-= Gametoast.com =-

...according to a Yahoo! columnist.

Quite frankly, I don't think George Lucas was thinking half the things this guy says he was. This comment on the article also sums up a valid argument:

"There is absolutely no element or character in the original trilogy that isn't delineated in stark black and white terms"

Interesting. Han Solo is a smuggling criminal whom acts as a gun for hire. Lando is a degenerate gambler responsible for our hero's capture. Darth frickin Vader- the supposed epitome of evil in the first two films- KILLS the emporer- the real epitome of evil- in the third. Perhaps I am obtuse, but I do not find those terms to be starkly delineated in black and white.

I could over-analyze the original trilogy and argue that the original trilogy is better than the prequel for such and such reasons. It's good to have your own interpretation, but it is a subjective matter, you can't expect to convince others that you have found some secret meaning behind all the special effects and bored acting.

Also...

"A New Hope," "The Empire Strikes Back," and "Return of the Jedi" reflect the Cold War milieu in which they were created, offering up a comforting us-vs.-them story told in bold strokes lacking nuance, complexity, or intellectual ambiguity.

Oh really? I'm pretty sure the Empire was a demonization of Hollywood on George's part, a representation of their opressive control over upcoming movie makers as well as their racist standards at the time. And that's not me being subjective either, that's all in the documentaries and making-ofs.

I would argue that this would make the prequels worse. You know what made the characters in the original trilogy actual characters? They had flaws, like actual people, and were able to overcome those flaws or fall victim to them in the end.

Using the two first movies of both trilogies as an example, Darth Vader was established as an ex-Jedi who betrayed his people, which implied he was once good and could be made good again, but at the moment was incredibly dangerous. Darth Maul was...what, exactly? An assassin? Some guy who figured out how to glue two lightsabers together? Not nearly as interesting as he's basically just written in as, "This is the bad guy. They fight. Nooooooooooo!"

I do agree with Lucas not knowing what he's talking about, though. He recently claimed in an interview that Greedo was always intended to shoot first. You know, forgetting that we have access to the script and the original, "Han pulling out a blaster under the table," scene is perfectly intact there.

I like IV V VI because things show real things like Luke's aunt making breakfast, mellow realistic life scenes not just endless kiss or kill scenes like the newer movies. I dislike all the kiddie characters in all the movies it's like Jim Henson in space but the newer movies are too a.d.d just shallow and all over the place

Nihillo wrote:I could over-analyze the original trilogy and argue that the original trilogy is better than the prequel for such and such reasons. It's good to have your own interpretation, but it is a subjective matter, you can't expect to convince others that you have found some secret meaning behind all the special effects and bored acting.

I agree that the prequels could have been better if the actors had tried harder. the only actor that tried was the guy who played Obi-Wan Kenobi. the prequels aren't better. You might realize that if you watch them again. though I think people are to critical on the prequels. The problem is they compare them to the originals, which makes them look like total pieces of crap.