Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
Matt Sigl sends a cease and desist letter to George Lucas, demanding that he stop making movies that destroy the legacy of his earlier work by sucking in the worst possible way. It begins:
Dear Mr. Lucas:It has come to our attention that your actions over the past decade in the production of the films Star Wars Episode 2: Attack of the Clones and Star Wars Episode 3: Return of the Sith (hereafter referred to as "Star Bores") as well as Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull (hereafter referred to as "Grandpa Jones") infringes upon the rights of millions of moviegoers to preserve their childhood memories unscathed. This is a clear violation of your contract with the public to create films worthy of the legacy that you, yourself, began in 1977. Your recent actions have been grossly negligent, displaying a complete lack of regard for taste and artistic merit. Star Bores and Grandpa Jones represent a failure to satisfy the duty of care mandated for a filmmaker of your status.
I haven't seen the last Indiana Jones movie, but he describes this scene in the movie:
In Grandpa Jones, our hero, one of the most beloved screen characters in history, escapes a nuclear explosion by hiding in a "King Cool" refrigerator which is then propelled by the nuclear blast away from the atomic destruction, at which time our hero rolls out unscathed, admiring the mushroom cloud visible in the now-far distance.
And sure enough, here's the scene:
And now I'm really glad I didn't bother seeing that movie. It all reminds me of this Patton Oswalt routine about George Lucas:
Comments
What, no hate for the phantom menace??? It was every bit as bad as the othe prequals, in fact it was worse because I went to that cinema and paid to see it expecting a half decent film, for the others my expectations were so low the struggled to disapoint.
Posted by: Ramel | November 29, 2009 9:14 AM
Love the (late) duck and cover the prairie dog does at the end.
The stupidity here reminds me of the scene in Independence Day when the woman and dog are stuck in a tunnel and avoid the blast wave by hiding in a maintenance closet.
Posted by: dean | November 29, 2009 10:36 AM
Actually The Phantom Menace was worse than the other two prequels, IMHO. Three words; Jar Jar Binks.
Oh, one other: Midi-chlorians. Gack, I can't believe Lucas tried to explain the Force that way. Better to have left it as a mystical energy field.
Posted by: Orac | November 29, 2009 10:38 AM
Never understood the hate directed toward the last Indiana Jones movie. It was a decent popcorn romp - no different then the first three. But point taken on the prequels. And Lucas has learned nothing. Case in point the Clone Wars. While decent in many places - every Jedi apprentice must be cringe-worthy annoying. Its some rule somewhere. And Jar Jar makes an appearance in at least two episodes. And in neither of those episodes he gets the death he deserves. I have no idea what audience they are trying for with that series. But its not me nor my teenage nephews.
Posted by: yoshi | November 29, 2009 10:55 AM
The primary difference is everyone complaining about the recent film was 12 when the silly, preposterous, unbelievable things happened in the previous films. Is surviving a nuclear explosion in a refrigerator really sillier than:
* Whips that grab on to protrusions strongly enough to support the weight of a grown man and any assorted grown female he needs to carry.
* People who can rip your heart out, without worrying about all those silly bones normal people have in the way.
* That Willie (the singer from the second film) could be so consistently useless throughout the entire movie.
I'm not saying that the refrigerator bit isn't stupid. It is, and it ruined my willing-suspension-of-disbelief during the film for a bit, but I'm not sure it's objectively sillier than what went before. I guess I need to find a 12 year old and show him all four films. : - )
Posted by: Michael Suttkus, II | November 29, 2009 11:25 AM
Quite so, but also... I really have to shake my head at hearing people complaining about silly, preposterous, unbelievable things happening in the latest Indiana Jones movie and wonder whether they even saw the previous three movies. Silly, preposterous, unbelievable occurences are the point of the movie. I mean, jumping out of a plane and using an inflatable raft as a parachute? Jumping off the end of a rail track in a mining wagon and landing on another track on the rails?
Posted by: Brain Hertz | November 29, 2009 11:41 AM
I'm with Orac on the movie-killing power of Jar Jar and Midi-chlorians. If Lucas just wanted to show off ILM's ability to have an entirely digital character, they should have done that with Yoda in Menace as well as the other two. The muppet Yoda in Menace looked like crap.
