ignore that.
April 11, 2010 at 9:00PM EST
TallBoy66 you do realize you're whining about somebody else whining about somebody else whining there, chief. Right?

Just because the some angry fanboy makes a 90 minute angry fanboy rant video doesn't mean that he's immune from criticism, considering his videos are just a mash up every single fanboy critique levelled against Lucas' film that we've been hearing, ad-fucking-nausem- since 1999. Who in God's name would actually find that entertaining?
April 11, 2010 at 9:08PM EST

WayToGoDREW @ Brad: My question for your reply is, Why couldn't Lucas use a non-traditional formula for the prequels? My complaints about the prequels have never been anything about the story. The story as it spans across the 3 films and into the OT, works quite nicely.
Plinkett is cashing in on all of the fanboys unmet expectations and he knows it. Just look at how much friendlier he was to Avatar. It would be a bad move to harp too loudly on the fact that Avatar is probably the grandest piece of manipulative generic formula ever made. He practically whispers that the movie is not quite all that good. Its not popular to do that with Avatar like it is with the prequels.
Honestly, I for one am glad that Lucas didn't give me standard formula. I will watch the worst prequel twice before I see that generic piece of Avaturd again.

April 11, 2010 at 7:58PM EST Reply to Comment

MarkP Honestly, every one of your meatheads who are so angry over what Drew wrote here are simply proving his point. Frankly, I feel like all civility has been lost to selfishness and entitlement, anyway. Are the prequels weaker that the Original trilogy...Oh, you bet! However, as Drew said, if you think they're anywhere in the realm of the "worst movies ever," You haven't seen "The Room."

April 11, 2010 at 5:50PM EST Reply to Comment

Trama Drew, kudos on your continued campaign to change the tone of geekdom on the internet. I agree, and though I think you're being a little hard on Mr. P, I generally hope more sites start to follow your lead.

One question though. Don't you think that websites also have a responsibility to change the tone? I think part of the problem of the post-Batman and Robin/Phantom Menace conversation is that many times sites, like your old haunting grounds, tend to announce news with an eye on skepticism and negativity that color the commentary from fans.

You mentioned the Jedi Council, and I think it would be awesome if more general entertainment sites dedicated space to just relishing in geek conversation. Like when Iron Man 2 opens, how about just a thread to discuss everyone's favorite moments? Just food for thought.

April 11, 2010 at 4:19PM EST Reply to Comment

jcdenton I love how most of the comments on this message board are whining about "whining."

Sample post: "You all need to get a life and stop bitching about Star Wars! Now let me write several more paragraphs about this topic I claim to care so little about."

Lol, irony upon irony. Keep the whiny posts coming!

April 11, 2010 at 2:48PM EST Reply to Comment

diligent geek This was a good read. Still, I'd argue that nitpicking is a form of praise. Geeks dissect, rehearse, and over-analyze the prequels because, no matter what they SAY, they adore Lucas' fantasy world.

I'd certainly agree that references to sexual violence are not only inappropriate but horribly ignorant. But geek-grousing in general? They kid because they love!

diligent geek
http://www.diligentgeek.com

April 11, 2010 at 8:44AM EST Reply to Comment

WayToGoDREW Gosh. Thank you. I am so very glad that you posted this.
Your thoughts are far more fair-minded than so much of the crap I read all the time about the prequels, especially from that new Cash-In, Mr. Plinkett.
Most all the arguments Plinkett makes would destroy the OT, if applied. The things that he argues to be the ingredients for good films, are not the things that MAKE films good. Plain and simple. How boring it would be for filmmakers to follow Plinkett's ideas as rule.
Everybody always talks about how Lucas used old stories to create Star Wars, but nobody talks anymore about how dangerously different and personally bold it was for Lucas to create that first Trilogy the way he did.
The thing that bothers me about the so-called fanboys with Plinkett apparently leading the way now, is that these all seem to collectively assume that Lucas were some idiot who hasn't known what he's been doing for years (one of my friends actually thinks Lucas never did, and that Star Wars was all somehow a lucky mistake for Lucas, along with Pixar, Empire, Graffiti, Indy and all the rest). Plinkett actually contended in his Episode 1 critique, that Lucas was not able enough, to leave traditional storytelling for something different for the prequels. From Plinkett, to the maker of Star Wars and Indy. "Hey Plinkett, ever seen, Graffiti?"

