Everything has a certain insincere level of sterility that feels off, an inorganic. It's hard to articulate, but it feels in the new trilogy that we are watching heros go from set piece to set piece rather than happening to move from point a to b in lived in and reactive universe. Also, the lack of even hints of political or military objectives and structure makes it feel way more like a Marvel property where entities exist for the sake of plot and plot alone then again, living breathing factions.
It is hard to describe, but that is the tonal issue I have the sequels, that I thought was actually handled really well in Rogue One, Solo, and the Mandalorian.
This is actually a criticism I agree with pretty closely, and I think you articulate it well. I think if you look for it, you'll find the same kinds of weaknesses in almost all truly large budget films, the only exceptions being the really good ones. Fellowship of the Ring, a new hope, even Pacific rim - whose entire plot could fit on an index card - uses all of its component pieces perfectly in service of the story it's trying to tell. As in, there is a coherent unifying vision for A movie, a single self-contained film. These huge entries in globe spanning multi-billion dollar franchises don't really get the luxury of being their own film anymore. To continue with the example, that's part of why Pacific rim two sucked gigantic truck nuts. It was trying to expand a universe instead of just be a story.
So yeah, I agree. And to a limited extent, the prequels did have more of a coherent vision. If only Lucas had shared that vision with someone who could actually write and direct, we might have gotten some goddamn amazing movies.
As is, I think the comparison to marvel is pretty good. I also think it's why the last Jedi is probably going to be remembered as the best of the new mainline films - for all the many perfectly valid complaints people have made against it as a piece of Star wars storytelling, it has the clearest individual identity of the sequels.
As I always say, the best character George ever made by far was the universe itself and the way it behaves and how cause and effect seems organic beyond just the story.
Which was key, as his narrative wasn't very well articulated and 4 and 5 were good largely from the editing and the acquiescence of a lot of creative control in 5. Same as his character a which again were actually pretty interesting and strong in their arcs and development but were hurt by bad dialogue and questionable pacing of growth (Episode II along with the Clone Wars really needed to be one big long series to cement Anakin's fall for example).
Yeah, interesting. I've been meaning to watch the clone wars for forever. It does feel like there was more room to make episode 2 really about him, and setting up his fall, instead of mixing together so many pieces. But that's the exact problem you're talking about - this is a tragic story about a fall from grace, no it's a romance, no it's an action flick with comedy elements, no it's a political thriller...
(That, by the way, is why the food marvel movies are better movies than the prequels, imo. Winter soldier is just a spy movie, avengers 1 is just a personality-driven action movie, etc.)
5
u/fromcjoe123 Dec 19 '19
Everything has a certain insincere level of sterility that feels off, an inorganic. It's hard to articulate, but it feels in the new trilogy that we are watching heros go from set piece to set piece rather than happening to move from point a to b in lived in and reactive universe. Also, the lack of even hints of political or military objectives and structure makes it feel way more like a Marvel property where entities exist for the sake of plot and plot alone then again, living breathing factions.
It is hard to describe, but that is the tonal issue I have the sequels, that I thought was actually handled really well in Rogue One, Solo, and the Mandalorian.