Why the Star Wars prequels weren't as good: no Han Solo.

Cafe Society
1

I used to think the biggest reason the prequels were so unsatisfying to most people was because because the SW legacy built up in their minds for 20+ years that it became something that could not be competed with.

But now, I think it’s because there was no character to provide to the prequels what Han Solo provided: sarcastic wit.

They tried to provide comic relief with Jar Jar, about which enough has been said. But what was really lacking was a seedy sarcastic wise-cracking rogue.

Of course, if ther was one, then people would complain about it being a Han Solo derivative rip-off. so it was pretty much a no-win situation.

2

Waitaminute. You’re saying that the fans were fine with Daddy Fett, but would have cried foul if they introduced Daddy Solo?

(Although I guess Daddy Solo would probably have stolen Amidala right out from under boring old “Annie’s” nose, and then we would have ended up with Spaceballs instead. :D)

3

It’s true that there are no cool characters in the prequel, and it’s like a sea of Lukes, the most boring, earnest character in the real movies.

But that’s like finding a body that’s been beaten, shot, stabbed, poisoned, and decapitated, and declaring the cause of death is a cold sore.

4

Revtim, I’d say the fact that there was no Han Solo-like character is a symptom of what was wrong with the movie: the Jedi have no sense of humor. Everything is made epic and larger-than-life. In general, it should not have been necessary to crowbar a comic-relief character into the film if the other characters had just had an opportunity to be funny and still be in character.

The second movie worked back toward that ideal: Obi-Wan had some good quips that enabled him to remain in character and still lighten the tension at appropriate moments. The parts of the 2nd film that worked were the Obi-Wan bits. The romance clanked.

I understand, on paper, what Lucas aspired to do with Jar-Jar. Episode one, without Jar-Jar, would have been extremely talky and heavy in tone; it needed lightening. He should have done that by simply making the Jedi more well-rounded characters, capable of being wise and witty. The second movie shows it could have been done better; the original trilogy shows that it was done better but not by Lucas alone. Jar-Jar was an act of desperation at the screenplay level and an utter failure.

5

I’ve made the observation to friends, family, strangers in the street… anyone who’ll listen basically, that Han Solo is the key to the success of the Star Wars films. It’s not just the wit and charm of the character (remember when Lucas wrote characters? ) or the comfortable ease of Ford’s performance. The character plays a pivotal narrative role: he is our eyes.

Everyone else in the story has an integral role to play in the mythos of the Star Wars universe. The aspiring Jedi, the Princess in distress, the wise old mage, the dark evil master and his ambitious underling… these are archetypes that the story hinges on.

But Solo is, for the most part, just some guy caught up in circumstances way over his head. His sarcastic comments and non-committal attitude are entertaining because they poke through the overblown aspects of Star Wars the EPIC. It’s through his ‘everyman’ eyes that we can see the wonder of the Star Wars universe for the first time.

There’s no one that fills that role, even slghtly, in the prequels. We have no guide to take us through the story, no easily identifiable Avatar through which we can vicariously share the adventure.

thwartme

6

As long as you ignore the terrible script, inept directing and wooden acting, you might just have a point :wink:

7

Wow, you’re right. Han Solo is like the Xander Harris of Star Wars. Or… well… Xander is the Han of Buffy. Whatever. But yeah, that makes perfect sense. Cool stuff, thwartme.

8

I would agree with this statement… after I tinker with it a bit.

I would not compare Buffy’s Xander with Han Solo.

Xander’s a likeable goof kind of guy who fleshes out in the course of the series and becomes something resembling a real person, with a slight endearing edge of goofiness. I mean, I’m hardly a hardcore Buffyite, but are there Buffy Nerds out there who vicariously live through Xander? Are there people out there who want to be Xander? Do people attend cons dressed as Xander? Little kids picking up sharp sticks, and playing Xander and Vampires?

A case could be made that Xander’s an everyman, sure, and allows us to access the Buffyverse from his perspective… but Han Solo’s a different beast.

Han Solo is cool.

True, Xander can remember ghostly skills from when he was mystically turned into Rambo, but Han Solo can make the Kessel run in less than ten par-secs.

Han knew damn good and well what Greedo was up to, and plugged the snout-nosed SOB before he could even get his gun clear of the holster, regardless of what the improved edition says.

Han’s a badass. Han’s cool. Han’s able to assemble battle plans on the fly, even when he gets WAY in over his head, and Han’s the ultimate key to the Rebel Alliance’s hopeless battle against the Empire’s greatest weapon.