I just feel embarrassed by how little respect this "fan" community gives to its heroes.
I am also embarrassed that they cannot see just how good so Many things in the prequels really are.
The Prequels are far better than the fandom gives them credit for, flaws included.
There are six for me too.

April 11, 2010 at 1:11AM EST Reply to Comment

Brad Plinkett states specifically that not all movies need follow formula, but simply uses it as a barometer to try and quantify why the characters are misfires. Since it IS supposedly a large splashy film using archetypes, and not some virtuoso avant garde or ground-breaking narrative, its not hard to understand why such a tool was used to measure why he thinks Star Wars sucks.
April 11, 2010 at 2:46AM EST

Prankster Well. This article is interesting, because I both agree and disagree with it. Fanboy entitlement and hyperbole is indeed annoying, and obsessing over something you now hate for YEARS is, clearly, counterproductive. I'm with you 100% on that one, Drew, and I think it's an affliction of pop culture in general these days--people are letting brand loyalty get in the way of their critical faculties, with the result being this love-hate reaction. People can't let go of their obsession with a certain franchise, but said franchise begins to stink, so instead they maintain a long-lasting hatred for it. Absolutely. It's unhealthy and it should stop.

But...I feel there's a lot more going on here than fanboy entitlement, too. For one thing, there's ALWAYS something to be gained by analyzing a movie to see why it doesn't work, which is something Red Letter Media does very cogently and intelligently, once you get past the reviews' comedic conceit. You say that all these points have been made before; I'll take your word for it. I, myself, have not spent any real time debating these movies or interacting with the fanbase since 1999, so I have no idea if these ideas are old hat. But I have been a frequent discusser-of-movies on the internet, and the Prequels have inevitably come up from time to time. And I've never heard as clear-headed an analysis of why these movies don't work as "Mr. Plinkett" offers on these videos. Regardless of their appeal to rage-addled man-children, the videos stand alone as effective and worthwhile works of criticism to anyone who's interested in filmmaking and story structure, which is the level that I enjoyed them on.

More to the point, though: the Prequels don't exist in a vacuum. I'm a guy who, despite being a hardcore movie nerd, has managed to avoid seeing a fair amount of blockbuster dreck when I knew it was going to suck. I won't say I haven't been taken in by marketing or peer pressure; just last weekend I walked into Clash of the Titans hoping for something entertaining. (I didn't get it.) But I fight the impulse to see the big blockbusters just to be part of the cultural conversation; there really is no excuse to see a movie you think is going to suck. And yet I STILL get aggravated when I see stuff like Transformers 2 (another one I haven't seen and will never see) raking in the cash. Because like it or not, my filmmaking experience, and the culture of moviegoing, is affected by these movies. Every time a half-assed piece of garbage riding on the coattails of a familiar name brand becomes a box office smash, it provides more encouragement to Hollywood to keep that downhill slide going. And I'd argue that the prequels did an awful lot to enable this paradigm.

I don't think it's unreasonable to (still) be upset with the prequels for that, just as a lot of serious film snobs are (still) upset with the original movies for leading to the rise of vapid blockbusters and the decline of the auteur-driven fare of the 70s. You can argue whether or not this attitude is correct, but we're not necessarily talking about arrested development here. We're talking about turning points in film history, things that are still echoing today.

April 10, 2010 at 10:20PM EST Reply to Comment

JoeK The irony of people becoming discerning film fans because of Star Wars and then turning that nurtured interest against it decades later is kinda fascinating and disturbing at the same time to me.

i.e. is Return of the Jedi the same movie after you've seen Pulp Fiction, read some Kael, fancied yourself as learned on the internet and probably had sex?

Don't answer that.
April 10, 2010 at 11:24PM EST

Jelperman Whining about George Lucas is lame. If I wanted to engage in an idiotic fad from the late 90s, I'd do the Macarena or sing along with Mambo Number 5:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7tz2V3CIYA0

Lucas-bashers: the Teabaggers of cinema

April 10, 2010 at 8:35PM EST Reply to Comment

Joel Strewth Drew,

Have you ever seen a film called The Untitled Star Wars Mockumentary? It's pretty hilarious, and a much more honest critique of the prequels than what Mr. Plinkett thinks.

Other than that, very good article, and I agree that fans take what they love waaay too seriously.

