Conversation

Kinda want to explore ambitious mediocrity a la Star Wars prequels. Big goals, generally good conceptual bones, half-assed execution with clear room for big improvements you know they’re talented enough to see, but chose not too.
5
25
Original trilogy weaknesses were due to Lucas operating at personal/tech limits. Sequels weaknesses were due to weak, compromised conceptual bones, which execution can’t fix. But prequels? Pure ambitious mediocrity. You know George Lucas knew better and could have done better.
4
16
I get the sense Lucas was in mathematician “prove solution exists” mode with construction an afterthought. He didn’t need the money, which he could be confident would roll in anyway. He just needed to execute enough to verify the proof of his larger creative vision.
Replying to
One thing that was consistently amazing between original and prequels: the world and character building. It was extraordinarily realised even in prequels. Mostly horrendous script & acting. Felt absolutely dead and by numbers where originals had spunk and heart.
1
Replying to
Idk, my view is that Lucas was a billion years ahead of his time on visuals, and barely solid enough on storytelling. None of the stories were great; though they were just Star Trek enough (e.g. not playing ackbar as a joke, which literally everyone else would have at the time)