logo Sign In

The Merits of the Prequel Trilogy and the "Saga" — Page 7

Author
Time
Originally posted by: Jumpman
People don't go back if they didn't like what they saw....

Really? My friends and I (oh, say 50 or so die-hard Star Wars fans who camped out over a month for the premier) went back and saw Episode One a dozen or so times, hating it every single time, desperate to like it, never achieving that.

I loathed Revenge of the Sith with a passion unbridled, and I still paid to see it three times.


So, I'm not buying that repeat business was exclusive to satisfied filmgoers. I'm not even convinced those astronomical revenue numbers represent any significant return business ... these were films that every single person on the planet had to see for themselves, despite dismal word of mouth and bad reviews (though, for some reason unfathomable to me, Sith was the best-reviewed of the bunch).

These films were critic-proof, and quality-proof. Every Earthling was going to buy a ticket, no matter what. And many that hated the films still saw them time and again.



.

Author
Time
Gomer,
If I wrapped a fresh turd in construction paper and called it a Star Wars sandwich you would inhale it. You would then claim that it tasted like heaven.

HARMY RULES

Author
Time
Obi,

That argument still doesn't hold much water. How can you go see a film, you know you loathe, that many times, even if it is labeled Star Wars? I mean, that's wasting money.

Dead Man's Chest made ridiculous amounts of money this summer. I loathed that damn film after one viewing and will never see it again. I don't go back and see something if I don't like it.

Star Wars is a cultural juggernaut, no doubt about it. But, again, it has to be enjoyable to the masses for the films to make that kind of money. The masses are what make films blockbusters, even for the franchise that have built-in fanbases (which I believe are not as big as the net make them out to be).

As much as I hate the first Spider-Man film, the masses ate it up and it made 403 million domestically. That's not just Spider-Man fans over and over again.

It's the same with Star Wars, I feel. It's gotta work, no matter the impact the Original Trilogy had.
Twisted by the Dark Side, young Skywalker has become. The boy you trained, gone he is. Consumed by Darth Vader.

-Yoda; Episode III Revenge of the Sith.
Author
Time
If it was true that I would eat crap on a stick if it has Star Wars on it somewhere, then I would have lapped up the Ewok specials, the Droids cartoons, and I would tell you how genius the holiday special is.

Don't get me wrong, I have a copy of the holiday special, and I do break it out on occasion, but the enjoyment I get out of it is laughing at how much it blows. Half the time I break it out just to see a newbies reaction to it. The look of horror that slowly creeps over their face is priceless.
Your focus determines your reality.
Author
Time
Originally posted by: Jumpman
Obi,

That argument still doesn't hold much water. How can you go see a film, you know you loathe, that many times, even if it is labeled Star Wars? I mean, that's wasting money.

Dead Man's Chest made ridiculous amounts of money this summer. I loathed that damn film after one viewing and will never see it again. I don't go back and see something if I don't like it.


Ah, the perfect example. I, too, loathed Dead Man's Chest, after loving the first movie. Even as a Disneyland addict, I am not addicted to that franchise ... so, I didn't like the second movie, and I never paid to see it again. Better still, I'm not sure I'll even bother seeing the third one next year.

Star Wars has a hold on me, as it does on many others. I paid to see films I hated in the 6-pak many, many times. In hopes of liking them better, anxious to find things to appreciate. (And really, $10 a pop doesn't set me back anything drastic.)



The difference? STAR WARS. People will pay to see bad movies. Again and again.

I should know. I'm one of them.


.

Author
Time
I agree, I went to see Revenge of the Sith knowing full well that it would suck, which of course it did in epic proportions. I hated the other two prequels, but I felt somehow required to go. Had the name Star Wars not been attached to the title, there is no way that I would have gone.

HARMY RULES

Author
Time
I saw them multiple times, and bought all of the DVD's.... as did EVERY single person I know who saw them (well, every single person saw them in the theater at least, not everyone bought all of the DVD's though.)