April 10, 2010 at 6:52PM EST Reply to Comment

Rose Sorry, but Red Letter Media is funny and a lot of these Star Wars critiques and spoofs are also incredibly funny and as long as people continue to find them funny, they're going to keep being made. I speak as someone who loved the movies, but I'm not a mega-fan. I was actually expecting colossal disappointment when I first heard about the prequels. Part of the appeal about Darth Vader is that he is steeped in mystery with just enough hints about his past to make him an interesting character. How could people not expect a trilogy that completely dissects him to the last midochlorian (sp?) to be completely awful? Seriously, who wanted to know what he was like as a teenager? I could have told you: an insufferable brat, as most teenagers are. Plus, you know, there's no Lando in the prequels so I didn't really see the point.

I realize it can be very grating to hear all the noise from the fandom, as I am having a similar issue with the Twilight Franchise which makes a lot of noise about what I consider horribly written books which have spawned exponentially more horrible movies, but what can you do right? With the development of technology that allows a person, ANY person to express they're opinion and have thousands or even millions of people hear it or view it or read it, it's hard to to escape the often mindless joy or rage generated by fandom especially on top of movie, newspaper and television. This technology, aka: the internet, is also what allows you to share your grievances about the anti-Lucas people, so I really don't see the difference between your complaining and their complaining other than not as many people seem to agree with you or your supporters are simply just not as loud.

Lucas has been touted (often by himself) as this legendary filmmaker, but with these new movies, where he was given way more control than he was given in the first trilogy, his legendary "vision" has come down to expensive gimmick to cover a weak story with weak dialogue and weak acting. Now the fans have to wonder how much Lucas actually contributed to the original series. I'm not saying he had nothing to do with it, but how many people aren't being credited for their input? Obviously he was working with a set of people who knew what they were doing and there seemed to be more of a creative give and take. Or perhaps Lucas knew that no matter what he did, people would go see the movies, even if they heard they were awful, because people are sheep in that way. Fan's don't want to think that the creator of the thing they're a fan of thinks they're stupid. Now, I don't think Lucas is responsible for reading the fans' warped minds to figure out exactly what they want, but he should at least as a filmmaker try to create a decent, comprehensive story, especially for the amount of money spent on this fiasco. I'm not sure if Lucas used to be a good filmmaker or if he just knew how to hire the right people to make him appear like a good filmmaker (which I suppose you might argue would be a quality of a good filmmaker, but whatever).

Finally, my issue with the prequels is not so much what they did to the Star Wars franchise, but what they symbolize in filmmaking. You said yourself that this movie is no better or worse that the other Hollywood cinematic eye-candy out there. Movies like the Star Wars prequels, Avatar, the last two Matrix movies, Transformers, etc. say it's okay to spend millions of dollars on special effects, and focus on nothing having to do with characters, story or anything else. That's fine, but then why do we even celebrate people like Lucas, Michael Bay, James Cameron etc? Shouldn't the special effects people or the artists be the ones making all the money and getting all the credit instead of just being a name on the scrolling credits that most people don't stick around for anyway? I'm not saying that I'm anti-special effects, but I think that they should be used to enhance a movie, not be a movie. To paraphrase RedLetterMedia: if you want it all to be about the effects, just make a theme-park ride. Then you don't have to be concerned about the plot. There are movies that manage to put a lot of special effects in and have well written stories and dialogue at the same time. I will say though, that a cg character, no matter how well done, will never be more convincing than awesome make up and costume. The alien creatures in the first movie, no matter how cheap the costuming was, were more "real" then the slick, almost gelatinous character in the new films. I take similar issue with Avatar on that subject. I'm not so idealistic that I expect every movie in the Fantasy/ Sci-fi genre should be a visual wonder and fantastic plot all in one ('Nymphoid Barbarian in Dinosaur Hell' anyone?), but they should at least make an effort, especially Lucas seeing as how he has the resources AND freedom to do so. For me, Lucas didn't disappoint as the filmmaker who created Star Wars, he simply disappointed as a filmmaker. And to respectfully disagree with you, his prequels were were bad. At least they were bad enough to hilariously make fun of, but bad nevertheless and attack of the clones was the worst of the bad. I'm not even talking in terms of the Star Wars movieverse, but as movies in general: hard to relate to characters, incomprehensible story line, sub-par acting, uncomfortable bad/cliched dialogue etc. Usually, unless you're talking about a John Waters film or something, these are indications of a bad movie. Sometimes the movies managed to achieve levels of acceptable mediocrity. The third one would have been bearable had in not been for the end (you know which part), but they just weren't very good. I did like the costumes and any special effects that had to do with scenery or inorganic things like vehicles or other machines, but that's about it. All of this, however, indicates the direction that filmmaking is taking, which is too bad. It's great that advancements are being make in technology, but not at the expense of the basics that really make films great.