He could’ve just flown off with his reward money. Instead, he came back, proving that he’s everything us science fiction nerds wanna be, and COULD be. Come on, none of US would have just left that poor dumb farm boy to get his tail shot off!

Han’s comedy comes from when the situation isn’t running his way – the “about face” scene from A New Hope, the “whack the console and make the lights come back on” scene from Empire, the Sarlacc scene from Jedi, which for all its suspense and high adventure, approaches the Three Stooges in some parts for sheer physical slapstick funniness.

And even when things don’t go Han’s way, he still finds a way to grab circumstances by the neck and wring victory (or escape) from the jaws of failure. We may laugh at him, but he got away, didn’t he? And where’s my wallet, now that I think about it?

Man, I’d rather be Han Solo on the worst day he ever lived than Xander. Nothing against Xander.

But Han Solo is cool.

And if and when George Lucas figures this out, the movies may cease to suck, because I agree with what has been said about Jedi – they’re great, yes, but they’re monastic. They’re controlled. They feel and wield the Force… but they don’t have any fun. And they don’t get to sleep with Natalie Portman, either, unless they’re gonna go over to the Dark Side and get their butts kicked.

Man, I’d rather be Han Solo than a Jedi, any day of the week. Nothing against the Jedi. And lightsabers are badass, sure.

But Han Solo is cool.

Can you dig it? :cool:

9

Less than twelve. Please shoot me.

10

Okay. But in post-production they’ll make it look like you shot first.

11

Not for twenty years!

12

Actually, the prequels are a LOT better movies than the first three, because they’re so visually beautiful to watch and the story still zips right along.

A Han Solo cahracter would be nice and an improvement in the story, but is demonstrably not necessary.

13

That’s a very interesting response. I disagree that the prequels are better; I’ll confess I didn’t even bother seeing Clone Wars, much though I had been looking forward to it until Phantom Menace.

But I saw the original Star Wars in the theatre in its first release; and - at that time - it was amazing. Hackneyed writing, cliched plots and dialogue, but the timing was dead on and the world looked real. I came out comparing it to Frankenstein’s monster: all old parts stitched clumsily together, but it’s alive!

And every movie since, the special effects got more compelling. (Not the plot, the writing, the characters… but the special effects.)

So I’ve wondered: for me, the climactic battle between Obi Wan Kenobi and Darth Vader was compelling. But for someone who’s seen the other movies - is the original Star Wars, visually, a let-down?

On other issues: I really like Master Wang-Ka’s thoughts regarding Han Solo. I think I agree. I’d add that, for me, one of the weaknesses of the prequels is that they turn Star Wars into The Epic of Darth Vader.

It wasn’t that, in the beginning. Darth Vader was a splendid B-movie villain; the kind who keeps coming back. And back. Now, I think, he has become the center.

14

Well, y’know, I lived through the seventies as a sci-fi geek.

Hollywood tried a variety of science fiction TV series during the seventies and eighties, you know? The trouble is… these series were not made by people who wanted to live them. These series were made by people with no real taste for the genre, who were sitting at someone’s pitch meeting and went, “oo, neato.”

Science fiction nerds don’t wanna live in postapocalyptic scenarios, even if there are talking monkeys with guns. Especially if there are talking monkeys with guns.

Science fiction nerds don’t want to be clumsy super heroes. If we MUST be super heroes, we wanna be stylish, clever, and wickedly competent. The last thing we wanna be is comic relief.

Science fiction nerds don’t want to be hunted by the law, crazed reporters, alien assassins, an evil empire, or crazed billionaires, thus having to change locations every episode. We can live with being hunted, but we do need reasonably stable bases of operation, preferably with lots of cool stuff, or at the very least, a fast, badass spaceship to flee in. Hell, if we just wanted to be homeless, we could manage that in real life with very little trouble.

Science fiction nerds don’t want to be lost. This implies that we are not wickedly competent, and denies us shore leave priveliges on the planets of our choice. This premise has failed several shows already, and I will never understand why Berman decided to try it again with a *Star Trek * series.

…and y’know what? Time and time again, producers have set up pilot episodes for TV shows based on the faulty premises listed above. And time and time again, they fail.

There were exceptions. *The Incredible Hulk * lasted way longer than I thought it would. *The Greatest American Hero * seems to be undergoing a renaissance, although I suspect that’s more nostalgia than enjoyment; you’ll notice the show barely lasted one season during its original run. And I am utterly amazed that Sliders held on as long as it did. Oh, wait, if not for the Sci-Fi channel, it would have died a quick death, wouldn’t it? (and for the life of me, I never looked at the lead character and thought him capable of building a crystal radio, much less a dimension-traveling widget).

