There are moments in his review where Roger looks over to where he normally would look towards Gene as if he would be talking to him. Only by this point, his old sparing partner was gone and never to come back. Sad.
And that is why I really hope they do not let Dave Filoni direct a Star Wars movie, that thing was a complete piece of crap, Star Wars Rebels has redeemed him for me (or as I used to call him, Dave Felony, due to what he did to Star Wars through the Clone Wars movie and 50% of the Clone Wars TV series), but I do not understand people who say he is the "heir apparent" to George Lucas... the guy does not know Star Wars in the spiritual and heartfelt way that George Lucas intended it to be portrayed... Filoni comes up with shit that would never happen in the Star Wars universe.
"Qui Gon and young Obi Won Kenobi quickly find a sidekick in the movie's most interesting new character, an alien named Jar Jar Binks." LOL. Interesting, yes. "Most interesting", not by a long shot. Maybe if Jar Jar had become the secret antagonist Lucas had envisioned, and was then forced to change because so many people hated him, he would have fared much better by the third movie.
Matthew Hudson but back in fucking 1999, jar jar was like the hottest thing. Ppl were amazed back then. Ppl didn't start hating them until force awakens dropped
Not quite. I never hated Jar Jar, and I still don't. BUT - I don't care for him either. He's just sort of "meh". He's a nice looking alien, CGI-wise, but not a character I want involved in a Star Wars trilogy in any kind of comedy-sidekick capacity where that's all he ever is. Jar Jar really should have turned out to be a villain by the third movie. People would have loved that movie to death when Obi Won finally slayed him with his light saber. Now we'll never see it as it should have been. : (
Anthony Barratt I give it one thumb up for creativity and effects and Obi Wan as a character and a thumbs down for writing, directing and screen writing.
It's interesting that he knew the SW fanbase very well and how dedicated people are. I remember back since the early 90s when he announced that he was begining production of the prequels, he was always open that he would make choices that fans would absolutely hate and that he wanted to change the way people saw the original trilogy through the (new) movies.
"we can create a fully digital character that looks are real as any actor does." - Mr. George Lucas in 1999. ...that Brachiosaurus in the original "Jurassic Park" is to me more convincing than any of the CGI dinosaurs in "Jurassic World", which was released some 15 years later.
George said CGI wouldn't replace actors and so far he's right. Tarkin still had an actor on set. The only part of Tarkin that was CGI was the head. Even for fully digital characters they still use actors if they can. Usually putting them in a green/mocap suit. There are just certain motions and movements you can't replicate with a computer.
Also Rogue One Grand Moff Tarkin wasn't a replacement for Peter Cushing, it was a replication that they based on an animators interpretation of past Cushing performances. I think Lucas was referring to computers bringing characters to life that could create part of the performance, as an actor brings their skill and mannerism into performance.
+Kyle Jerke Yeah, but they didn't look all that good in Rogue One which shows that Lucas was kind of right. However, if you've seen Blade Runner 2049, you'll see that we're getting there, but that was a very short scene. I can't picture a whole movie where all of the characters are all photorealistic CGI humans, we're no where close to that yet.
Phantom Menace has really amazing stuff in it, but it has really god-awful stuff too. Unfortunately, the awful aspects create too much of a destraction to enjoy the good -- for me, at least.
I kind of like it as a guilty pleasure. I don't like the rest of the prequels but for some reason, the Phantom Menace still holds up to me. It's certainly bad and no where as good as the first three but PM had some good stuff in it.
The "cynical times" comment really struck me. Luke look up at the two suns, beautiful John Williams music in the background. How true this was. What happened?
I remember the hype for Phantom Menace and being super excited about it, and I video taped this episode and watched it several times. Thanks for uploading this. I still cannot understand what Liam Neeson says when Ebert first compares him to John the Baptist (9:48). Sounds like "Thanksferter". Lol
Listening to Ebert describe Star Wars is amazing. He got it exactly right. Which is no wonder he liked the prequels. He would have hated what Disney did to it.