As a side note, I will say that the Clone Wars cartoon (the 2-D one, not the 3-D) did wonders for my opinion of the the Star Wars franchise (and I'm pretty sure that Lucas wasn't that involved in as much. I know he didn't direct it). It had well thought out story lines for each episode, good voice acting and great art direction.

April 10, 2010 at 6:35PM EST Reply to Comment

Jelperman If you couldn't follow the story of Attack of the Clones, then you are a retard. Every 8-year-old can figure it out.
April 10, 2010 at 8:36PM EST
Rose @Jelperman: Let me clarify: what I meant by addressing the incompressible story line was what drives the story. I get what's happening, just not why it's happening. The motivations of the characters are unclear. Plus I'll admit that the inner-workings of the politics of the movie are a little much. I don't understand why an all powerful Jedi council couldn't be at least more suspicious of the Chancellor or why they all of a sudden completely trust Anakin after the big hoopla they made about him possibly being evil one day in the first movie. Things like that. I'm deeply apologize if that makes me 'retarded.' Perhaps and eight-year old might be able to comprehend this movie better than myself. However, most eight-year olds also know that name-calling is wrong as well. I guess we're both in the same boat huh?
April 10, 2010 at 10:44PM EST

JDR22 I totally agree with you.

I didn't love the Prequels, but they have their place in the Star Wars universe. I will definitely show all six films to my son, and your idea to show them in that order was interesting. I may have to give that a try. :-)

April 10, 2010 at 6:06PM EST Reply to Comment

Brad I remember your Attack of The Clones review. You loved it. Fine. But objectively, those movies are indefensable garbage. And as far as being relatable to your run-of-the mill high-calorie Hollywood Tentpole product, I still don't think they cut the mustard. Incomprehensible, boring, lifeless and un-fun. And the funny thing is, this 'minority' of people who bitch about the prequels are in fact no worse than the larger group of apologists who give it a free pass simply because it says STAR WARS at the beginning. If that logo and that mythos wasn't attached, The Phantom Menace and Attack Of The Clones would be about as revered as Battlefield Earth.

April 10, 2010 at 4:27PM EST Reply to Comment

Brad and another thing... about those redlettermedia YouTube videos? They're fucking funny, THATS why he does them. Instead of just anonymously crowding a forum with a rant, the dude concocted a critical analysis for the purpose of entertainment. Its not 'victim culture', its pointing at the naked emperor and calling him out for not having clothes. Its the SAME fucking thing some of the best writers at sites like these do when on top of their game, turn their insight into something entertaining.
April 10, 2010 at 4:32PM EST
drew There is no such thing as "objectively" when you're talking about opinion about film. And it doesn't mean someone's an apologist if their opinion is different than yours. That's the language I object to. You do not win simply by being more strident or insulting.
April 10, 2010 at 4:41PM EST
drew You find them funny. That's cool. I don't. And I'm not talking about Plinkett exclusively when I talk about the victim culture. I'm talking about "South Park" and message boards and t-shirts and a pervasive attitude that films you don't like have somehow ruined your childhood or damaged you personally. If you think the victim culture around "Star Wars" doesn't exist, you are willfully blind to it.
April 10, 2010 at 4:48PM EST
drew Do you actually know what the word "incomprehensible" means? Because even if you think the stories are uninteresting, they are not impossible to understand unless you are suffering from blunt force trauma to the skull. The films aren't exactly "The Holy Mountain."

