There will never be another trilogy like The Prequels

No, moron. Lucas was a technological innovator and the PT was made right at the cusp of movies becoming cartoons. I'm not saying he was solely responsible for it (you complete and total moron) and I'm not saying it was as innovative as the OT (that's kind of the point, moron). Pic-related refutes your intelligence. Cope homosexual.

>You more or less did already.
No I really didn't. Not reading the rest of your post because you're a disingenuous moron.

>I'm talking about the fact movies are literally computer-animated cartoons now
Not him but I like Love Death and Robots so that's a win for me.

I haven't seen all of that series but I've seen a couple episodes and they were decent. I'm not saying all computer animation is bad--just that it's interesting to note that Lucas was a pioneer and the technical artistry of the OT still stands up whereas the shit he was doing in the PT is looked down upon now (he went crazy with greenscreens). The guy above is too dumb to understand that point.

The general consensus is that greenscreen is soulless compared to the physical craftsmanship that used to be the centerpiece of creative filmmaking. Don't confuse this with the idea that I'm a Luddite, moron.

>No rebuttals

The rebuttal was you're acting like Star Wars is Shakespear. Cope moron.

>You did though.
I didn't. I said Lucas was a technical pioneer and I'll add that the creation of Industrial Light & Magic is seen as a watershed moment for SPX and raised the bar of technical filmmaking. Not reading the rest of your sperg. Cope moron.

Not reading the rest of your sperg.

>anti-intellectualism
>implying intellect is why people like Star Wars
Frick you're moron. Kek.

Not according to evidence ITT. Cope homosexual.

>No rebuttals

Absolutely wrong. George has been vocal about the downsides of blockbusters longer than any mainstream director I can think of.
The reason why the prequels were CGI heavy was because this was the cutting edge technology at the time, and his main interest as a visual director was tech and experimentation.

>heh you like this original movie made by one independent creator? well guess what other movies are made by corporations and thats his fault
meds

>A lot of the things shown in the prequels were unfilmable with OT tech.

Yeah and what the prequels had to show were ugly and looked better in films released decades previously. Coruscant is an uglier Blade Runner ripoff and that movie still looks better than Attack of the Clones

>He should've made them later when the tech was more advanced.
I think that's because you put Star Wars on a pedestal that Lucas never did

>despite the fact that you're already set for life
The guy made movies before he was rich, and he kept making them after he was rich. That's just being passionate.
My point is that this attitude that Lucas should have simply waited for other people to do the heavy lifting, develop new technology and then swoop in afterwards to make the most conventionally competent movie possible is a moronic one.

First of all by that logic absolutely nothing would ever get made, because you'll spend your life waiting for the next big leap in technology.
Secondly it goes against everything Lucas believes in, and enjoys about the creative process. He liked using Star Wars as a way to innovate, to give audiences something that they've never seen before - just as he did with the original trilogy.

The fact that you view Star Wars as something sacred that should have left the awkward early days of digital tech to other, 'lesser' films - and then coast by on their risks, says a lot more about you than it does about the movies.

>However, the OT was more innovative than the PT and looked better.
That's absolutely untrue.

The tech is "more advanced" now and movies made in the style of the prequels look just as fricking hideous

Because the sequels were made to be the anti-prequels. Did you miss all the REAL SETS, PRACTICAL EFFECTS memeing up to TFA's release?

>Did you miss all the REAL SETS, PRACTICAL EFFECTS
Yes. Because it was still littered with CGI. Why did it look better? Because the tech was there. Moreover, practical tech has also improved and advanced.