Of course, the fundamental failure of Menace was simply the lame story. The political angle never made any sense at all. What sort of weak republic allows one organization to militarily intimidate a sovereign planet with a blockade over a trade dispute and be able to claim in any way that it is legal? And then you get to the Senate and claim that your planet has been invaded. You have Jedi (who are impartial to the dispute, in principle) as witnesses to the invasion, the murder of the pilots that brought them in to negotiate, and who the Trade Federation tried to kill as well. All of this and you get bogged down in bureaucratic procedure rather than simply slapping them down? I can understand that it is part of the plot that the Republic is mired in ineffective bureaucratic rule, but the situation as presented is just plain unbelievable.
The original trilogy worked so well as an adventure story because the plots were so simple. It is clear that Lucas has no ability to weave a complex plot and still have interesting characters doing interesting (and believable) things.
Posted by: JasonTD | November 29, 2009 11:47 AM
I wouldn't want to see a movie about them, though. :)
Posted by: Scott Simmons | November 29, 2009 11:50 AM
They just covered the inflatable raft parachute thing on Myth Busters and amazingly it worked.
Nuclear proof fridge, the tarzan scene, and frickin' aliens though. Not my favorite Jones movie. Even my kids (9 and 7) don't like it as much as the others.
Posted by: Marcus Christian | November 29, 2009 11:53 AM
Watching "Phantom Menace" is as thrilling as an evening with C-SPAN.
And Lucasfilm becomes The Empire. So sad.
Posted by: Rick R | November 29, 2009 12:27 PM
Oh, c'mon everybody. Nothing thrills me, an aging Boomer, more than seeing an aging action hero who still has it going on.
I understand that the next installment in the series will be "Indiana Jones and the Temple of Viagra." The phenoms at ILM are working on a mockup of a giant penis, roughly the size of the Empire State Building. Indy has to scale the outside of the building (because the elevators are broken and the stairwells are all blocked by a giant overgrowth of pubic hair, of course) to get to the formula for Viagra that is at the top, in order to save it from falling into the hands of evil space aliens who can't get hard-ons.
Indy saves the world from male sexual dysfunction. Can't wait.
Posted by: Dan | November 29, 2009 12:54 PM
What bugged me the most about the latest Indiana Jones movie was toward the end, when they're in the room filled with aliens and they don't even bat an eye about it. I'd be saying, "Holy ****! It's a ******* room full of ******* aliens! What the ****?!"
Posted by: Chayanov | November 29, 2009 2:05 PM
The Phantom Menace was basically a poor remake of The Return of the Jedi (and that film has loads of faults all by itself). However, there is the basis of a decent film in there. If you removed Jar Jar, R2D2 and C3PO, then made boy Anikin less annoying, it would have been a watchable film. The third act, switching between ground battle, space battle and light-sabre duel, works well by itself (compare with Return of the Jedi). The film could even have withstood midichlorians, idiotic as they are.
The other two films were much worse. I can't think of any way of rescuing those films. Totally incoherent, appalling acting, awful dialogue, weak story, sloppy editing, pointless special effects - the droid factory in Episode II is a real low point on all of these issues.
Lucas generally responds with a "the films are for kids, they enjoy them" defence. Unfortunately, he then made Episode III with its multiple amputations and wholescale killing. The only Star Wars film that kids aren't allowed to see. Presumably it didn't get an R rating because 13 year olds are sophisticated enough to realise that the carnage is entirely computer generated.
Ultimately, the prequels not only contradicted the originals, they didn't tell a proper story. It should have been paced over the three films; however, it was only in the third film that we learned that Anikin was a great pilot, a powerful Jedi and then went over to the dark side. All of these points delivered in a crass and obvious way. The first two were superfluous in that they didn't develop the character or drive a believable story.
Oh, and I didn't watch Indy IV. I learned my lesson after the Star Wars prequels. (Having said that, although Raiders of the Lost Ark was a great film, the two sequels were a bit dodgy and showed the problems with Lucas's brain long before he unleashed the useless SW prequels on us.)
Posted by: hinschelwood | November 29, 2009 2:11 PM
I understand that the next installment in the series will be "Indiana Jones and the Temple of Viagra." The phenoms at ILM are working on a mockup of a giant penis, roughly the size of the Empire State Building.