Yet another case of angry nerd groupthink. There are plenty of seven and eight year olds who would be happy to explain the stories to you if you're having trouble with them.
April 10, 2010 at 5:01PM EST
brad I don't think those nerds and 'South Park' are really worried that their childhood has been ruined. Its more a case of hyperbole to elicit humor and dissapointment, but I think they all catch plenty of sleep at night. And excuse me for being retarded, but I couldn't tell what the fuck was going on or understand really anybodies motivation for anything, in Attack of The Clones Especially. I consider myself a well read, articulate and relatively astute individual, but I guess not when it comes to Star Wars and all those 8 year olds who know whats going on cause it flew eight feet over my head. And objectivity might not be a value you can use when it comes to opinion on film. But I do believe in a degree in subjective truth, and I stand by my Battlefield Earth comparison. I think the reason this gets so far under your skin is because you know these movies are crap, yet the 'ohmygod but its Star Wars fuck yeah!' part of you is too strong. And thats fine. I get that. But this will continue to grow, and maybe for good reason since Lucas has announced a possible Star Wars sitcom and whatnot, that maybe its time to take more care and collaborate more intelligently when making more Star Wars products. Genndy Tartakovsky is the last person, in my opinion, to make anything good out of Star Wars since Jedi.
April 10, 2010 at 8:57PM EST
Brad and 'groupthink', fuck that. Its called consensus. Its very dismissive to say that me not actually being able to tell you what was happening or 'why' in Star Wars simply because i've benn TOLD that I don't know what was going on. Don't be a jerk, man. I appreciate your views on a variety of subjects, hence me reading your articles, but I think your head's in the clouds on this one, and though you are entitled to your opinion, and are good at giving it, you're railing at the wrong people here. The people who criticize Star Wars and laugh at its shortcomings, i'm willing to bet, are usually that way because they love film overall.

April 10, 2010 at 9:11PM EST
brad Just the fact that I have to address the semantics of the word 'incomprehensible' is sort of silly. Like you've never used a word as a vector for the overall effect of your opinion. While I can't speak for The People Vs. George lucas, it might be the movie equivalent of typing in all caps, I'm commenting here about the overall arguments and your feelings/comments on Plinketts video. You're off base here. I'm sure you've wasted enough words on this, but urge you to consider that you might be off base on this one.
April 11, 2010 at 3:01AM EST

Justin Jump Bravo, Drew. Great article. You are consistently one of my favorite writers on the 'net. Keep it coming.

April 10, 2010 at 4:24PM EST Reply to Comment

Mark "average Hollywood empty calorie junk" - No, the prequels are certainyl far superior to most Hollywood blockbusters, especially the crud churned out by The Hack Pack of Michael Bay, JJ Abrams, Brett Ratner, Len Wiseman, Stephen Sommers etc. The prequels are visually inspired and operate on a level above anything those guys could ever make, as Lucas knows how to make a film - his staging and editing are pretty impeccable.

At the end of the day, yes, the prequels were a disappointment (for those above the age of 16 ie. NOT the target audience in the first place) but whenever I pop in the last half hour of Attack of the Clones I instantly regress to being that 10 year old boy, desperate to see the clone wars and Obi Wan as a young man.

If I could take the prequels back to my 10 year old self in 1984 and show him them, i'm pretty sure he'd be gobsmacked.

Lucas said it best: "The fans grow up. The films don't."

My ranking:

1. Star Wars
2. The Empire Strikes Back
3. Attack of the Clones
4. Return of the Kedi
5. Revenge of the Sith
6. The Phantom Menace

April 10, 2010 at 9:15AM EST Reply to Comment

Dw Dunphy Right. You're on the money. I made a comment about those YouTube reviews recently, wondering aloud why the maker of them is waging his crusade nearly a decade after the fact. I could almost see a validity to it if it occurred in the same year of Attack Of The Clones' existence, but nearing nine-something years demands someone call out the expiration date on the label.

The responses to my response were, shall we say, visceral. One said that I was unfairly calling out the creator as a critic, but he was not. He was just having fun - being extremely critical. That's fine, but if they had taken on recent disappointments, say, Watchmen or The Lovely Bones, he could have all the fun he wanted and still been topical.

And that's my point in a nutshell. It's not really about the movies, the YouTube dissection or anything else. It's about herd mentality. At one time, it was the larger school of thought to defend the oeuvre of George Lucas, he could do no wrong. Later on, it was the detractors who were "raped" by his horrible crime of making a sub-par effects laden action flick. At that rate, most of Hollywood should be on the sexual predators watch list solely for that crime.

