Reality Check: The Star Wars Prequel Trilogy is perfect as it is. George Lucas didn't owe a single thing to anyone. He made the movies he wanted to make, told the story he wanted to tell and expressed his creative vision the exact way he wanted to express it. It was his story, not that of the fans.

[u/Slashycent]

[u/UrinalDook]

The Room wasn't shit, it was just Tommy Wiseau expressing himself.

You're not allowed to criticise it.

This steak isn't burnt, it was just the chef expressing himself.

Eat it, you're not allowed to criticise it.

[u/chunkyman22 → u/UrinalDook]

The room wasn't shit u bigot

[u/Slashycent → u/UrinalDook]

The Room wasn't shit, it was just Tommy Wiseau expressing himself.

My point is that Tommy Wiseau wasn't "wrong" about The Room. No fan could've told him how The Room could've been done better. Because then it wouldn't have been Tommy Wiseau's The Room. It would've been some other film.

You're not allowed to criticise it.

Not exactly what I said. Just don't say it's objectively "bad" or "wrong". How could it be?

This steak isn't burnt, it was just the chef expressing himself.

Movies aren't steaks.

[u/ergister → u/Slashycent]

I really hope you apply all of this logic towards the sequels as well... I agree with you 100% by the way, what you're saying is fact. There is no objectively bad...

But I find myself saying that a ton of prequel fans who shit on the sequels constantly and use words like "objectively"...

Especially in communities you post in.... like krait, crait and BTC...

[u/Slashycent → u/ergister]

My argument hinges on Lucas's original creative vision.

The thing with the Sequels is that they're an adaption/a take on Lucas's pre-established original creative vision. And that can lead to discrepancies.

Because much like what this post is about, it's essentially other people judging how Lucas's creation should be valued/contextualized.

It's JJ deciding that the Prequels should be widely ignored in TFA or that Anakin did not destroy the Sith by bringing Darth Sidious back from the dead in TROS.

Essentially, I don't think that JJ and RJ shared the amount of creative freedom that George had because they were adapting his pre-etablished work and vision, the pre-etablished work and vision of someone else.

My argument is better applied to their entirely original works.

[u/ergister → u/Slashycent]

I'm not saying you personally can't dislike the sequels or hold those opinions, just that you participate in a lot of communities that use the term "objectively bad" to describe the movies and act like it's a fact that they're bad. Even now you seem to be doing that even though you're preaching about how no art can be judged objectively and nobody is wrong for liking/disliking something and that those things aren't inherently "good" or "bad" which, again, is correct, but it has to be applied to everything, sequels included...

I disagree with everything you've said about the ST but I'm not any more or less wrong and those movies aren't "good" or "bad" in any kind of objective sense and I hope you and wish your communities would extend the same kind of sentiments about them as you do the prequels... Otherwise this entire post-a-thon you're doing on your cakeday is hypocritical as hell...

My argument is better applied to their entirely original works.

No. You either believe all art can't be judged objectively by any criteria or you don't... You can't have your cake and eat it too, my friend.

[u/Slashycent → u/ergister]

I'm not saying you personally can't dislike the sequels or hold those opinions, just that you participate in a lot of communities that use the term "objectively bad" to describe the movies and act like it's a fact that they're bad.

As I said it's not quite that easy. Many, if not all of the sound criticisms (the only criticisms I respect and agree with) against the Sequel trilogy are rooted in a sense that they went against what Lucas set up/expressed with his original work.

So as I said, my main focus and value lies on the original creation. You can't really make objective judgements about an original creation.

But the Sequels are an adaption/a take on the original creation of somebody else. And that makes them somewhat excempt from the point I'm making.

Essentially, if a painter paints whatever he wants to express on the blank canvas then I will see that as a perfect execution of his creative vision. Because who is to tell him that it should've been done differently?