No one I know enjoyed the movies, the acting and dialogue were so bad at times that people in the theater were actually laughing (Vader's Frankenstein dance, "Anaking you're breaking my heart," "Nooooooooo," Jar Jar, etc.) no one I know even talks about them any more (they were such throw-away quality that they have since been forgotten.) Why bother seeing them then, even multiple times? Because they were Star Wars.... there was almost an obligation to see them - they were part of the most famous film franchise of all time - whether you want to acknowledge that fact or not makes no difference.

The quality of the Original Trilogy had such an enormous cultural impact that it's still referenced frequently (I am your father, Yoda talk, etc.) and talked about to this day. The Prequels have had no such effect, they've faded fast. Why? They simply were just not that good.

Harrison Ford Has Pretty Much Given Up on His Son. Here's Why

Author
Time
I do agree that the prequels certainly had help from the drawing power of the classic trilogy.

I have no doubt some people went back to see it over and over again just because of their love for the classic trilogy. I'm not even suggesting there is something fundamentally wrong with doing something like that. Either people were hoping their opinion would improve, or they were making sure their opinion that it sucked wasn't just a hastey conclusion.

But I'm telling you, there are a bunch of us who just thought they were great. I don't like to admit it now so much, but I saw TPM 21 times at full ticket price and lost count once it hit the dollar theater. It was almost every weekend I would go see that movie the summer of 99.

When Christmas rolled around, I took great delight in seeing it again for the holiday re-release. Every time I saw it the theater was at least half full, there were a lot of kids, but some adults. It really seemed like the longer it was in theaters, the more the audience was made up of people who really got into the movie.

I remember kids and adults laughing at Jar-Jar, and getting excited when the pod race was starting, and cheering on the heros when they were confronted by Darth Maul.

We were all having a blast, and nobody was cringing at anything.
Your focus determines your reality.
Author
Time
Originally posted by: Go-Mer-Tonic
I do agree that the prequels certainly had help from the drawing power of the classic trilogy.

I have no doubt some people went back to see it over and over again just because of their love for the classic trilogy. I'm not even suggesting there is something fundamentally wrong with doing something like that. Either people were hoping their opinion would improve, or they were making sure their opinion that it sucked wasn't just a hastey conclusion.

But I'm telling you, there are a bunch of us who just thought they were great. I don't like to admit it now so much, but I saw TPM 21 times at full ticket price and lost count once it hit the dollar theater. It was almost every weekend I would go see that movie the summer of 99.

When Christmas rolled around, I took great delight in seeing it again for the holiday re-release. Every time I saw it the theater was at least half full, there were a lot of kids, but some adults. It really seemed like the longer it was in theaters, the more the audience was made up of people who really got into the movie.

I remember kids and adults laughing at Jar-Jar, and getting excited when the pod race was starting, and cheering on the heros when they were confronted by Darth Maul.

We were all having a blast, and nobody was cringing at anything.


Gomer, you have been respectful here, so I do have a couple answers to your post. As for TPM being the funnest time for SW fans, I do agree with that, but it has nothing to do with the quality of the movie, it was just the first time something new was from the SW universe in 16 years, and it was almost surreal that night.

I remember I went with childhood friends and my older brother that night, and the ironic thing is it was the first SW movie I could actually drive to the theater for! It was great to see SW again with my brother, as we saw ANH on HBO hundreds of times in the early 80's, and then when we got a VCR in 1985, we bought the OT movies too. Although I think ROTJ didn't come to video til 1986.

But walking out of the theater, everyone was dazed, we didn't know what to say. I for one was the only one who actually thought it was OK opening night. For me, I can never hate any SW movie, no matter how bad it is, I just love SW, but I am not naive to know the quality difference of the 6 movies, and that is where many don't want to believe the PT is worse than the OT.

My best friend saw TPM 8 times that summer, and now he doesn't even talk about it nor watch it. I only saw it twice, but I have constantly asked why he saw it 8 times in '99, and now he hates it, and he says, "It was the first SW movie in 16 years, I was so charged for anything SW that I kind of looked passed the quality.