Wasn't this already done, called "Dune"?
Posted by: Uncle Glenny | November 29, 2009 2:42 PM
The political angle never made any sense at all. What sort of weak republic allows one organization to militarily intimidate a sovereign planet with a blockade over a trade dispute and be able to claim in any way that it is legal?
At the time Phantom Menace was released, I might have agreed with this statement. Since then, we've had the Bush 43 administration. My opinion now is that the political angle is actually the most realistic part of the scenario. Consider: two dudes (one of whom is killed in the climactic battle at the end of the movie) can successfully conspire to bring down the Republic just by the sheer force of their Force-aided personalities? OK, it helps that one of them has managed to insert himself into a powerful position in the Senate, but they are up against a literal army of Jedi Knights who are equally adept at using the Force and are constrained only by the fact that they, unlike Palpatine and his partner in crime, have some scruples.
Posted by: Eric Lund | November 29, 2009 2:52 PM
Uncle Glenny "Wasn't this already done, called 'Dune'?"
You have no nerd honour! Pistols at dawn, sir!
Posted by: Modusoperandi | November 29, 2009 4:10 PM
@ Michael Suttkus, II & Brain Hertz:
Or how about in ROTLA when Indy gets dragged by a speeding truck and doesn't get his backside torn up? Or how about in TLC when Henry takes out a fighter plane with a flock of sea gulls? I agree that it's silly when people complain about one preposterous thing and ignore another. I think it's even sillier when people let just one such moment ruin an entire movie for them.
As for the guy who wrote the letter: I can't help but shake my head at those kinds of people. In my eye, Lucas didn't ruin his childhood memories; the guy complaining did. Seriously, he only has himself to blame. He is the one who let KOTCS tarnish his love of the first 3. He is the one who put them up on pedestals where they could be easily knocked over. I grew up loving the original King Kong. But when I watched the shitty 70's remake, did it ruin my love and fond memories of the original? No. Why? Because I didn't let it. I was still able to enjoy the first one. Yeah, KOTCS has some goofy and impractical elements, but I was still able to enjoy it. It wasn't as good as the first 3, but since I'm an Indy fan, I'll take what i can get. And it's the same with Star Wars. I grew up a major Star Wars fan. But did the shitty prequels ruin that love? No, and again it's because i didn't let them.
The guy who wrote that letter is a dolt. Why get so worked up over a piece of entertainment? This is why i don't listen to people when it comes to movies. It's all opinion. Don't listen to what other people say and just decide for yourself. If you don't like it fine, but don't think I'll heed your words. Or in the case of people who go off the rails like this guy (or the creators of South Park) over a movie, a I can say is "get over it jackass."
Posted by: Doog | November 29, 2009 4:15 PM
Indiana Jones & the Crystal Skull, the abridged script
Posted by: Modusoperandi | November 29, 2009 4:35 PM
Okay, so Jar-Jar Binks wasn't the best idea Lucas ever had. Do you actually think that if we ever do make contact with aliens, we won't encounter races that murder human language just as badly and look just as silly? Wonder how we look to Gungans ("Earthlings. No ears, sunken eyes, flat faces and no tongue to speak of. And they can't even pronounce a simple consonant cluster like &^$]&#^*#{%.")
Is there some part of private property you twits don't get? There was no Star Wars before Lucas conceived of it. No Force, no Han Solo, likely no Harrison Ford, no Darth Vader. Star Wars is what took the bit player in the white cowboy hat from American Graffiti and made him a superstar. Lucas created them. You didn't. The only thing most of the critics of the second trilogy were creating when Star Wars first came out was poopy diapers. For many of them, that was the high point of their lifetime creative output. You have to have seen Star Wars in theaters when it first came out to fully appreciate how utterly novel and different it was from anything that had ever been done before.
Posted by: Robert Chambers | November 29, 2009 5:10 PM
If we encounter entire species made of racial stereotypes ineptly mined for cheap laughs, I'll be surprised indeed.
And no The Empire Strikes Back before Brackett and Kasdan wrote the screenplay and Irvin Kirshner directed it.
