Why I prefer "Star Wars" episodes I - III

(Though I must admit - I haven't seen The Force Awakens)

Naturally, contains spoilers

Edit: The US president's battle with judges in early 2017 makes the following line - and stark warning about limiting executive power - from Revenge of the Sith the most meaningful in the entire franchise:
"He controls the senate and all the courts" - Mace Windu's justification for the (morally correct) extra-judicial killing of Chancellor Palpatine

It's a sign that humans either enjoy repetition or lack imagination, that most cultural narratives mostly share common "tropes". I feel that the major shortcoming of the Star Wars series is their egregious use of the "death of millions is a statistic" trope (or nine million, in this case). With a Dunbar number of 150 individuals, humans cannot empathize with millions of others. Most fiction therefore focuses on just a few individual characters.

Unlike a "Trek", the word "Wars" which in this case follows "Star", does not normally conjure images of discovery and self fulfilment, but carries the heavy burden of death, devastation and is not to be taken lightly. Moreover, wars are won by logistics and massive mobilization (corresponding to billions of soldiers in the setting of Star Wars) - not by the action of a few individuals.

That is why I despair at the incestuous Star Wars films and their extended universe. A few members of one family decide the fate of a galaxy of billions; the death of a single character really is given more screen time than the destruction of an entire planet.

Perhaps most laughable of all is the fact that one of the most pervasive and iconic characters is the robot R2-D2, whose entire personality and psyche would have been endlessly copy-pasted on a production line. Think about it - with a naming scheme of two letters and two digits, fewer unique astrometrics droids (shown to be used in single-pilot fighters) could exist in an entire galaxy than the number of ground attack aircraft produced on one planet (Il-2 and related variants). And yet a single such robot participates in all the greatest historical events of its time.

Seen through this prism, I feel that the narrative of Episodes I-III is more robust than the others. The characters feel truly embedded into grandiose events unfolding around them, with the clash of vast armies Rescuing a princess is a fine plot for a fairy tale, but wars are fought and won because of economic needs. (Trade agreements, anyone?) They are best seen by a mature audience, allegoric to the rise of fascism, perhaps also a critique of America in the early G. W. Bush years.

I have a similar problem with the film Pearl Harbor among others, which was a chance to use modern CGI and Hollywood actors to bring history to life. Instead, over half the film isn't even set in the titular military base, but focuses on a mere handful of characters spending most of their screen time in largely unrelated locations. How could a movie about such earth-shattering events have been reduced to the outcome of one love triangle? And, of course, the film cannot conclude with a defeat (at least The Empire Strikes Back may be commended in this regard), so it ends with the militarily irrelevant Doolittle Raid.

I would truly like to know if it's possible to have an alternative to this character-driven form of fiction. Certainly, it dates back at least to Homer, who in the Odyssey gives greater detail of the protagonist's big toe (well, pretty much) than his crew of thirty individuals with their own hopes and dreams.

In the meantime, I would suggest that writers follow the example of Tolstoy in War and Peace - by all means have a character who mans an artillery piece on the flank of a world-changing battle, but do not have them pole vault the entire Grande Armeé to kill Napoleon and single-handedly win a war.