A cousin of mine and a couple friends of his are in town to celebrate the 50th anniversary of the Wisconsin Center for Film & Theater Research. He is my mom's first cousin which I believe makes him my first cousin once removed and means that he is roughly my mother's age, i.e. – in his mid-60s.
The four of us were hanging out on the Terrace last night. My cousin and one of his friends were discussing a couple of Laurel & Hardy shorts as well as 1950s TV including Life With Elizabeth starring Betty White.
I bring this up because of an interview with Mike Stoklasa at The A.V. Club. Stoklasa created some lengthy YouTube critiques of the Star Wars prequels which garnered a lot of attention. In the interview he says:
I just think that the prequels will evaporate from history while the original films will remain relevant for a while to come. The new films failed to create any iconic, memorable imagery, and it’s all very forgettable.
I have to wonder if the guy has any kids. Heck, he may and he may have forbidden them from watching any of the prequels. But this statement sounds like total bullshit to me. The new films may have failed to create any iconic, memorable imagery for him, but that doesn't mean the movies failed to do so for others.
My stepsons are Star Wars geeks and when they quote a line or make reference to one of the films, it is almost always a prequel from which they draw. Sure, they use the old "No, I am your father" line but, most of the time, when they talk about a Skywalker it's Anakin. I've never heard them mention Chewbacca and for them Obi Wan is Ewan McGregor, not Sir Alec Guinness. The worst shots in the entire galaxy are droids not Stormtroopers. When it comes to whirling sticks around like lightsabers, they refer to General Grievous. They have no idea whether Han or Greedo shot first nor have any clue just how incredibly cool Admiral Piett was. I doubt they know that Wedge was in all three of the original films nor do I think they care.
Having grown up in the 1970s and 80s, episodes 4-6 gave me many iconic images. My cousin and his friend had a similar experience in the 1950s. They have iconic images of Jack Benny whereas I don't. (However, I think Benny was great.) I have iconic images of Star Wars and they don't. I would also say that the prequels had some incredibly memorable images for me. Christopher Lee as Count Dooku, for instance. Plus Ian McDiarmid deliciously chewed up so much scenery that George Lucas had to CGI everything. Then there's Darth Maul and his dual-bladed lightsaber as well as Yoda kicking ass.
Another quote:
The argument that we’re just people who “can’t let go of their childhood” is just an insult to defend the massive failure of the newer films.
I don’t care what he says, not being able to let go of his childhood is exactly his problem. There were lots of people in the 1970s and 80s that didn't like Star Wars. Many girls I went to school with didn't like them as well as many adults whom came along and said what Stoklasa is saying: "Things were better when I was kid." Every generation does this.
None of this is to say that the prequels were all perfect. (See Jar Jar Binks and midi-chlorians.) But when someone comes along spouting the same crap about how something from their childhood is superior to the latest incarnation, I call BS. There are young people today who have no idea who Bob Dylan is, which would have been unthinkable just 20 years ago. But 20 years is a vast amount of time when you are 10 years old. Every generation gets its own icons. Some of the old ones persevere, some fall to side. The original Star Wars films will still be iconic to many but time moves on and they too must make room for newer films and newer audiences.
No comments:
Post a Comment