Many people around the world would consider themselves Star Wars fans. Despite this, only a small portion of that group understands the references being made to the original trilogy and related lore all over the prequels. Therefore, many people who even consider themselves fans of the original trilogy have had a hard time accepting George Lucas' backstory as found in the prequel movies. Many of the concerns people have expressed about these films can be resolved by a simple clear referencing back to the original movies. I intend to demonstrate here that the prequels are almost entirely in harmony with the original films. It is highly probable that all of the little loose ends which still exist will be tightened up when 2007 30th anniversary box set is released on the HD format. Like the originals, the prequels are drenched in both archetypal characters and shakespearean plot lines. As will be demonstrated, there is also a harmony in the look and feel of the films.

Technical Harmony

One surface thing that many people have complained or at least felt uncomfortable with is that the new movies are supposedly "too clear" or "too digital." The complaint is made that the movies are not "gritty" like the originals. Although my response to these complaints is simple and may sound too silly to be even taken seriously, it is still accurate. The fact is that most experiences that audience members were referencing when watching the new movies were had on small screens playing videos with less than 200 lines of visible resolution on them. And even the picture being presented was far below studio standards due to mastering issues in the film to VHS process. So, audience members who had not seen the movies on the big screen in their recent memory were judging the new movies on that standard. The fact is that the originals were every bit as clear and brilliant their first couple of weeks in the theatre as either of the prequels released so far.

As for the charge of them being "too digitial" I have been flabergasted at how unobservant people can be in that regard. Even the people in my inner circle who I would expect to have a fairly well trained eye will complain to me that CGI has ruined Star Wars because it has taken away all of the realistic, weighty looking forms of special effects. The truth, on the other hand, is quite different. The new movies use models for the ships, rubber masks for alien species, and live sets every bit as much as they were used in the originals. The difference is that they use even more cgi than they used of those low tech forms of visual effects. People will think in their memory that Episode II was all unrealistic cgi, then I will sit down with them and ask them item by item on the screen which things they are talking about and they will say, "well I guess I was wrong, that looks just like something off of the originals."

When people watched the originals in the time of their release they were so ground breaking technically that many of the unrealistic looking effects (stop motion animation, matte lines, etc.) were ignored. With cgi being so flexible visually, it has far fewer realism problems than the lower tech methods. However, computer speed, manpower, among other factors do make occasional problems occur in the cgi visual effects of a film. While 95% or more of the cgi effects will not even be noticed as cgi, the 5% that are noticed are often due to the factors listed above. In the case of high density effects movies like the prequels, the volume of cgi is increased and therefore there will be noticable mistakes more frequently. But for the most part, an eye less prejudiced by vhs-philia or media anti-Star Wars messages will see a marvelous dovetailing--visually speaking--between the originals and the prequels. Our brains are funny things and they make it so that the more we weight we lend to something (as with the originals) the more unrealistic and distorted our expectations become. So it is with the prequels.