>the Mega Star Destroyer

the fricking what

In the prequels, sure. Had he made the prequels in the same time frame of the ST, then no.
In fact, there's a real possibility they would've looked better than the ST. Not only because the filmmaking process would be more advanced, but because it would've been original and not a rehash of the OT with some things added from the PT that worked well enough on their own.
And that's the entire crux of the argument I'm making. Lucas would've most likely ended up doing a superior ST. Do I want that to be the truth necessarily? No, I don't really care who gets to make the movies as long as they're good.
But it is in all likelihood the truth. It's a fact that Disney did not manage to deliver something that would blow the PT away as magnificently superior. A group of people working on a tv show (the mandalorian) have so far done a better job than a million dollar budget ST. That speaks volumes in itself.

>Lucas was never going to actually make the ST
Evidence shows otherwise. What he ended up doing is that he realized he was not only too old to invest so many years in a new trilogy, but also because he had other things he was occupied with, and when you couple that with the reception of the PT, it makes sense why he didn't go forward with the ST. He still gave Disney his story treatment, and only a few of his suggested plot elements were used.
>because he fricking hates making movies
What would make you assume that?

>George is responsible for these movies he didn't make
This is the most moronic take I've ever read on Cinemaphile, congrats

i never commented on the OT, though I would agree that the time and context of something's creation is relevant. You're doing a lot of insulting and leaping to conclusions for someone who's so smart

i agree that they shouldn't be compared. but that still doesn't explain why people talk like they're slipping in and out of a poor victorian impersonation in the sci fi space opera

>over the Republic getting its army
Palpatine*
He is the bad guy, anon. The Imperial march was playing for him, as the camera was focused on him overseeing his army.

No it's not you fricking moron. The CIS are not unambiguously evil, they're a group of planets and traders fighting for their interests from an overlord, being manipulated by a man with intentions to use their conflict as proxy for emergency dictator powers.

Dooku is possibly the most "grey area" character in all 6 movies.

>The CIS are not unambiguously evil, they're a group of planets and traders fighting for their interests
We never see actual *CIS* in any of the movies. What we see is greedy, evil corporations and their battle-droids, led by Dooku, an EVIL SITH LORD. He is *unambiguously* evil. He is a Sith Lord with a red lightsaber, on the Dark Side, shooting lightning out of his fingertips (like the Emperor), bragging about his power level, and he is a servant of DARTH SIDIOUS, the Space Satan.
Fricking pseuds, those are movies for 12 year olds. Like I said, go listen to the audio commentaries on DVD/BD and read Lucas' interviews. You put way more thoughts into these shitty flicks than he ever did. Probably because you read some garbo comic books or novels or whatever.

Who only became in charge of it, because he orchestrated a crisis and got himself in a position of power. Then he orchestrated another crisis, and then he killed everyone who opposed him.

You are trying your hardest to ignore a shit ton of plot material and fit a reduction into your preconceived bullshit. It just doesn't work. The PT plot is ambiguous, that's one of the reasons why people get frequently confused. They don't understand the motivations and interactions between the CIS, Dooku, Palpatine, Jango Fett, etc.

>Fricking pseuds, those are movies for 12 year olds. Like I said, go listen to the audio commentaries on DVD/BD and read Lucas' interviews. You put way more thoughts into these shitty flicks than he ever did. Probably because you read some garbo comic books or novels or whatever.

The absolute fricking irony of this post. You're watching reviews, commentary, interviews of these movies and I've never fricking bothered, and then saying I care too much. Movies for 12 year olds indeed! LMFAO

this doesn't look bad to me t b h
reminds me of old movies with painted backdrops

http://archive.4plebs.org/_/search/filename/%201451129493380.webm/

What did he mean by this?

>Black person can't even follow the plot of a children's movie
oh no no no no

I could see how you would think that, if you didn't watch or pay attention for 8 hours. It's all clearly explained when you aren't starting at your phone or licking a window or whatever it is you redditors do instead of analyzing the movie properly.

Nah. They're fun, good movies and I will continue to enjoy them while you keep trying to write a treatise as to why I shouldn't lol.

>"shilling" movies that were released 50 years ago
based moron

No, they weren't. Never happened. They were never corrupt or wrong, they were outplayed by Palpatine. That is what Lucas had said himself.