For me, Gomer, I was a PT defender til ROTS. I was not a gusher, cause I always said the OT was better and ANH & ESB were the best, but I always gave Lucas the benefit of the doubt, "Let me see all 3 movies, then I will evaluate it." I liked the story of TPM & AOTC, I liked the way he was setting everything up for Episode III, I was on board with Lucas in 2002. I liked how Anakin went apeshit on the Tuskens, that was believable, and I liked the ending of AOTC, very haunting.

Then ROTS came, and Lucas just dropped the ball with huge plot points in this movie. The whole turn scene is still awful to this day, and the whole build up is uncompelling and so far-fetched. Padme losing the will to live was such a cop out by Lucas too, and the Duel with Anakin/Obiwan was so long and boring. The TPM duel atleast had some umph in it, and got you charged to watch it everytime it is on TV..

Those are major parts of the story that tie the trilogies, and that is when I gave up on the PT, cause ROTS should have been so much better with all the plot points Lucas saved. The whole idea of Anakin turning for a dream, but not asking Palpatine once, "Hey, how is this actually done?" Even if Palps lies to him, or shows him some fake way of bringing someone back to life. Just show something that would make you think Anakin would give it all up to side with the Sith Lord. In the end that whole scene with Palps shooting his face with Lightning is utterly laughable, and pales in comparison to the Throne Room Scene in ROTJ which is the best part of ROTJ.

I understand some will love the PT, and I am not arguing that. I still contend it will be a niche fanbase of PT lovers, and a huge fanbase of OT lovers who like the PT, put up with the PT cause it has its SW moments, and then there will always be the haters. The problem is Lucas is targeting the PT/SE crowd, and I think he is in for a rude awakening in the next boxset, cause everyone has one of the versions of the OT on DVD, so now we want quality.

Author
Time
Anakin's turn is understandable IF you keep in my mind that Anakin really respects Palpatine, as a leader and a father figure, and is SO desperate to keep Amidala from dying like his mother, he won't ask a lot of questions. I just wish II had made a bigger deal out of Anakin's search for his mother, and Anakin's weird desire for a dictatorship. As it stands, those things actually amounted to very little screen time. I had friends who barely remembered Anakin's mother death 3 years later, and they REALLY didn't remember Anakin's comment about dictatorship and that lone scene beteween Palp and Anakin. It was up to II, not III to lay that foundation. I actually really like Episode III, come to think of it.
Author
Time
Like I've said, Sith has some of the greatest prequels moments, some moments that are quite chilling. Unfortunately, you have to wade through so much crap to get to those moments, and those moments are some of the worst out of any Star Wars movie ever.

I have to ask, Go-Mer, what did you think of General Grievous? What point did he serve besides conveniently getting Obi-Wan out of the way for the second movie in a row?

There is no lingerie in space…

C3PX said: Gaffer is like that hot girl in high school that you think you have a chance with even though she is way out of your league because she is sweet and not a stuck up bitch who pretends you don’t exist… then one day you spot her making out with some skinny twerp, only on second glance you realize it is the goth girl who always sits in the back of class; at that moment it dawns on you why she is never seen hanging off the arm of any of the jocks… and you realize, damn, she really is unobtainable after all. Not that that is going to stop you from dreaming… Only in this case, Gaffer is actually a guy.

Author
Time
He sets up the idea that beings can be kept alive through the miracle of robotics, which foreshadows what happens to Anakin, and he looks like a freaking skeleton, which just adds more foreboding to the sense of doom that permeates Episode III.

Also once DooKu was out of the way, he serves as the head of the Separatists.
Your focus determines your reality.
Author
Time
Gaffer,

The Clone Wars had to end with some plot point or pivotal moment. Using Grevious to do that was fine. I mean, it makes perfect sense from where I stand for the droids to have some type of field general for combat against the Republic. I don't like the idea of Dooku doing that so, Grevious wasn't too farfetched at all.

Would it have been cool to introduce Grevious in Episode II? Sure, but he still works even if you hadn't seen the Clone Wars, which I didn't.