I LOVED the Taco Bell cups. I have the Yoda one sitting next to the computer screen here. I didn't even take the plastic wrap off of the straw. Whenever I need wisdom, I just look to Yoda. :)
I have to say, I am blessed that I was totally oblivious to the fact George Lucas intended to make more films as far back as 1990. Had I known that, I never would have stopped thinking about it and the years would have been filled with torment and impatience lol. And now that computers can bring actors who have long since passed way back to life, what limits can there be? Star Wars isn't alone in exciting potential there but it does present some interesting options. I remember when I saw Rogue One in a theatre and Tarkin came on the screen, I was stunned. I was so dumbfounded that I nearly got up out of my seat to move up closer to see if I could detect if this was a lookalike or a computer effect. It was remarkable and whoever did the voice word was also incredible. All we have to overcome now is the problem of film producers/directors becoming too reliant on special effects and we are slowing losing the art of story telling through film!
People forget the reviews were genuinely glowing at the time and this review by Roger showed why. They (incorrectly) assumed that the special effects were so great it would make up for a lackluster story. The problem was that although Lucas wanted computers to catch up to his vision, what he did not understand was computer effects caught up for everyone. Spielberg releasing Jurassic Park a few years before took the shine of newness off the effects and Lucas forgot what made his original Star Wars so great was the effects were so groundbreaking that literally no one else could do them, nor did anything look like Star Wars before. By the time this came out, people were used to great effects so people might have appreciated the NUMBER of them in the Phantom Menace, it was not enough to "wow" the audience into not caring about how good the story was. Then by the second one when we saw that this problem continued, the audience really began turning and the reviews also. The sequels suffered the same fate. EVERYONE admitted the effects in the first one were top notch, but even more time passed and the same problem returned. Effects great, but that was no longer good enough.
I remember watching the phantom menace the first time. I just wanted to see Ewan Mcgregor, and thinking that the movie was to long. My parents didn't seem that impressed, my sisters didn't really care and it left me not caring to see another one. I remember saying why don't they just make the movie about obi wan played by Mcgregor and have yoda I would watch that.
did he just call Jar Jar Binks the _most interesting new character??_ ...because while he's certainly not wrong - Jar Jar wasn't *ever* boring - Bink was a fascinating character for all the worst reasons. rather like a really interesting stock market crash or a really interesting dumpster fire.
Binks was supposed to end up being a Sith. The actor has admitted to this. The backlash towards the character changed gears; hence Dooku came out of nowhere.
Abdul Houser sithes are some what stereotypical .....darkside wizard ninja warriors... i mean sometimes they are poets and healers too, but most of them are ninja assassins and politicians :/
The Yoda puppet in the Original Trilogy was so much better in the one in The Phantom Menace, that I was actually glad when they replaced him in the prequel special editions. But I'd rather that they developed a super accurate young Yoda puppet, with extremely good articulation and replace him in all the Prequels. In fact, Disney should slowly start replacing the CGI effects from the Prequels with practical effects, then release the "Practical Editions".
Connor Nyhan Actually, the prequels had more practical effects than the original trilogy. makezine.com/2015/10/07/the-surprising-practical-effects-of-the-star-wars-prequels/
Disney has no concept of any of the spirit that George Lucas speaks of in these interviews...it's disgusting how much of it they've removed from their trilogy of this franchise- it "looks" like Star Wars, but is a very different thing on the inside...
I've loved Star Wars since 1977 when I read it first in a comic book. Later I read the novels and saw the movies. And regardless what anyone else says I really do think the prequel trilogy is good. A lot of people went into the movie assuming they'd see Vader at the Height of his power, but anyone who read the original Star Wars novel's preface knows that there was a lot more going on at that time. If the original trilogy is about myth and legend, then the prequel trilogy is more about the politics of the word that creates those myths. Overall Star Wars is a journey. It's fun, but not in that you'll forget it once you leave the theater sort of fun. It stays with you, and like Lucas said at the end of the clip, it's about hope. About being better than you are. About accepting who you are and your station in life, and if it doesn't work for you there's still hope you can fix it.