April 10, 2010 at 9:14AM EST Reply to Comment

Benjamin Mr. Plinkett has taken on recent movies though. He's reviewed other "nerdy" movies like Avatar and Star Trek, I believe.
April 10, 2010 at 1:06PM EST

JoeK I've been waiting for you to weigh in on this stuff because I suspected you felt the same as I do and I have for quite a while.

This "vs." documentary and the Plinkett stuff are self serving in the extreme and use all that they purport to hold in contempt to simply further themselves. It's not funny nor clever and it reveals more about the people behind them than the subjects.

There is a segment of people that could never have approached the new films objectively. TPM trailer was deconstructed more than the Zapruder film and even the smallest challenges in the new movies to decades worth of self invented assumption was enough to light the match. The internet fanned the flames, intentionally in some corners.

Materially the prequels are not wholly different than the previous films - especially Jedi (the most recent one made prior to prequels) and the things that people focus their anger on just make shake my head as the same criticisms dismantle the old films just as easily.

People forget that as powerful and ostensibly bathed in riches as Lucas is his company is not the same thing as a movie studio. All the time that people thought Lucas hasn't been "filmmaking" he has been actively and indirectly fueling virtually every significant modern production and exhibition technique in the industry for close to 30 years. People piss and moan about the special editions but the work on those and all that massive location production and new post production processes developed on Young Indy were own-dime testbeds to develop the techniques that brought the prequels to screens and pretty much inform most every film made since.

I've come to learn that as much as fans clamored for prequels for years and years they enjoyed ragging on them far more than finally getting them. The internet had a big hand in that and obviously people are still attaching themselves to the property as a way to aggrandize themselves.

I also think that in the end if the fans truly did want prequels they really only wanted the events that came to comprise Ep3 and had little patience for anything else but I think what Lucas did to create such a large new canvass and know where he was going from the first frame of Ep1 to the last of Ep3 is pretty rare and is an accomplishment dismissed too easily. There is also an incredible amount of appreciation to be gleaned from the way visual and musical motifs were designed and used throughout and how it does puzzle piece in with what we knew from before. There is so much more artistry and thought behind these films than they are generally given credit for.

The people gnashing their teeth a decade on are really creating their own hell as it relates to these movies, which are not nearly as bad or different from the OT as the high horses want people to believe.

The original movies did not fare well with the so-called "intelligent" critics of their day either but that is lost on people that were playing with toys at the time. That we now have thousands and thousands of these types of critics with instant worldwide publishing rights is the main thing that is different.

April 10, 2010 at 9:05AM EST Reply to Comment

rjschwarz Count me in the camp that finds the prequels and the Plinkett reviews entertaining but seriously flawed. Lucas doesn't need defending. Obviously people love his movies and they show that love with cash. There will always be detractors when something has been so successful so long.

My main problem with the prequels are two-fold. (1) They were unneeded. The original trilogy worked so strongly because of the perceived backstory. That backstory didn't need more fleshing out. The prequels themselves didn't really have much of a backstory leaving things feeling sort of shallow. (2) The original trilogy was done in the style of a episodic cliffhanger serial. The prequels were done in the style of an epic with vast scope and way to many main characters. The two don't really fit comfortably together style-wise. The prequels make the originals seems smaller by comparison rather than filling them out as intended.

April 10, 2010 at 8:47AM EST Reply to Comment

Warren Peace Allow me to add the latest "THANK YOU!" for calling this bullshit what it is. Fandom is today nothing more than a bunch of Peter Pans. Whiney Peter Pans. Entitled, Whiney Peter Pans.

April 10, 2010 at 8:45AM EST Reply to Comment

Dean I am in two minds about your commentary. I agree that the people who rave that George Lucas raped their childhood (that is the exact quote) are sad, sad people for not having better things to do. Star Wars was never intended to be anything other than throwaway entertainment. Nor was Indiana Jones, for that matter. In my not-so-humble view, judging a film on anything other than its own individual merits is an invitation to be made a fool of.

But that is where the prequel trilogy happens to fall down. Speaking purely from the perspective of a writer, I can tell you that if George Lucas had been a struggling first-time author in 1995 or thereabouts, the script for TPM would have got his name added to a blacklist at every publisher he went to. Agents would add notes to the effect that they are amazed this man can write a coherent shopping list, leave alone a piece of writing that can be sold at retail. The only films I have seen that have struck me as having more poorly-written scripts have titles like Eegah! or Plan 9 From Outer Space.