…but if you’ll look at it through that filter, making a TV show and science fiction franchise that will draw the geeks like flies should be easy. We want lead characters who are cool, good looking, and wickedly competent at what they do. Humor should come from unexpected situations, or the characters’ wisecracks, not the inherent goofiness of the characters. These characters should be more or less in control of their situation in general, and should have conflict thrown at them from outside, conflicts and problems which they must solve in a variety of ways. The conflict should not arise from the *basic situation * of the show; we’re sick to death of shows where the protagonists are lost in space, time, or other dimensions.

Science fiction geeks don’t wanna be Lost In Space. They want to be Star Trek.

Science fiction fans don’t wanna be The Greatest American Hero. They want to be Buffy The Vampire Slayer.

And, yes, science fiction nerds don’t wanna be Qui-Gonn Jinn, Anakin Skywalker, or even Yoda. They wanna be Han Solo!

15

As long as you are correctly pointing out that the old version was better than the new, please bear in mind that the old, un-screwed-up film was not called “A New Hope.” The title of the movie was “Star Wars.” George Lucas can call the new edited thing whatever he wants, but the 1977 movie that made all that money and won seven Oscars was called “Star Wars.” No episode number, no “new hope,” none of that.

Thanks.

And other than the title error I agree 100%.

Evil Captor, unless you are actually George Lucas, I guess that makes two. Sorry, but the prequels don’t move right along. They drag like a lame frog’s ass.

16

Revtim
You said that the 20 year waiting period from Episode 6 to Episode 1 raised everyone’s expectations impossibly high. Actually, (in my case anyway), it was just the opposite. After 1983, George Lucas screwed around with foolishness such as “Howard the Duck” and after a while, my interest steadily diminished in wanting to see any more Star Wars sequels, prequels or whatever. To tell you the truth, I waited for Episode I to come out on cable and even then I wasn’t counting the minutes for my first viewing. I only saw it once and that was more than enough. Talk about miscasting — Liam Neeson !!!

It was more than just a Han Solo character missing. It was that great chemistry between ALL of the original cast (Carrie Fisher, Mark Hamill, Harrison Ford, Alec Guiness, Chewbacca R2D2, C3PO, etc) that made Star Wars the fun that it was. Granted you couldn’t bring back the actual actors, but it seems NO attempt was made to build a new set of characters that were as fun as the original.

17

You are, of course, quite right, but if I’d called it *Star Wars * instead of A New Hope, instead of you griping at me, it would have been someone who got confused and wanted to know which movie I was talking about.

And for what it’s worth, I personally regard *A New Hope * as the lamest of all the titles of all the movies, although *Attack Of The Clones * come durned close.

Mm-- yes and no. Some parts are quite zippy. Others drag along like a frog after a stroke, true. I rather liked how The Phantom Menace immediately opens with a big fight scene.

Then, as parts of TPM and AOTC groaned along under their own pretentious weight, I couldn’t help but think about the old *Making Of A Saga * documentary, in which we are told that Georgie was obsessive about pacing, wanting everything to rock, rock, rock along as faaaast as possible, cutting from scene to scene like freakin’ crazy.

So, the next one’s gonna be titled Star Wars: I Found Wealth But Lost My Talent, right?

18

I’m no film maker or scholar, but can one really make attempt at that type of thing? Or is it one of those “either it happens or it doesn’t” type things?

19

This sf nerd wants to be a mutant cross between Qui-Gonn Jinn and Han Solo.

Wise, together, supremely capable bad-ass Jedi Master, combined with wise-ass, clever, supremely capable, get-all-the-girls-type loveable rogue. If you’re going to fantasize, might as well go for the complete package :p.

  • Tamerlane
20

No, they’re not a letdown if you see them in order. The series just keeps getting better visually over time. And the pulp storyline makes it roll along. OK, the scenes of Anakin romancing whatsername drag like a turtle with a broken leg, but the rest of it is interesting and fun to watch.

I’m sorry you guys can’t seen that, but you are a tiny minority among the hundreds of millions who have enjoyed the films. If AOTC and TPM were one tenth as bad as had been described here, they’d have died at the box office instead of blossoming there.

Give it up, guys. You’re wrong. I’ve seen bad movies, a lot of them, and these aren’t bad movies.