If you enjoy the prequels, there's no argument to be had against that. I don't even know if I would want to talk about the movies' state of quality. There are so many merits and flaws. But...objectively, Lucas had a very inept perception on how to write characters. Some seemed to reflect his own emotional state of being, dry and almost devoid of personality, in the way they expressed themselves. Others were just exaggerated to absurd levels. This hits hardest on Anakin, who would have needed to be the character we relate to and are impressed by, regarding his fate, personality and charisma. He should have been a picture-book hero, adored and idolized, before falling from grace. Instead we're initially given a little boy, belonging to the first group of characters - weirdly emotionally repressed - like a child-reincarnation of Buddha. That *wise, enigmatic* child suddenly turns into a spoiled, whiny, charisma-free, egoistical teenager, so devoid of any wisdom that he's easy to manipulate and willing to work for a man who talked him into killing little children, without ever keeping his promise. That Anakin is compelled by a lie that is easy to see through, already identifies him as man of below average intellect. That he also keeps working for the man who revealed the entire setup as a lie and doesn't keep any of the promises that led Anakin into killing many innocents, also reveals young Vader as a pathetic person without spine or integrity. Anakin did not have any objective reason to keep allegiance to the emperor, once Padme had died. The backstory for Darth Vader's moral turning point would have deserved a lot better than that, IMO. And I was never even remotely a fan of him.
Kijinn, I think it is interesting that Lucas made such odd choices with Anakin, when you look at it from your perspective. I give Lucas credit for making Anakin with such failed flaws instead of giving fan service to everyone about how they think Vader should have been. Vader really is an f upped person no matter how you look at him. And yet fans love Vader. Every one has their own perspective about the prequels. Most people hate them and many fail to see that Lucas was trying to do different things not knowing if they would work or not but at least he took some chances.
@rick valentino Your point is certainly valid, but doesn't explain my concerns. Normally if people do something differently, it's for a specific purpose other than just "to be different". If Lucas was consciously seeking to sway from the norm, I cannot see a conclusive reason. I'd imagine the conceptual phase of that decision like this: [Lucas]: "The movie needs to be different. Let's make all heroes as bland as possible, except for the focal character of the trilogy. He should make the audience cringe and disassociate as much as possible. That's a trendsetter for the future of film-making...right? Action is more immersive if you're free of worry about the protagonists!" Regarding the movie's internal logic, I also cannot see Anakin's boyhood match up with his young adult self. As much as I'm aware of what puberty can do, the influence of "parenting" is not to be underestimated. Obiwan and the jedi council must have done a most terrible job at that. Which should make you wonder about all of the padawans' and jedis' personalities. The jedi council was raising kids for centuries. If Anakin was already the spoiled brat before he started the jedi training, why do we never get to see that? The little boy had more of a jedi personality than the teenager. That's a striking disparity.
In my amateur view I think a good formula for a story is 1. A good story, 2. good casting that feels right. 3. High Science Fiction with fantasy so that theirs no limit on location or encounters. and 4. keep your humans and humanoids human, your aliens alien and your space elves as space elves. I think easing us into somewhat familiar situations can help.Though their are exceptions. The movie The Dark Crystal followed all it's own rules. It had no visible human actors, wasn't generally violent though giant beetles and podlings did fall to their deaths and a skesis was striped to his feathers of his armor and cloak. The movie still gave us various interesting characters and locations throughout the film and what-a-ya know. Only female Gelflings have wings!