As far as Anakin's turn, it's all about going forward to gain the power to achieve his goal. With him, unintentionally helping with the death of Windu, he can't go back to the Jedi. So, he might as well submit to achieve what he truly desires; the power to save Padme.

The turn doesn't work without Episodes I and II. The threads for that scene are in the previous films. Now, execution is subjective but I think it's a very good scene. And I also love the scene because it's the scene that Anakin begins his plan to rid the galaxy of Palpatine(a plan he continues in the Originals-overthrow his master to become the master). Problem is, he never to into account the Darkside.

Twisted by the Dark Side, young Skywalker has become. The boy you trained, gone he is. Consumed by Darth Vader.

-Yoda; Episode III Revenge of the Sith.
Author
Time
I can't think of a single moment in Sith that I like, though I otherwise agree with Gaffer's take on it.


Much as I contend the prequels did well financially because they were technically Star Wars, I don't think many people will want to experience all 6 as a saga, to be watched back-to-back over a week or a marathon weekend. There's only a niche audience for the 'Skywalker Father and Son' saga, and a much bigger Star Wars audience who wouldn't want to waste over 6 hours of poor entertainment to lead them into the 6 hours of glorious fun and adventure.


Further, I don't think anyone who was born before 1999 would, if they were to watch all six films, want to experience the story in its chronological order of fictional events; most will rightly want to watch them in the chronological order of creation, which presents the story to its greatest effect.

Not that there's zero effect from watching it 1 to 6, but the better story effect lies in watching the main story, then the back story.



People are perfectly free to read The Silmarillion before they tackle Lord of the Rings, but they are missing the greater emotional effect of reading the stories in the order they were published.

Lord of the Rings itself provides an even greater example. In Tolkien's novel, events are not told in strict chronology. After the point where the characters split up to pursue separate adventures, the separate threads of the tale leapfrog each other in time. There's a lot of suspense in this design - specifically in having many of the characters - and a good many readers - believing that Frodo is dead. Peter Jackson ditched this well-planned scheme, and laid out his movies in strict chronology. It was a drastic mistake.

A story is not simply the sum of its parts. It's all in how the tale is told. Sometimes messing with the chronology is absolutely vital. Heheh, put the events in Memento in chron order, and you've turned a great movie into a pointless one.


It's arguable whether the reverse chronology is as vital to Star Wars.


I'm arguing it is.


.
Author
Time
Obi,

I'll argue that the story is different, told numerically. You guys see the emotional power with the Original Trilogy by itself. I agree as well. But, watching them numerically tells a different tale. It's just different. Not better, but different. And it just depends on whether or not you can accept that the Star Wars story can be told in two different ways.

For me, I prefer Anakin's story to Luke's eventhough you need Luke to finish Anakin's story.


Twisted by the Dark Side, young Skywalker has become. The boy you trained, gone he is. Consumed by Darth Vader.

-Yoda; Episode III Revenge of the Sith.
Author
Time
Honestly, I was never extremely interested in the past. I read a few EU books when I was younger, like the the Thrawn trilogy, which I'm re-reading now for the first time in ten years. And it's so good. As long as I'm on the subject, to those who say that OT fans can't accept adding things to the story and the universe, those books do plenty of that, but all of it seems to work really well. But, anyway, I was always interested in the future of Luke of the others much more than I ever was in what had happened before those characters even existed. I remember there was a series of children's books called Star Wars: Galaxy of Fear, and I was never into that because it takes place way in the future without Luke and the others. It's all about the characters.

There is no lingerie in space…

C3PX said: Gaffer is like that hot girl in high school that you think you have a chance with even though she is way out of your league because she is sweet and not a stuck up bitch who pretends you don’t exist… then one day you spot her making out with some skinny twerp, only on second glance you realize it is the goth girl who always sits in the back of class; at that moment it dawns on you why she is never seen hanging off the arm of any of the jocks… and you realize, damn, she really is unobtainable after all. Not that that is going to stop you from dreaming… Only in this case, Gaffer is actually a guy.