And about Anakin:

>"The Jedi are trained to let go. They're trained from birth," he continues, "They're not supposed to form attachments. They can love people- in fact, they should love everybody. They should love their enemies; they should love the Sith. But they can't form attachments. So what all these movies are about is: greed. Greed is a source of pain and suffering for everybody. And the ultimate state of greed is the desire to cheat death." --George Lucas, The Making Of Revenge Of The Sith; page 213.

>George Lucas: The core of Anakin's problem is that Jedi are raised from birth so they learn to let go of everything. They're trained more than anything else to understand the transitional nature of life, that things are constantly changing and you can't hold on to anything. You can love things but you can't be attached to them. You must be willing to let the flow of life and the flow of the Force move through your life, move through you. So that you can be compassionate and loving and caring, but not be possessive and grabbing and holding on to things and trying to keep things the way they are. Letting go is a central theme of the film.

>"He turns into Darth Vader because he gets attached to things. He can't let go of his mother, he can't let go of his girlfriend. He can't let go of things. It makes him greedy. And when you are greedy, you are on the path to the Darkside, because you fear you're going to lose things, that you're not going to have the power you need." -- George Lucas, Time Magazine, 2002

>These ten thousand reclusive monks, who spent most of their time resolving conflicts across the galaxy, got tricked and are slightly smug while not helping all of the trillions of beings in the galaxy
>Clearly they are totally bad and deserve their genocide
This punching upwards and moral relativism is just fricking pathetic.

Did all the people who were killed in God's flood deserve their genocide?

What? That's insane, the prequels do not portray the Jedi as corrupt, they portray them as needlessly overbureaucratized and needlessly rigid, their doctrine is never called into question, rather how their process had been contaminated by the republic's systems and their influence.

What's wrong with Ki Adi Mundi? How was he "misguided"? For wanting to help the Wookiees?

So what? He experienced skepticism, because of course he would. The Sith had been extinct for a millennia. Perhaps, Qui-Gon was wrong. There is nothing "misguided" or "corrupt" about it.

Ki Adi is just one random example that came to mind to juxtapose him with a more unorthodox Jedi like Obi Wan.
But if you want an in depth explanation as to why he was misguided by the Jedi code, it's because he treated loss, including that of his own family, as if it wasn't important at all (due to his belief in no attachments). He was the type of Jedi who would tell Anakin to suck it up and get over Shmi as if she wasn't of any importance.

>But if you want an in depth explanation as to why he was misguided by the Jedi code, it's because he treated loss, including that of his own family, as if it wasn't important at all (due to his belief in no attachments). He was the type of Jedi who would tell Anakin to suck it up and get over Shmi as if she wasn't of any importance.
>non canon EU comic book shit
Never happened, fan-fiction, irrelevant.

>And Qui Gon turned out to be right
And he could have been wrong. No one is required to dick ride Qui-Gon. He could be wrong, and it is reasonable to be skeptical about it.
> because he wasn't simply a blind follower of the Jedi doctrine
Instead, he was a blind follower of hockey prophecies doctrine. "A prophecy that misread could have been." Of course, with Lucas' words and hindsight 100/10, it was true, but it was never the case for people in-universe.
>If the Jedi were as perfect as you think, they wouldn't have failed Anakin
They never did - Anakin failed himself. Anakin got all the help and advice in the world. He chose to ignore it. There's no one to blame for Anakin's fall, but ANAKIN and his GREED, like George Lucas had said.
>Yoda literally went into exile.
Okay? What is that supposed to mean? He fought Sidious and lost. He went into exile, more so to wait for Skywalker children to grow up and stop the Sith again.

Thanks for playing, braindead child.