Of course. And we can't criticize Twilight until we have our own legions of screaming fangirls.
If by "utterly novel and different", one means "derivative of everything from Kurosawa to the Foundation Trilogy".
Posted by: Blake Stacey | November 29, 2009 6:28 PM
If we ever meet a species of Jar-Jars, I'll be the first to start advocating genocide. Or at least the development of sort of super-anti-tractor beam thing that could gently nudge them into some other sucker's galaxy. Hopefully one which is far, far away and a long time ago.
Posted by: Leni | November 29, 2009 6:42 PM
The guys at South Park are way ahead of this. They've done a couple of episodes about Lucas and Spielberg messing up the legacy of their movies. One, a number of years ago mocking them for the lame alterations they've made to the original Star Wars and ET; and one last year that accused them (literally) of raping the character of Indiana Jones to make Crystal Skull.
Posted by: Hume's Ghost | November 29, 2009 7:17 PM
I wonder just how many theater-goers fit the general attitude described below:
"I arrived early and stood in line for an hour to see The Phantom Menace and this is my reward? Boy, that sucked. I tried to like it, but I just couldn't. I saw the original Star Wars when I was 10 and it was almost a religious experience. Now it's forever ruined for me."
Fast forward three years.
"Of course I'm going to pay to see Attack of the Clones at the theater. I wouldn't miss it. It's Star Wars after all. I saw the first one when I was 10. I'm a little leery, though. I just re-watched The Phantom Menace again and that was awful."
A week later...
"Oh, wow, Attack of the Clones was horrible. There was nothing good about it at all. Nothing. Star Wars has been destroyed, and by its own creator. It's such an outrage."
Fast forward another three years.
"Even though George Lucas has totally lost it. I just prepaid for tickets to Revenge of the Sith. There is a slim chance that it'll be old school, after all. I saw the first movie when I was ten."
A few days later...
"Christ almighty, Revenge of the Sith has to be the most horrible thing I've ever seen. What a total abortion. Even worse that the last two movies. I'll have to scrutinize my DVD copies of them again, just to be sure."
Fast forward three years.
"Finally a new Indiana Jones is being released. After all those years of false starts. Even though we all know that George Lucas has completely lost it, I've already got my tickets for opening night. I saw the first movie when I was 14 and it was amazing. There were a lot fewer blockbuster-type movies in those days though, now that I think about it. Am I getting jaded?"
Some days later...
"Wretched. Absolutely wretched. Indiana Jones has completely jumped the shark. It was totally unrealistic. Anything with George Lucas's name on it is officially going to be a travesty. He's destroyed all of my childhood memories."
A few months later...
"I just read that they're in serious negotiations for another Indiana Jones sequel. I must admit that I'm kind of exited about that. In fact, I'd buy a ticket for it right now if I could. But strictly for nostalgic reasons. That George Lucas can't get anything right. And I should know, because I've re-watched all 10 Star Wars and Indiana Jones movies and I have much fonder memories of the early ones."
Posted by: Michael Hoaglin | November 29, 2009 7:19 PM
I was told Jar-Jar Binks was intended to be annoying.
If so, that was a success. Boy, was that a success!
Posted by: David Marjanović | November 29, 2009 7:28 PM
Liked Raiders of the Lost Ark. Temple of Doom, not so much. Stopped watching after that. Liked Star Wars, loved Empire Strikes Back, sat in the theater at the end of Return feeling gypped. Saw Phantom Empire hoping for another Empire. Left the theater thinking that Return wasn't so bad after all. That was the end of my tryst with the Star Wars franchise.
In his way, Lucas is starting to remind me of another "science-fiction" film maker (notice the quote marks) from my childhood...Irwin Allen, insofar as his first episodes (voyage to the Bottom of the Sea, Lost In Space, Time Tunnel) started out pretty good and you watch the follow-ups and eventually you realize that the first ones were as good as you were going to get. If you hang on grimly to the end hoping for another glimpse of the stuff that got you hooked on the first episodes you really hate yourself afterward. Leprechauns on the Seaview. Alien carrots. Merlin the Magician snatching Tony and Doug from the time stream so they can help King Arthur. Yes, the thrills of adolescence can seem a tad childish in retrospect, but they didn't all betray their young audiences. I'm not taking this trip to The Great Vegetable Rebellion with Lucas too. Been there, done that, and I want those minutes of my life back.