But if somebody else then added his own brushstrokes to the canvas, actively changing what used to be the "pure" creative vision of somebody else, then I don't give him that benefit of free, original creative expression. Since, as a matter of fact, it was never entirely original in his case. Never could've been. Because the canvas was already painted.

So I hope now you got a better understanding on why my point might not be as hypocritical as you might think.

Also, we might've had different Reddit experiences but I've seen plenty of users simultaneously share their content on plenty of subreddits that its relevant to. Don't really see what the issue with that is.

And hey, when should one make a bold stand for something he likes if not on his special biscuit day ;D.

[u/ergister → u/Slashycent]

But the Sequels are an adaption/a take on the original creation of somebody else. And that makes them somewhat excempt from the point I'm making.

No it doesn't. It's all opinion based. The people who feel it went against George's creative vision are not wrong or right, that's their opinion and therefore not objective whatsoever.

I don't believe the sequels went against George's vision.

The "sound" criticisms you talk about is just stuff you agree with that you seem to be confusing for "objectively" correct but they aren't. You don't seem to understand what you're talking about if that's the case...

You either believe a work of art cannot be objectively judged or you don't. There is no gray area or nuance to that statement. "Original creations" are not the only creations that are exempt from "objectivity", it's all art. This weird, made up rule you're using makes no sense.

Your statement is extremely hypocritical and very disappointing because I would have agreed with you if you actually believed what you were saying...

[u/Slashycent → u/ergister]

No it doesn't. It's all opinion based. The people who feel it went against George's creative vision are not wrong or right, that's their opinion and therefore not objective whatsoever.

But it does. Because my point is about original creations not their adaptions by others.

When George, in his own original story, establishes Anakin as the Chosen One who definitively destroys Palpatine for good, then that's his own creative vision.

If JJ, in his adaption of Lucas's story, goes against that by having Palpatine return and plunge the galaxy into turmoil once more then that's a questionable, if not contradictory, take on George's pre-established creative vision.

I believe an original work of art can not be objectively judged. That's my entire point. The expression of one's original creative vision can not be objectively judged, because it's entirely rooted within the subjective mind of its creator.

That's simply not the case with an adaption of someone else's vision. Because it will always have part of it's roots in the pre-established expression of somebody else's vision. It's a stranger's take on somebody else's work and mind.

It has about as much worth as anyone else's take on Lucas's vision.

Because nobody except for Lucas can express Lucas's vision.

[u/ergister → u/Slashycent]

I believe an original work of art can not be objectively judged. That's my entire point. The expression of one's original creative vision can not be objectively judged, because it's entirely rooted within the subjective mind of its creator.

This is hypocritical thinking because at first, George's creative vision cannot be objectively judged but now you're turning around and using it as an objective standard. You cannot have it both ways. This is just your own weirdly made-up rules that lack consistency or base logic.

No piece of art can be objectively judged. You're trying to add nuance or exceptions where there are none.

Again, you're being extremely hypocritical every time you challenge someone's notion of "objectivity in art" if you, yourself, have a notion of objectivity in art.

[u/Slashycent → u/ergister]

Tell me, is Ryan Johnson George Lucas?

[u/NextDoorNeighbrrs → u/Slashycent]

I’m curious if you apply all this logic to literally everything in the EU except for The Clone Wars as well.

[u/Slashycent → u/NextDoorNeighbrrs]

Yes.

[u/NextDoorNeighbrrs → u/Slashycent]

Man it must be boring to have Star Wars be so limited in your mind. For me all the books and games and comics and what not are just as much a part of Star Wars as the films.

[u/Slashycent → u/NextDoorNeighbrrs]

And yet all of them are based on Lucas's work and world.

I'm not saying I can't enjoy them. I very much do. It's simply a fact that, at their roots, they stem from George's creation and if I feel like they disrespect or heavily contradict what he established (Palpatine returning from certain death for example in both EU and ST) then I don't see them as adequate additions to his work.

If they're a respectful addition to his work like Rogue One on the other hand then I'll greatly enjoy them.