>"Could have" doesn't cut it here.
It does. Characters in those movies didn't read the script, and they did not know Lucas had retconned the OT and Emperor's death into "prophecy."
>You're just projecting your own skepticism here
My skepticism is irrelevant. It makes sense for characters in-universe to be skeptical, and it doesn't make them misguided or corrupt.
>Palpatine's sway and Kenobi being an inferior mentor
No one but Anakin is to blame for succumbing to Palpatine's sway. He'd been taught by the Jedi for decades, and it's his fault that he chose not to take those lessons to heart. And there was never anything particularly wrong with Kenobi, there was Anakin being a disobeying, arrogant little shit.
>That the Jedi failed, despite being more numerous than the Sith.
How are numbers relevant? They failed, because they served the Senate and the Republic, and the Senate and the Republic happened to be co-opted by a Sith Lord, who manipulated all of them, and then killed them. They are not perfect, because they are braindead for not figuring it out, despite numerous red flags, because those movies are shit, and the only way Lucas can elevate a bad guy is by making good guys painfully incompetent.

Imagine having to insert that level of headcanon into a character in order to pretend he has depth. He isn't Coriolanus. He's a boring stock mentor character. Lucas didn't know how to add conflict into his series because the Jedi have to be simplistic good guys.

>it ended up costing them
It ended up making them moronic NPCs in terms of storytelling.

>and they did not know Lucas had retconned the OT and Emperor's death into "prophecy."
Which in itself proves most of the Jedi were just as much in the dark as non-force sensitives. Aside from some like Qui Gon, a superior practitioner of the Force.
>No one but Anakin is to blame for succumbing to Palpatine's sway
Except for Palpatine's manipulation and the fact that Kenobi failed his student to some extent, like he himself acknowledged.
>who manipulated all of them
Then they're not as perfect as you're making them out to be. Dooku disbanded from the Jedi for a reason. Qui Gon would've probably seen the manipulation at work as well.
> They are not perfect, because they are braindead
No, it's because the intent was never there for them to be "perfect".
I also find it funny how you're posting all of these webms as if no one ITT has seen the movies, or under the implication that we would dislike what we see.

>In-universe, Qui-Gon was a moron
No, he was right because Anakin did turn out to be the chosen one, and the one who ended the Sith.
The technicalities of what "chosen one" entailed were unclear.
Kenobi also acknowledges his own failure. Cope.
>And Dooku himself was manipulated by Sidious
Sure, but his turn to the Sith didn't happen solely due to Sidious' manipulation. He disagreed with the Jedi Order on a number of things. You're oversimplifying everything.
>You wouldn't, if you had any sense of taste.
Clearly it's not as one sided as you're making it to be, because otherwise you wouldn't be seething for hours on end about a bunch of movies that were released however many decades ago.
On "paper" your arguments make sense, or at least they do to you, but in reality there's people who disagree, and that thought eats you from the inside. You simply can't cope with it. It's the most important aspect of your online personality. To devote time screeching about one of however many thousands of fantasy movies that youngsters watch, because someone out there happens to like them.

>Tell that to all those people Anakin murdered
Already addressed preemptively in my post because I knew you'd bring this up. Check the sentence about the technicalities.
>Destroy the Sith and bring balance to the Force.
Yes, and he did. What happens in between that was the unknown. That includes his turn to the dark side.
>I can spend my free time however I want
That is true, but your decision to spend it crying about movies that have been released decades ago at this point, and that have been discussed to the most minute detail even at the time of their release, makes it look like a waste of time to any rational person.
You're irate and come off as mentally unhinged. There was never a sophisticated level of complexity to Star Wars that would justify this hissy fit if your only reference points are the original movies.
In Layman's terms, you have nostalgia goggles for one trilogy, and not for the PT. In reality, they're products of comparable quality, in terms of storytelling and arguably even effects, although I can agree with your only truly good point, in that the CGI was largely inferior to practical.
Now if you'll excuse me, I have useful things to fill my time which don't include trying to convince some manchild about things in a bunch of 20 year old movies.