Oh, my god. Look how happy George was at this time. Giddy. Proud of his creation. Still beloved by geekdom. On top of the world. And, yeah, Phantom Menace was, in fact, well reviewed by Ebert and other respected critics at the time. I myself loved the Phantom Menace at the time. People clapped in the theater, kids excitedly talked about Phantom Menace all that year, collected the toys, played Pod Racer.... And you know what, I like Jar Jar, so go to hell. Gungans are awesome, and the underwater city was amazing. I was genuinely surprised the first time I heard someone say they hated Phantom Menace. Then somehow, somewhere along the line as the concurrently new world wide web evolved into an acerbic troll factory (probably orchestrated by the Russians!), suddenly I was told, ordered really, to think the prequels sucked and George Lucas is an idiot and everything is shit and life is garbage. Well, the result was a depressed George Lucas totally alienated from fans who sells Star Wars to Disney whereupon Rian Johnson destroys it, Donald Trump became president, and now life really is garbage, and I regret everything. I'm so sorry, George! I love the prequels! Without George Lucas controlling Star Wars, America is ruined! Seriously! I want to go back in time and set right what once went wrong! Quantum Leap into Tim Berners-Lee, prevent the creation of the web or into Zuckerberg at least -- we could do without Facebook! There's got to be a way to fix this! :-(
I was right there with you, up until "Rian Johnson destroys it". He didn't destroy anything. He made his own creative choices, like Lucas before him, and some people happened to dislike them. And now people are bashing The Last Jedi the same way they bashed the prequel trilogy. Sometimes, I feel downright ashamed to call myself a Star Wars fan.
Leon K Shhhhh.... You're not allowed to like or dislike The Last Jedi. If you do, you're an SJW; if you don't, you're a Klansman. Better to just sacrifice Rian Johnson and answer, "I don't know", to every question! (***top secret*** I thought Luke's force projection was epic and Rose is a great character, and Rey isn't a Mary Sue because there's obviously something deep going on with psychic connection to Darth Grandson, BUT I really really needed to know who Snoke was. Not giving us something makes the first movie kinda continuity-less and the audience feels frustrated and lost. Empire was about defeat and still managed to reveal more about the Empire, more about the Jedi, etc. Also, same is true about not showing us the overal political situation of the galaxy, which the other trilogies did so well. Presumably there is some kind of bureaucracy operating somewhere, it cannot be just Kylo and Leia directly sending their 10 guys around to collect taxes when they're not blasting each other. We went from two huge galactic civil wars to a shootout at the O.Krayt Corral, and the ramifications of the loss of Chandrila needed to be explored in Last Jedi badly, because now we have no idea what's going on, and that uncomfortable narrative dissappointment is responsible for 99% of the hate. That is most definitely Johnson's fault imho. He overplayed the characters, whereas Star Wars was always 50% soap opera, 50% galactic politics, hence 'Wars'. Oh, well.)
Well, it really doesn't matter whether I like or dislike The Last Jedi, or any of the other movies for that matter. What I'm referring to is that the climate among fans should be much more civilised and people should stop attacking each other for their opinions. Believe me, I've been attacked by various groups of fans for defending the prequels and/or The Last Jedi. On the other hand, I've witnessed fans of these movies attacking those who dislike them. In my opinion, we should be able to discuss why we like or dislike certain things without insulting other people or being hurtful towards them. Regardless, I'm not going to let anyone prevent me from openly expressing my opinions, even at the expense of being ridiculed or insulted by others. Speaking of which, I appreciate that you replied to me respectfully, as that can't be taken for granted on the internet, and among Star Wars fans in particular. I do think it's quite interesting, however, that we generally hold such strong opinions about the things we like, which sort of explains the negative backlash towards TLJ and why it remains a sensitive topic in the Star Wars community, given that many fans consider it to be inconsistent in tone with the rest of the saga and reject its subversive nature and treatment of the OT characters. I can sort of understand where that sentiment is coming from, even if I personally happen to disagree. (I definitely see your point. TLJ is certainly much more character-driven compared to the other films in the saga. However, that was likely an intentional creative decision made by Rian Johnson. Regarding the uncertainty of the political state of the galaxy, that fault can be attributed to J.J. Abrams, since The Force Awakens doesn't really dive too deep into politics. As the first installment in the trilogy, TFA is required to establish a core scenario in which the film's events can take place, but unfortunately, most of the world-building is sacrificed for character development, and obviously, such a critical mistake can't simply be fixed in the second movie. I would assume, however, that there is no form of bureaucracy operating in the galaxy. As far as we're told, the New Republic has just been destroyed, and the First Order is largely a terrorist organisation, like ISIS, for example, that, on one hand, upholds the ideals of the Galactic Empire, but doesn't execute them in form of a government, but through violence, warmongering and intimidation. Add to that the fact that they aren't exactly well-organised, due to the internal fight for leadership, following the death of Supreme Leader Snoke. And speaking of Snoke himself, I'm kind of glad that we didn't find out who he was. Given that he dies halfway into TLJ, his backstory ultimately would have been meaningless, not to mention really boring, as it would have distracted from Rey's journey. In my opinion, we're told everything we need to know about Snoke: He is a powerful force-user, he is the leader of the First Order, and, last but not least, he is responsible for Ben Solo's turn to the dark side. An explanation as to why he was in this position would have felt very forced and unnecessary, given his subsequent demise, and unless Episode IX finds a creative way to resurrect the character, this information simply isn't needed. But that's only my point of view and it's perfectly fine if you disagree.)
