Star Wars 3 – New Trailer, George Lucas on “60 Minutes”

The new trailer for Revenge of the Sith is out there. AOL Users can look at it, and others can too if you browse around a while. (Try Aint It Cool News.)

Also: George Lucas will be talking about this, the “darkest” episode of the series, on 60 Minutes this Sunday.

My initial enthusiasm for the prequels has changed somewhat over time, which should come as no surprise. While I still enjoy Episodes One and Two for their visual and aural splendor, and I’d rather have them than not have them, my fundamental complaint about the prequels is this…

That Tolkien’s The Lord of the Rings takes every opportunity to give you a vision of a vaster, more complex, more mysterious world with intricate histories that expand outward. It’s a bigger, more glorious vision the farther you look, with more and more mystery.

But in the Star Wars prequels, we get the reverse of it. The farther we look, the more inward the story is turning, the more ingrown it has become. It’s as though the author has lost interest in exploring beyond the borders of what he did before, and is merely fiddling with things he’s already made, finding the answers from already-available resources and previously introduced characters. In the first trilogy, around every corner waited a whole new world, a new history, new possibilities. In this one, around every corner are different versions of familiar faces, and instead of new visions, we get talky revelations about past visions that tend to spoil the mysteries we loved and fail to introduce new mysteries to captivate our imaginations.

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!

What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • Anonymous

    While I agree with all of you in certain ways, I sort of think your all crazy. First of all I agree that Raiders is the best film,but the other two films are always going to be classic, the trilogy works very well, and as far as Harrison Ford the man is one of the greatest actors out there. To say he’s not is saying that you know nothing about acting.

  • Skipster

    Besides the “old Indy” in the “Young Indiana Chronicles” there was a surprise appearance by Harrison Ford as a 1965 version of his famous fedora crowned character.

    Ford’s Indy appeared with a Grizzly Adams beard, and was driving an old pickup truck in the height of the episode’s pre-log. He wasn’t wearing an eyepatch, so apparently the loss of his vision/eye had not occurred, yet.

    Unfortunately, it was a “ratings appearance” that added nothing of significance to the Indiana Jones mythos. It was almost as if Lucas begged Ford to reprise his role “just one more time” when the series was failing. Just a gimmick to boost the ratings.

    You kind of wonder if thats what the new one would be like, but who knows?

  • Paula

    Raiders was a good story. But in my opinion, the only thing holding Last Crusade up was Sean Connery playing Indy’s father. There was finally someone with some class in an Indiana Jones movie. Temple of Doom was a stinker.

  • Chris Durnell

    Raiders is really the only good film. Does anyone like Temple of Doom? And while Crusade gave a rush in the theatre, it does not hold up well with repeated viewing. To speak of it as a “trilogy” is preposterous. Only Raiders counts.

    I long ago gave up on Harrison Ford acting. Outside of Han Solo, he gives rather lifeless performances. That’s true even of classic movies like Blade Runner (my favorite) and Witness. I think it’s obscured by peopel subconsciously thinking, “Cool, it’s Han Solo again” while watching his movies. The turning point for me was Regarding Henry when I actually thought, this guy can’t act.

  • Glenn

    I’m filled with trepidation over the whole thing too. I have to admit to much more plebian movie tastes, and I loved the original movies, though I would agree with your assessment of each of them. So part of me would love to see a new one. Then again, I have this sinking suspicion that it would be awful, not least because of the reasons that Peter cited.

    And you’d think money wouldn’t really be a factor, I mean how much more do Lucas or Spielberg really need. Then again, that never really stops anyone either.

    Though I don’t think the new Star Wars flicks are as bad as everyone else, maybe Lucas just has the desire to continually tinker with his stories, the Indy series being no exception perhaps.

  • Peter T Chattaway

    Hmmm, could Indy really die, though? I never watched the Young Indiana Jones Chronicles, but I thought a considerably older version of him introduced the episodes there. Maybe this new movie will show how he got his eyepatch.

    Here’s a weird thing to consider: If, in the fourth film, Indiana Jones is roughly the same age as Harrison Ford is now, then the fourth film will take place in the early 1960s, or almost exactly around the same time American Graffiti, George Lucas’s first collaboration with Ford and their first big hit, took place; it would not take place anywhere near the Nazi era or the 1930s or the era of Saturday matinee cliffhangers that inspired the Indiana Jones series in the first place.

    It’s almost enough to make me ask, “What’s the point?” But I guess those who have watched the Young Indy series are already used to the idea of adventures taking place outside that narrow timespan.