>Qui Gon wasn't right
>Films end with the Sith destroyed
based moron

“Balance” basically meant the destruction of both the Jedi and Sith, starting both orders from scratch again.

Why are the Sith permanently extinct because Sheev was tossed into a pit? How is "evil" as a metaphysical concept permanently destroyed by Anakin? Bad guys just cease to exist now? Nothing bad will ever happen to anyone ever again, and no one will ever be threatened by the temptation to do evil?

Star Wars is supposed to be a morality play with real lessons to apply to real life, that's why it connects with so many people

To promise a permanent victory of good over evil where bad things will never happen to anyone ever again leads to an entire generation of maladjusted manchildren existing in perpetual states of arrested development living in the world of secondhand, childish banalities that Alec Guinness tried to warn us about.

You’re taking that interview out of context. Guinness thought the childishness of Star Wars was cute and refreshing.

The problem is that RotJ's original ending wasn't a conclusive one, and then the prequels ask you to just take it on faith that everything would be sunshine and rainbows afterwards because of some bullshit about prophecy and balance

that no one can adequately explain what "Balance in the Force" actually means or explain how Vader destroying Sheev guarantees permanent, long-term peace just further solidifies my belief that the sequels' depiction of a galaxy that backslid into old conflicts was the only option

>This is something you made up in your own head, and then got angry at

The prequels literally recontextualize Vader destroying Sheev as a permanent victory of good over evil in a hamfisted Jesus analogue and that this would bring "Balance" to the Force, whatever the frick that means

>The prequels literally recontextualize Vader destroying Sheev as a permanent victory of good over evil
Again, see

[...]
The whole underlying philosophy of Star Wars is that 'an intimate event between a father and son' and 'an event of cosmic significance' are the exact same thing

The balance within an individual, the balance within a civilization, the balance of good and evil within the cosmos, it's all the same shit. Circles within circles within circles, what happens on the level of the Hero is reflected in his World. The cycles of good and evil are written in a single human heart, and also in the stars.

I know you haven't read Campbell because that would require you to have a frame of reference beyond pop culture and youtube videos, but this is kinda his whole schtick. The Hero's Journey, the Cosmogonic Cycle, virgin births, false dualities, destruction and rebirth, eternal recurrence. It's all in there if you bothered to look.

The fact that you don't understand mythology isn't a flaw with the movie

Sith abuse force, a literal magic to extreme, their teachings, way they behave and their personalities built on warmongering and domination makes them evil by default and potential space hitler. Thats why destroying them alongside their ideals and teachings is a big deal, evil like space pirates and hutt cartel will always exist but they arent a big deal like sith are.

>so the dark side of the force just ceases to exist, now?
No, the Dark Side of the Force will always exist.
>What's stopping anyone with a connection to the Force from using it for selfish goals?
Connection to the Force is not enough to develop any serious abilities. It is just potential. You need to be trained, for decades. No Sith teachings = no one to train you, no disbalance.

>What's stopping another evil Space Warlock from rising up?
No one to teach him any space warlock abilities. Again, to become a serious threat that will disrupt the balance of the Force, you have to be trained for decades, and you have to seriously abuse the Force with the Dark Side. Just some jerks with Force Potential (merely potential) won't make any difference.
Luke also didn't do anything remarkable.
>inb4 he beat darth vader
Debatable.

Jedi dying out with their teaching would make force as a organized religion of power to follow would definitely affect probability of sith popping up every now and then. After all, as long as even two jedi exist theres always room for one getting corrupted and turning full schizo sith, restarting the cycle.

Even Luke had someone to guide him, without obi luke would forever remain a desert farmer with raw potential but no real power.

>Yes? It still is

The humanity of the moment has become subservient to the prophecy and chosen one powerlevel bullshit of the prequels, and you (or some other anon) was trying to use that moment as evidence of the prequels' chosen one bullshit

>Sounds like a problem with you rather than the movie. It's only you choosing to interpret it that way

How many fricking dipshits are in this thread, RIGHT NOW, trying to argue that Anakin is the protagonist of all six movies because of chosen one prequel retcons?