It's not that small. Someone is buying those DVDs/BluRays after all. By the way, prequels are better received outside of North America. There's something to be said about the superior education.
Matt Ward its not warhammer, they have different effects and aging issues, they are human but they arent earth human, they would have different agineg and medicines to reduce the effects, obi wan probably lost access to the medicines or stopped useing them to hide his face from darth vader and bounty hunters who had pictures of his younger face etc
At the time I'd have picked Ridley Scott over George Lucas. It took a long time though for Blade Runner to be appreciated. Tim Burton also directed some great films in the late 80s to mid 90s. Stanley Kubrick was the king. Roman Polanski was also very good at the time.
Apparently when it comes to the Prequels, you're not allowed to have an opinion or you'll be crucified by OT purists whose Brains turned to mush after the '97 special edition showed them that Star Wars isn't perfect and never was. God I hate people that bash on Prequel fans.
Most of the hate towards the sequels I've seen comes from the OT fanboys. They just don't like how the characters are treated (and I can't blame them).
I watched the prequels as an adult and they made me a fan. Yes, the romance scenes were awkward but that's because they're two inexperienced people hiding behind their formal facade (that's not say dialogue and acting should have been more natural).
Natalie G Han went out in a good way and so did Luke. The sequels aren't about the old characters anymore. Its about Kylo Ren, Rey, Finn, Poe, and so on...with the OTs being side characters to help the new characters. These actors are old or dead now so they can't keep making movies about them. You have to expand the star wars universe or else it will get boring if we just keep getting the same ol characters every film. I like the last 3 star wars movies... Force awakens for me is my favorite star wars film, I didn't grow up on the OTs like everyone else but I still really liked the originals. Rogue one was a nice dark war movie... Last Jedi was a refreshing take on star wars movies by not repeating the same formula that can happen in these movies all the time and had some awesome scenes. Yes I agree tho...most the hate for the sequels are the ot fans that can't accept anything new and just nitpick it to death..the new characters are just as good as the old
Han went out like a punk after failing as a father and a husband, Luke went out like a punk, after becoming an attempted murderer of his nephew, losing his faith in the Jedi, and running away like a coward. Creating new characters is no excuse for treating the old ones like crap... It doesn't help that the new characters are boring or annoying, we don't even know the motivation of Rey and Kylo. Finn, after refusing to shoot the villagers, five minutes later is ready to blast people he'd grown up with? Are you kidding me? In which universe is this considered good writing? How about Rey Mary Sue? Useless Rose? I don't understand how anyone can complain about Jar Jar and then think Luke milking some cow creature or Leia Mary Poppinsis great storytelling.
Episode I: Focus on special fx Episode II: More Focus on special fx + Atmosphere + Sinister plot unravelings Episode III: Special fx on overdrive and a lot of Shakespearian drama
Episode IV: Invented the idea of a dedicated "Special FX workshop" + Action + Adventure Episode V: More layers of fx than any movie released before it + focus on mythology with Yoda + plot twist Episode VI: Pushing the limits of what can be done with practical fx + amazing character drama + a satisfying conclusion to the saga
oh George ...i hear what you saying, now i felt bad cause my criticism over the 2 first precuels ( still Suck ) but you're very right everybody in this life needs a little of eyecandy to the wiew...