Posted by: Bruce Garrett | November 29, 2009 7:29 PM
I'll have to take a pass on the SW prequels, yes I enjoyed the original, less so the sequels (cheeez, Ewoks?) but avoided the prequels.
However I am a big fan of Dr. Jones as I grew up a big fan of serials from the '30's & '40's. Trust me, nothing in KOTCS was over the top for the serials that inspired it so even though I wasn't thrilled with the aliens I thought they were better than other Christian magic artifact.
Posted by: Rob Jase | November 29, 2009 7:40 PM
FWIW, I agree that the last Indiana Jones movie sucked. But I loved Episode 3. Episode 1 sucked.
Maybe I'm a sucker for punishment, but I wish he was going to make episodes 7, 8, and 9.
And yes, Gungans and Ewoks are pure irritation.
Posted by: BaldApe | November 29, 2009 8:34 PM
Shame on you people! Tons of verbiage about midichlorians and Jar Jar, but not one word about the horrible gack inducing love story. I hope you're real proud of yourselves.
Posted by: tresmal | November 29, 2009 8:53 PM
Private property, like this blog?
Seriously. Speaking of "consistently useless throughout their lives," what else can you call people who are too fucking stupid to understand that "having the right" to do something has no bearing on whether your actions are worthy of criticism, especially on moral or aesthetic grounds. "Can" does not imply "should." Now will you please go attempt to plug a toaster in and electrocute yourself or something, you pompous fuck?
(Whew, feeling better...)
Posted by: Azkyroth | November 29, 2009 10:57 PM
Natalie Portman =! Carrie Fisher. And Episode 1 was awful,awful,awful, whereas ROTS wasn't as bad as everyone says.
That's all I'll say on the matter.
Posted by: Rorschach | November 30, 2009 2:40 AM
Hhhmmm... I didn't think episode III was all that bad. Maybe I have low standards or something.
Posted by: IBY | November 30, 2009 2:43 AM
Who here has seen the star wars Christmas Special?
That piece of work is "special" in every sense of the word.
Posted by: Chilidog | November 30, 2009 8:57 AM
Ep 3 might not have been all that bad, but it also completed the transformation of Darth Vader from Cosmic Badass (Ep 4 w/o prequels) to simply being a whiny teen with Force powers in a life support suit.
If Lucas/Spielberg had simply stuck to the two series being their homage to the 30's movie seriels things would probably not have gotten so out of hand.
Posted by: Kurt | November 30, 2009 9:38 AM
My main complaint about the Star Wars movies, is that while they had plenty of material to make ONE fun, not-quite-serious action movie, it wasn't enough to stretch out to three movies, let alone six, or, Gods help us all, the NINE originally planned.
Seriously, the first (a.k.a. the fourth) movie was the best, an obvious comedy that stole shamelessly from just about every movie genre that existed at the time (especially Westerns and WW-II), and everyone involved had fun doing it, and it was just plain fun to watch regardless of the obvious lack of realism. The rest of the movies were nothing more than an obvious attempt to milk a sacred cow dry.
Posted by: Raging Bee | November 30, 2009 10:22 AM
The prequel trilogy was an unmitigated success. They are, as are most films aiming at the 7-20 male demographic, merely commercials intended to sell the officially licensed merchandise (and have been since at least Empire Strikes Back). I can tell you, as someone who just this week shelled out $60 to buy a Lego Y-Wing fighter for my 7-year old nephew, the success of this commerical enterprise is a sight to behold.
Posted by: Woody Tanaka | November 30, 2009 11:32 AM
Hey look -- another blogger trying to prove his coolness factor by trashing George Lucas. Yawwwwwnnnn.
Posted by: Ron E. | November 30, 2009 1:07 PM
Ron E.: I know, right? It's as though the interweb was full of geeks or something!
Posted by: Modusoperandi | November 30, 2009 1:11 PM
I should say that I found "The Phantom Menace" problematic because it was so chock full of racist stereotyping.