Sounds to me like you don’t understand basically spiritually if you don’t think human love and the triumph of good over evil aren’t intrinsically intertwined. In fact, that’s the entire message of the saga— Love as a means of redemption.

No, he did that, because he was destined to. He literally had no choice, because he was prophecised to kill the Emperor. It was suddenly not an intimate event between a father and son, but it was an even of cosmic significance that was destined to happen, because Anakin Skywalker is for some reason a chosen one of virgin birth born in the desert, lol.

It's not my personal views, but of George Lucas. He said on record that the prophecy is 100% true and it did happen, and Anakin was destined to do it regardless.

Really weird how these tards can't understand your point about lucas adding a childish "prophecy" diminishes the events in his OT when people loved them for their own merit, not because they were pre-ordained

Again with the implication that destiny means the events don't have their own merit

It really is just atheists that hate these movies isn't it?

Not an argument zoomer

This. Star Wars is a philosophical piece about spirituality and how it binds us all.

Lucas himself actually said that for the longest time, critics and audiences seem to have trouble looking past the flashing lights and explosions to see the underlying themes.

Hayden is good and plays anakin great.
Don’t get why people give him shit when he accurately portrays a prodigy that has been inducted in a brutally repressive cult, that also engages in courtly love with his oneitis and sometimes struggles with his emotions. Then later becomes unhinged and subsisting on pure copium.
An excellent portrayal

People b***hed about Hayden because they didn’t understand that he wasn’t supposed to be a charismatic hero and that he was supposed to be a sad, pathetic man.

>a brutally repressive cult
>shills PT movies
>doesn't understand them
>thinks the Jedi are "brutally repressive" and it's not moron Anakin, who was just greedy and could not let go of his attachments that he turned into possessions
every time

>implying a cult that forbids attachment altogether isn’t repressive
Jedi hypocrisy dates back to the OT. Obi Wan and Yoda tried to deter Luke from sparing Vader because they thought he was beyond redemption.

No, they weren't. Never happened. They were never corrupt or wrong, they were outplayed by Palpatine. That is what Lucas had said himself.

And about Anakin:

>"The Jedi are trained to let go. They're trained from birth," he continues, "They're not supposed to form attachments. They can love people- in fact, they should love everybody. They should love their enemies; they should love the Sith. But they can't form attachments. So what all these movies are about is: greed. Greed is a source of pain and suffering for everybody. And the ultimate state of greed is the desire to cheat death." --George Lucas, The Making Of Revenge Of The Sith; page 213.

>George Lucas: The core of Anakin's problem is that Jedi are raised from birth so they learn to let go of everything. They're trained more than anything else to understand the transitional nature of life, that things are constantly changing and you can't hold on to anything. You can love things but you can't be attached to them. You must be willing to let the flow of life and the flow of the Force move through your life, move through you. So that you can be compassionate and loving and caring, but not be possessive and grabbing and holding on to things and trying to keep things the way they are. Letting go is a central theme of the film.

>"He turns into Darth Vader because he gets attached to things. He can't let go of his mother, he can't let go of his girlfriend. He can't let go of things. It makes him greedy. And when you are greedy, you are on the path to the Darkside, because you fear you're going to lose things, that you're not going to have the power you need." -- George Lucas, Time Magazine, 2002

>What is death of the author
If it's not in the movies, then your point is moot.

I think that anon was pointing out the irony of you quoting Lucas but discarding anything else that wasn't in the movies specifically.
But even in the movies themselves, it's quite clear that the Jedi weren't without flaws.

You're not disproving any of that anon's arguments though. You're describing Anakin's downfall using his creator's own words.
OBVIOUSLY Anakin fricked up. That doesn't mean the Jedi order was perfect. That much is clear in the movies.