Dave Booshty It's a clip from Generations released in 94 (totally mislabeled) And I know this because that is the log entry near the end of the 2nd act in the movie
I grew up on the original trilogy and love it more than anything in the movies. But when these movies were released I was excited and I went to go see each one of these prequels at least 6 times. I love the prequels. There are some real bad scenes but they are still Star Wars and Lucas story is still good. Now the new Disney Shit Wars is bad I tried to like them and they are real bad. Rogue one is real good but I'm not gonna waste my life or money on a Disney Agenda driven campaign farce. We got six movies and that's good enough for me.
Well, to each their own. I happen to like the new movies, especially TLJ, but I always loved the prequels as well. Revenge of the Sith is my favourite Star Wars movie of all time. I also think Rogue One is pretty overrated.
The kind of review that somebody who really wanted to like a film he otherwise wouldn't have ends up making. Amazing to think most of us were in that category back then.
He sounded like he had no idea *who* his character was. Like when Ebert said "like John the Baptist" Neeson was like, "shoot, I should have played the character that way, I didn't even think of that"
No. Liam's acting is VERY stiff. But I don't think its bad. I think Lucas INTENTIONALLY wanted Jinn to be aloof or so I argue Just finished a video on Phantom Menace being a really great film and not just OK. Have a listen Is Episode 1: Phantom Menace one of the greatest films of all time? Part 1 Naboo. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-17nTW-bR2j8.html
Phantom Menace would have been a lot better if the kid who played Anakin could actually act. Its funny that the guy George picked to play the adult Anakin (Hayden) was below mediocrity too.
Neither one were a problem. Anakin's dialogue was believable and it made the character likeable; Jake Lloyd's acting and emotion was spot-on in the scenes that needed it and perfectly acceptable in the others.
Yeah I gotta disagree too....the kid who played annakin did an unbelievably good job considering his age and the expectations of his character....I cannot personally fathom what some one would want more from him...
Yup... Jake Lloyds performance is one of the only child actor performances that has ever been convincing to me... couldn't have picked a better person for the role.
It's so funny how you can listen to Lucas talk about the limitations of the original Yoda, and then see the scene after the Phantom Menace clip. Be honest at tell me that he feels more real in Episode I. You cannot.
Whow, whow, whow,,,, Luke is not the chosen one. Annakin is the chosen one. Even while he was committing horrible acts he was still the chosen one and did in fact destroy the emperor.
I really wish Lucas would have created a prequel about the trade negotiations. That 20 minutes was my favorite part of this movie because, although extremely boring, that scene happened before the rest of it had the chance to take a giant steaming shit on my enthusiasm and pretty much everything I had liked about Star Wars.
nekad2000 lol, but no- the trade negation dialogue was an embarrassment beyond comprehension. They could have cut 20 minutes of dialog and just covered it in the opening scroll and moved on. He was so insistent in making it a parallel to Hitler’s rise to power in Nazi Germany that we had to slog through boring dialogue that attempted to mask how blatantly unoriginal it was. Roger was fair by making it clear what he was omitting from his review. The special effects were great. Period. Nobody can deny that. He politely omitted that everything else about it was junk. The listener is meant to pick up on that.
I rewatched The Phantom menace, and sure the flaws get honed onto more than the original trilogy, which had flaws too. The floors that I think influence opinion to hate all things else in the TPM is the entertainment factor. It seems boring, but it didn't have what the original trilogy had, and its this urgency and desperation. That was because there was a clear line in the sand between who is bad and who is good. TPM into episodes 2 and 3 the enemy was just that.. a phantom. This Sith had been so long extinct the Jedi could not properly find it and fight it, and plus they the Jedi in their position had become complacent and therefore arrogant. This storyline naturally isn't as enthralling as a Death Star minutes away from blowing up the entire rebel alliance with an near extinct Jedi returning to the fold and become the phantom for the Sith ironically, and in TPM we know also what would be fated for much of the characters, yet in the original trilogy there was so much mystery in the back story, and naturally there isn't as much back story most want to know in the prequels, because it centralised on those characters of 4, 5 and 6. I for one still am curious of the back story of Qui-Gon Jinn, Sidious, Maul, Windu and heck even Yoda still. TPM is too an original story, and say what anyone will the Force Awakens isn't a creative force. Lucas had integrity for the story he wanted, but I think to have gotten better results he needed a writer, producer, director of Gary Kurtz, Irwin Kershner calibre whom could've challenged him and keep him some way in line and are not afraid to stick to their guns. Yes and Jar Jar sucked, however his character was going to be very significant in a Yoda type way, but unfortunately hip fan backlash saw an end to what would've been the only real twist in the prequels. Another thing that the original trilogy had, and which the prequels suffered from having.