Star Wars being stolen from Kurosawa is really no biggie. The best storytellers are the ones who know whom to steal from and how to put their own spin on what they steal. The fact that Lucas allegedly had nobody to steal from has little bearing on the quality of the story told. The real problem is that he is so profoundly intolerant of criticism that nobody near to him will dare tell him when his ideas are not his best. This means that often the first thing that comes into his head is what ends up in the finished shot. No creative artist really wants that.

From the description you give, Plinkett does us all a grave disservice. The media can never be any better than the criticism it receives, whether it be in the form of simple feedback or laws prohibiting one company from owning everything. Roger Ebert's critique of The Brown Bunny and his response to the director's response is a good example of a critical A-game. In that spirit, I may well be a somewhat overweight, unemployed no-hoper, but George Lucas will always be the director of Attack Of The Clods.

The one criticism of Lucas that few have yet to acknowledge, leave alone address, is that he apparently has no respect whatsoever for his audience. For years now, people have been indicating a desire to have the original cuts of his films on one home video format or another. Close Encounters Of The Third Kind and Blade Runner show that not only is it possible to include multiple cuts of the same film on the one disc (seamlessly, too, on Blu-ray Disc), it is actually desirable from a marketing point of view. But George Lucas keeps insulting his fans by telling them it is his cut or none at all.

Lucas elegantly proves that even in a non-essential trade like filmmaking, absolute power corrupts absolutely.

April 10, 2010 at 7:36AM EST Reply to Comment

Main Sections

Hot Topics

Special Coverage

Find Movies

Main Sections

Hot Topics

Special Coverage

Find TV Shows

Main Sections

Hot Topics

Special Coverage

Find Music

movies

Comments for A look at the new doc 'The People Vs George Lucas' and the victim culture surrounding 'Star Wars'

Jelperman Actually, the prequels did better with critics than the originals did when they were first released.

Jelperman Whining about George Lucas is lame. If I wanted to engage in an idiotic fad from the late 90s, I'd do the Macarena or sing along with Mambo Number 5:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7tz2V3CIYA0Lucas-bashers: the Teabaggers of cinema

Joel Strewth Drew,Have you ever seen a film called The Untitled Star Wars Mockumentary? It's pretty hilarious, and a much more honest critique of the prequels than what Mr. Plinkett thinks.Other than that, very good article, and I agree that fans take what they love waaay too seriously.

Jelperman If you couldn't follow the story of Attack of the Clones, then you are a retard. Every 8-year-old can figure it out.

JDR22 I totally agree with you. I didn't love the Prequels, but they have their place in the Star Wars universe. I will definitely show all six films to my son, and your idea to show them in that order was interesting. I may have to give that a try. :-)

drew There is no such thing as "objectively" when you're talking about opinion about film. And it doesn't mean someone's an apologist if their opinion is different than yours. That's the language I object to. You do not win simply by being more strident or insulting.

Justin Jump Bravo, Drew. Great article. You are consistently one of my favorite writers on the 'net. Keep it coming.

Benjamin Mr. Plinkett has taken on recent movies though. He's reviewed other "nerdy" movies like Avatar and Star Trek, I believe.

Warren Peace Allow me to add the latest "THANK YOU!" for calling this bullshit what it is. Fandom is today nothing more than a bunch of Peter Pans. Whiney Peter Pans. Entitled, Whiney Peter Pans.

Latest Galleries

About Hitfix

Advertise on HitFix

Do More with HitFix

Follow HitFix

Get Help

AllRSS Feeds

Popular Topics

Jelperman Whining about George Lucas is lame. If I wanted to engage in an idiotic fad from the late 90s, I'd do the Macarena or sing along with Mambo Number 5:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7tz2V3CIYA0

Lucas-bashers: the Teabaggers of cinema

Joel Strewth Drew,

Have you ever seen a film called The Untitled Star Wars Mockumentary? It's pretty hilarious, and a much more honest critique of the prequels than what Mr. Plinkett thinks.

Other than that, very good article, and I agree that fans take what they love waaay too seriously.

JDR22 I totally agree with you.

I didn't love the Prequels, but they have their place in the Star Wars universe. I will definitely show all six films to my son, and your idea to show them in that order was interesting. I may have to give that a try. :-)