>misguided
Yes they were. That's what blind devotion does to a person.
Same with your blind devotion to cry and piss and shit about a man who isn't even involved with Star Wars anymore.
It becomes clear by the first prequel movie alone that some Jedi are different than others. Qui Gon's insistence that the Jedi take Anakin alone was what made him different and unorthodox, regardless of the disproval of his peers.

That just shows how bad those movies were, when they failed to convey the point George Lucas tried to make, and instead people derived polar opposite meaning out of it.

>being open to interpretation means it sucks
Are you fricking five years old? Do you need every story spelled out to you to remove ambiguity of any kind? How do you function outside of your parents' basement if you can't process text on the level of a grade-schooler? Your level of critical thinking stops at a dichotomy of "cringe" vs. "based"

>This logic can be applied to a shit ton of characters and arcs though. May as well just say the entire PT is mindless pandering.
It is. Bravo, you figured it out. We need to sell Darth Vader and recolored Boba Fett toys.
>Why NOT feature a character who has grown in popularity since the release of the OT?
I am repeating myself: makes the galaxy smaller, the plot contrived and nonsensical, bears no meaning whatsoever, outside of indulging in fanservice that makes money.
>And shoving a middle finger in the face of the fans is good cinema, right? It absolutely worked with the ST, kek.
Again with non-sequitur. Why are you so dead set on wasting everyone's time? We are discussing the PT, not the ST. Make something new and something that makes sense, as opposed to making an army of Boba Fetts and making recolored Boba Fett *clone*.
>Your entire motivation to cry about these PG-13 movies is because they weren't like muh OT.
Never said that, another logical fallacy.

Oh, frick. In fact, I am done with you. You are braindead, and you are clearly not interested in arguing in good faith. You are here to dickride these atrocious, garbage flicks you saw as a kid, when you hadn't developed any sense of critical thought.

>We need to sell Darth Vader
Didn't you say in an earlier post that Anakin Skywalker/Darth Vader should/would have been featured in the PT regardless?
> the plot contrived and nonsensical
Not really. The plot makes sense. You just hated the inclusion of the characters. The issue isn't that it's "nonsensical", it's laid out in a pretty simple manner.
>outside of indulging in fanservice
Here we go again with the fanservice. You realize when Lucas was doing the opposite of fanservice people were b***hing about the Ewoks, right? And about the way in which Boba Fett was disposed?
The character of Jango Fett is at least partially inspired by the criticism towards Boba Fett, that much is clear. You can pretend the fanbase's opinions don't matter, but that was clearly proven false by what you undeniably hail as the best Star Wars movie, TLJ.
No matter how you look at it, a 50/50 audience result is not good. The OT didn't have that problem, or at least not to that extent.
> as opposed to making an army of Boba Fetts
The Clone Wars were mentioned back in the OT. The fact that the actual telling of those events didn't coincide with your headcanon is your problem. You might've thought "clone wars" meant cloned Jedi. Who knows.
>Oh, frick. In fact, I am done with you
Good. It's time to grow up and stop crying about muh wronged childhood 20+ years later. Move the frick on and stop spamming these threads.

see

[...]
The whole underlying philosophy of Star Wars is that 'an intimate event between a father and son' and 'an event of cosmic significance' are the exact same thing

The balance within an individual, the balance within a civilization, the balance of good and evil within the cosmos, it's all the same shit. Circles within circles within circles, what happens on the level of the Hero is reflected in his World. The cycles of good and evil are written in a single human heart, and also in the stars.

I know you haven't read Campbell because that would require you to have a frame of reference beyond pop culture and youtube videos, but this is kinda his whole schtick. The Hero's Journey, the Cosmogonic Cycle, virgin births, false dualities, destruction and rebirth, eternal recurrence. It's all in there if you bothered to look.

You're confusing the fact you have emotional empathy with a story with the idea that the story is written well. If you personally enjoy it--fine. There's no accounting for taste. If you don't understand why it makes no sense and is terribly written that just means you're moronic.

