When Did Star Wars Jump the Shark?
stm2 writes "As a long time fan of the stories, I watched as Star Wars transformed from one of the better sci-fi stories told to 'Whedon is my master now.' An article at the TechRepublic blog explores the weakness of the sequel trilogy and states that the Midi-chlorians are the culprit. Was it the Midi-chlorians, Jar Jar Binks, the actors? When did Star Wars jump the shark?. A bonus question: Did George Lucas redeem himself in Episode III?"
First post!
The trillogy ending where it did in 1983 was just fine. Coming back to it two decades later was jumping the shark.
Laughter is the Spackle of the Soul.
In my humble opinion, it was going back and taking the myths and legends which awed us (who the Jedi and Sith had been, how the Empire changed the galaxy) and acting them all out, while giving the prequels few myths and legends of their own to compensate. It made the series feel too much like some self-contained construct, a fantasy world dreamed up in its entirety, with no mysteries that the audience's imaginations could explore. The huge number of links into the "classic" trilogy also destroyed the sense of scale by making it seem like everybody in the series new everybody else. I know about small world networks, but that's not how an epic should feel. So you wound up with something that had all the enormity and mystery of a plastic diorama.
No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
The Wookie christmas special didnt help either.
and realized the original trilogy was never that great after all.
Eps 1-3 are dull because they tell the backstory. We already know how it ends, we already know pretty much what happens. So there's no tension and no surprise. They stretch out what made an interesting few paragraphs in the original trilogy to 3 films.
Return of the Jedi was released five months after I was born. My parents bought me a few Star Wars toys that I must have kept for years because I distinctly remember playing with them as a kid. I also had an original Return of the Jedi blanket and movie tie-in books, so I consider myself to be at the extreme edge of the group who can claim Star Wars as part of their childhood.
I'm sure some of you who are older than me by a few years will say that the Ewoks ruined the Star Wars franchise, but for me, they have always been an intrinsic part of it. Yes, they were largely a comedic species, but in RoTJ, their nievity - their childish, silly actions and noises served as a contrast to the evil of the Empire. One of the most touching moments in the original trilogy was a scene where one Ewok is killed by an imperial laser blast, and another leans down beside him, prodding him, clearly not realising his friend is dead, and possibly even unfamiliar with the concept of non-natural death itself.
The Ewoks are often compared to Jar Jar, but I think this is very unfair. Yes, they made the audience laugh, and yes they probably made Lucas lots more money from merchandising, but they served a purpose in terms of the film's plot, and without the contrast that they created, the Empire's actions would have had a greatly reduced impact on audiences.
None of this can be said of Jar Jar Binks. His "zany antics" serve no purpose but outright slapstick humour, and even this is not done very well. He alone does not create a contrast with the Trade Federation, nor does his innocence underscore the central themes of the film(s). He exists purely because the writers needed a "funny character", and were too lazy to create something better.
As I have said, I am (by the skin of my teeth) a member of the "Star Wars generation", but because I was not old enough to be obsessively interested in movies, I do not think that the modern trilogy "ruined my childhood" by any means. However, there is a noticable drop in quality between the two sets of films, and for me, the most blatant example of this is the presence of Jar Jar Binks.
You nailed it in your subject line, or at least part of it. The problem with the prequels is the lack of Han Solo.
You see, Star Wars was supposed to be, in Lucas's mind, about the Jedi. However, the Jedi are really boring, pretentious, one-dimensional characters. By luck (at least, for us, the viewers), he started the story in a time when the Jedi were all but eliminated. Therefore, instead of actually being about the Jedi, the original trilogy was about a rebellion, with a bit of Jedi coolness (ie. light saber duels) thrown in for fun. The star of the show: Han Solo. A cool, bad-ass scoundrel of a good guy.
Fast forward to the prequels, and it's all Jedi. Where's Han Solo, or at least a cool character like him? There isn't one. There's just stiff pretentious Jedi spouting tripe masquerading as wisdom. Sure, there's lots of light sabers, which is cool. But that's not enough to make a good movie.
Think about it: the Empire came into existence because the Jedi screwed up and let it happen, and it came crumbling down because Lando Calrissian blew up the second Death Star after Han Solo destroyed the shield generator, while the only remaining Jedi was too busy dealing with personal issues to actually help.
"You cannot simultaneously prevent and prepare for war." -- Albert Einstein
In my opinion, the biggest contributing factor to the failure of Episodes I, II and even III is the lack of one very important technique that was invented during the making of the original Star Wars. This technique helped make the original films believable, which also in turn made them immersive.
During the documentary of the making of Star Wars (on the 4th disc of the box set DVD release), one of the film crew members described a problem where C3P0s costume was initially a highly reflective chrome surface and was causing the cameras to be visible during their test shoot. To offset this problem they rubbed dirt and grease into the costume, dulling it enough so that it would no longer be reflective. They then used this technique with other droids, vehicles and anything else in the film. They called it the "used future" - and it was all the more believable because these objects, vehicles, droids and other things really did appear as though they had always been there.
As we all know, not only was there an overzealous amount of CG in Star Wars Episodes I, II and III, but the real sets and costumes were kept pristine and perfect throughout the films. Hair cuts, makeup, billboards, decorations, vehicles, aliens, etc, all looked perfect 100% of the time. Too perfect.
Just as human brains are capable of instantly detecting the subtle differences in something that is not really alive (which is a common problem when watching CG special effects in film), it also can detect when something is "too perfect".
This alone was enough to ruin any immersive qualities the new Star Wars films might have had, and this problem was compounded by the poor dialogue, stupid gags, dragging plot-lines, inconsistencies and the idiotic notion that everything needed to be explained in detail.
Also, the new films had a practically unlimited budget, and therefore there was less need to innovate or improvise, almost eliminating the possibility of creating "happy accidents" that were part of the magic of the original movies (some of which were later removed by George's "improvements" in the re-releases).
My favorite Star Wars film is the original Empire Strikes Back, which was not directed by George Lucas, and also happens to be his least favorite of the series. The original film is a perfect balance of action, romance and drama, and should have been left entirely alone. But I suppose until I am as successful as George Lucas in the entertainment industry my two cents are pretty meaningless.
When did you get too old to view things with child-like wonder instead of picking them apart and judging them? That is when Star Wars jumped the shark. People who loved the originals as children and hated the prequels as adults might want to consider how much nostalgia clouds their opinions. While Phantom Menace tried too hard to be kid friendly, Attack Of The Clones and Revenge Of The Sith were not bad.
The Uncoveror: It's the real news.