This would’ve been a lot funnier if they’d used black-and-white images and a Shelby Foote impersonator, but it’s still worth a chuckle.
FWIW, I saw The Force Awakens yesterday, and thought it was pretty good. Not mind-blowing, not great, not very good…but pretty good. The story structure’s off-kilter; it’s like a three-act film with the third act lopped off, which gives the whole thing a truncated and incomplete feeling. And I don’t think they invested enough in the new characters’ arcs, except for Rey. But it was an entertaining movie, and definitely an improvement on the abysmal Attack of the Clones.
This might sound odd coming from a history aficionado, but I would’ve enjoyed the prequels a lot more if Lucas had displayed less historical sensibility in making them. The original trilogy works because it draws on basic, elemental, universal notions of storytelling: destiny, love, light vs. dark, good vs. evil. The prequels, by contrast, involve disputes over trade routes, backroom parliamentary maneuvers, decaying institutions, and debates over political precedent and the dangers of centralized power. That’s the stuff of good history, but it’s not necessarily the stuff of great myths, not without careful attention to the human element.
Of course, historians are trained to ignore the human element and the universal in their writing. That’s not a bad thing, not at all. It’s fundamental to what distinguishes history from other forms of engaging the past. History is fundamentally about inquiry and explanation, not storytelling. We shouldn’t abandon empirical research and sophisticated interpretation for emotion and narrative. But it does help explain why so many people would rather learn about the past from folks like Ken Burns and Shelby Foote, who know a thing or two about drama, the human element, and telling a good story.