He also needed his wife Marcia there - the one who re-wrote the script and co-edited the original trilogy. She had more say than anyone involved in those films. Sadly she retired and has not been seen since the late 80s.
Wendy Allison I agree with Wendy. Marcia Lucas was instrumental with the OT, and she (or someone like her - someone who can criticize George's missteps and still keep her job) is missing from the Prequels. Nobody in-house dares tell George when something sucks or needs improving. And her editing team made that first movie what it was, too.
Mark Daniels Not entirely true, did you know George reshoot Anakin's turn in ROTS because the test audience didn't like the original cut? Now I agree that the prequels could have benefited from more collaboration but I also think that Lucas's yes men attitude is highly exaggerated, just based on reading Making of books and behind the scenes. Compare him with Kathleen Kennedy who seems to enjoy firing people right and left because of the "creative differences" (and she's not even the creator of the universe).
Episode 1 has a lot of silly premises: Anakin Skywalker built C3PO, and was a professional racer at 6, midichlorians, prophecies, and Jar Jar Binks. But let's be honest, there's a ton more silly and ridiculousness in Awakens and The Last Jedi. And don't forget, Return of the Jedi had Ewoks. The prequels? Par for the course.
There's a certain paradox in the fact that Lucas wants his fictional world to look battered and retro, but wants his movies as state of the art as possible. Maybe he should have used retro production methods too. Maybe Star Wars would have been better if he used the corniest special effects possible.
He created Star Wars in a verisimilitude world. That is to say while we the viewer find the special effects and fantastical aspects of these movies to be outlandish, they still have to exist in a world that’s believable to the average person living in it. He was right on to wait until the technology was capable, otherwise what he had in mind for the prequels wouldn’t stand given his foresight of what types of imagery would be needed to tell these stories over their original trilogy
to be fair, this was a time where "SPECIAL EFFECTS" were still relevant. what? they still are? well, you may still find movies where people leave the theatres saying "wow those SPECIAL EFFECTS were pretty shitty", but when was the last time you talked to someone about a new movie going "yeah well at least it had great special effects"? now everything is either flawless or shitty in that regard, nothing groundbreaking anymore
Han Solo is shown in a clip from one of Episode IV's original theatrical releases, and he clearly shoots a guy who's pointing a gun at his head. Seems fair to me. Edit: Sorry Roger, Star Trek TOS predates every example of space theatrics you sighted, and it accomplished every shot you marveled at, only on a smaller screen, a significant 10 years prior. If you wanna ignore Trek (or TV in general) then you'll only lose critic points.
I miss the dramatic acting that was once a part of star wars movies. It is a little over the top but EP7 was just non-energetic. The story was much better than EPI but the acting just wasn't what I expected in SW.
What did Ebert see? : He personally saw Lucas ; during his canonization ; before his (perhaps deserved) hipster backlash, and, he saw his job in jeopardy if he challenged him in any way.
5:13 Gene would have said: "Well my thumb is way, way, way down Roger! Sure I admire the special effects and the bad guy, Darth Maul. But Jake Lloyd and Natalie Portman don't have any chemistry with each other, and neither both of them can act or read a script, and Ahmed Best is really annoying as Jar Jar and one of these guys are surely gonna win a Golden Raspberry Award, and I think Jar Jar is more annoying than the Ewoks. And don't get me started on the Midi-chlorian's, they take away the mystery of the force:
He probably would have been harsher if he wasn't going to interview George Lucas. Lesson to critics: DON'T INTERVIEW THE DIRECTOR JUST BEFORE, OR JUST AFTER CRITEQUEING THE FILM