No, there is no "technically." Shit makes no sense. Not only Anakin was already Obi-Wan's learned at that point (thus already contradicting it), but it was no "idealistic crusade", but Obi-Wan investigating an assassination attempt, and he had to be rescued, that's all, and the war just happened to begin there, because plot. Absolutely different from what was said in the OT.

>literal cope
lol
lmao even
braindead shitter zoomer moron, not even trying anymore

How the frick was a clone army large enough to fight a galactic scale war made on one city in one backwater planet in the butthole of the galaxy

how was their fleet created when the Republic literally hasn't fought a war in a thousand years and there should be no military industrial complex

>commissioned to those weird aliens in the all white ships

You would need billions of clones, minimum, to fight a war the scale of the Clone Wars. Yet they were all made in one city on one planet. Ridiculous.

>ignores the other stuff
>probably thinks the mystery army is ok because of its necessity for the plot to happen
>doesn't understand why that's bad writing let alone completely stupid when it comes to logic
Sure moron.

>why is it bad writing and stupid
I already explained why Anakin's entire arc is moronic and pointed out the failed "forbidden romance" that's one of the core elements motivating Anakin. As far as the clone army goes: imagine if we were overtly aware of a massive conspiracy taking place and just happened to uncover a secret army. Now imagine placing it under the political control of someone to whom we've given absolute power but is suspicious enough that we give him a tail--now imagine the tail as someone we don't fully trust who is obsessed with power.

Yeah, anon. That's not bad writing at all.

>pointed out
Yes, moron. I "pointed out" and didn't go into great detail save for referencing the fact the audience is continually told it's "forbidden" but there are never any plot threads or even a basic conflict generated by this supposed longstanding Jedi tradition (which is also never explained, btw). Basically, Lucas just needs the idea that it's forbidden in order to service a conflict between Anakin's role as a Jedi and his role as Padme's husband--none of this is ever flushed out and no drama arises from it (in fact, Obi-wan is inexplicably cool with it once he finds out and we get a laughable scene where he figured out "the baby is Anakin's, isn't it?"). Simply put, the plot needs a reason for Anakin to be a moron and simply ignore a grand conspiracy that has led to the deaths of millions of people. Not only ignore it but actively go along with it by murdering "younglings" (kek).
>Again, this is addressed in the movie
No, it really isn't moron. The fact is you can't explain the logic of it beyond the fact that the plot simply needs it to happen. It's ridiculous when put in a larger context, just like everything in those movies, so no--you just enjoyed the movies and are too dumb to realize none of the poorly written nonsense holds together or makes any logical sense. Cope.

The lack of logical cohesion is addressed in the movie? Sure moron. That's why you're having such an easy time refuting what I've pointed out and don't simply state "IT IN THE MOVIE YOU JUS DONE GET IT" over and over. I go back to:
>When it's pointed out to prequel gays they'll explain really simplistic plot points and confuse the idea you didn't understand Anakin was mad-sad with the fact his motivation is nonsensical/convoluted. (

Don't forget: Anakin's entire arc makes no sense both internally and within the context of the plot. When it's pointed out to prequel gays they'll explain really simplistic plot points and confuse the idea you didn't understand Anakin was mad-sad with the fact his motivation is nonsensical/convoluted.

)
Cope.

Sure, buddy. Just admit you're a moron.

>immediately put under the command
No, he wasn't. He *chose* to be a Jedi. It was his choice. Nobody "put" him under anything. He was told about the repercussions of such choice, and he accepted it. His mother encouraged him. Stop trying to lift responsibility from him.
> told to call him 'Master', and obey him without question
'Master' means 'teacher'. 'Sensei'. You obey him, because you learn from him, because you are a little shitter, that knows nothing. You learn to become better and fulfill your potential.

Just have a nice day, you braindead moron.

you have to calm down, it's just a space wizard movie kid