And no, the "They were aliens" isn't enough to get Lucas a pass. Instead of characterization, he relied on stereotypes. Yoda's locutions were sort of inventive (and interestingly consistent, he sounded like a non-native speaker of English). The use of altered languages in the Cantina was pretty cool.
Not Jar-Jar, who speaks some dialect meant to sound Jamaican for no good reason. Or the owner of Anikin, who seems to be a stand-in for Jews (the accent again, but also the look of the character). The faux-Asian accents of the Trade Federation.
The accents were substitutes for real writing, you see. To demonstrate: rewrite Jar Jar's lines in plain English. The effect is very different, right? Pretty boring. So you dress it up with an accent to provide "comic relief." But it's still boring. (Lucas is not the only director or writer who has been guilty of this, BTW).
Then we get into the movie itself. The problem with the prequels is that you see the reliance on special effects - which are pretty good - at the expense of everything else. Leaving aside the dialogue (which Lucas the director has no ear for). And if you have a plot point that depends on characters not speaking to each other for five minutes to tell each other something important, when they could easily do so, (or being kind of stupid) then you have a problematic piece of writing.
I can watch the first movie and the second over and over again. (I actually think The Empire Strikes Back is the strongest of the first three). Those movies are tightly plotted and have a minimum of fat.
The third one is weaker -- the introduction of the Ewoks hurts it quite a bit. Or more accurately, the introduction of creatures designed for no other reason than to be cute.
But the next three -- I mean, C3PO doesn't remember being at the Skywalker's place when he is returned later (in A New Hope)? r2D2 doesn't remember Anikin? They never tell Luke about Dad?
I got the sense that Lucas hadn't really worked out the whole story himself. The bit about he and Leia being sibs seemed shoehorned in (and makes one scene in Empire Strikes Back a mite icky).
So, whatever. Suspension of disbelief for me is less fo an issue than plain old crappy writing.
(Indiana Jones fares a bit better. But not much. First movie: good. Second: OK. Third: OK).
Where the hell was the guy who directed THX 138 and American Grafitti, the latter of which is very good?
Posted by: Jesse | November 30, 2009 1:25 PM
"The third one is weaker -- the introduction of the Ewoks hurts it quite a bit. Or more accurately, the introduction of creatures designed for no other reason than to be cute."
You obviously didn't stay until the end of the credits. After dancing and singing, there's an additional scene where the Ewoks perform a blood sacrifice.
Posted by: Modusoperandi | November 30, 2009 1:32 PM
I think Jesse (#38) has it just about right. I was in high school when the first movie came out and it was very impressive. No movie with that level of special effects had ever come out before. The story was OK but the effects brought it to a new level. The second movie was even better and had a much better story. The third movie made me ill. The Ewoks and Darth Vader turning into a good guy ruined the film. The first of the prequels sucked beyond all possible description of sucked and I didn't bother seeing any of the others.
Raiders was fun and it felt like a 30's or 40's action movie. The second movie was stupid. The third was pretty good because of Sean Connery.
Posted by: Tom | November 30, 2009 4:26 PM
Well at 20ish the 1st of both sets was great, the 3rd of both sets were great. at >>>>20ish and watching them all in a serial set....I still like them all. Are they great works of art??? Not for me to judge...i just like them. As with JarJar...he represents all the silly, clumsy, stupid people one as to put up with thru the day. And fridges in abombs??? I can name at least 10 movies each year with stuff just as silly. It comes down to watching...most academy award movies I see once at most, StarWars and Indy I watch at least once every other year.
Posted by: CybrgnX | November 30, 2009 9:25 PM
Any Star Wars fans who were disappointed might want to see these:
http://www.darthsanddroids.net/archive.html
and
http://www.chefelf.com/starwars/holiday_menu.php
I'd like to say that, seeing Star Wars 3, I came out very happy that it wasn't a complete mess.
And the novelisation is actually a pretty good read. Much better than the one for Episode II.
Posted by: Kourou | December 1, 2009 6:01 AM
"The primary difference is everyone complaining about the recent film was 12 when the silly, preposterous, unbelievable things happened in the previous films."
This is also the source of most of the hate for the prequel trilogy too, imo.
the first KOTOR is better than all 6 movies put together...
Posted by: Devonian | December 7, 2009 1:17 AM