Author
Time
Gaffer,

Yeah, see that's where I differ. I've never read a single bit of EU. The films are and will forever be my canon. But with the Original Trilogy, I was always a Obi-Wan, Vader, and Yoda fan. Obi-Wan's speech to Luke in his hutt filled enough in my head for me to want to know how it all went down back in the day. I liked Luke, Han, and Leia, but they just didn't have the presence that Vader, Obi-Wan, and Yoda had.

I think Anakin's a far more interesting character, whether likeable or not. His story is just more complex than Luke's. But, that's fine. Their stories and circumstances should be different because they were raised different.
Twisted by the Dark Side, young Skywalker has become. The boy you trained, gone he is. Consumed by Darth Vader.

-Yoda; Episode III Revenge of the Sith.
Author
Time
Alright, let’s see here, I’ll deal with how the PT affects the OT first . . .

Originally posted by: Go-Mer-Tonic
the dynamic for an audience member is different for a first time viewer if they go into ANH knowing Luke and Leia are Vader's children. Are you saying that it works this way from a logical narrative standpoint but just isn't "beautiful" anymore?

From that standpoint the OT films aren’t beautiful anymore because their focus has been radically changed. Important drama and plot revelations are erased and become meaningless since the viewer gains nothing new at those points anymore.


Originally posted by: Go-Mer-Tonic
Sure ANH worked on that level of simply good vs. evil, but in the context of the whole saga, it now has the added benefit of depth. I'm not sure I understand what you mean about how it doesn't work artistically or emotionally.

Well, in Star Wars, you aren’t supposed to think about Darth Vader as Luke’s father, or Leia as his sister. You can call these ideas “depth,” but I call them a needless distraction. “Episode IV” becomes the weakest film out of the series because nobody can focus on its strengths anymore. We’re thinking about a bunch of other shit that makes everyone lame. Darth Vader is a whiny loser and an illogical psychopath, et cetera. The coolness of its story is irrevocably destroyed.

Also, most of the artistic emotional strengths of the original trilogy rely upon the viewer experiencing its story fresh, without knowing certain key concepts ahead of time. For instance, who is the strange and ridiculous little green creature that leads Luke around in Empire? Or, “Oh my God, that monster, Darth Vader, says he’s Luke’s father? Is he lying?” Are you actually telling me that you place no importance on those immensely great dramatic moments? You’re more worried about Anakin than Luke? You believe the prequel trilogy is important enough to demolish some of the greatest plot developments in movie history?



Now to touch on conceptual problems in the prequel trilogy . . .

Originally posted by: Go-Mer-Tonic
I agree he didn't -have- to make Jedi in their prime able to jump such amazing heights, but I don't see why it would be "bad" to have done so. The logic is that Luke isn't going to be quite as good as the Jedi we see jumping all over the place in the prequels. It also explains why their swordsmanship is superior as well. Are you saying this is a logic flaw or some kind of artistic flaw?

The insane jumps are a logically artistic flaw when trying to tie together the 6-episode saga. If we start with Luke, considering his youth, his natural strength at using the force, his intense physical training with Yoda, and then Yoda stating that he’s basically learned everything he needs in RotJ, it seems silly to suddenly have every lowly Jedi that comes along able to dwarf Luke’s jumps by a mile. It was simply done for sensationalistic reasons so Jedi could jump like they were in “The Matrix.” I prefer artistic subtlety, thank you. The super jumps add nothing of value to the series, and the fact that viewers have to figure them out based on the earlier films takes away some fun for them.

Anyways, this is a small problem that most people don’t notice right away, including myself, so I don’t want to waste too much time talking about it. There are more important problems to analyze from an artistic standpoint.


Originally posted by: Go-Mer-Tonic
First of all, if I was worried about "logical beauty" I would have given up at the concept of light sabers. Instead of stopping at "well lasers wouldn’t just stop at one end" I rolled along with it for the sake of enjoyment.

Nonsense. Lightsabers were always presented in a very logically beautiful way in the films. They were mysterious and magical weapons that somehow needed the force to work and, unlike what you claim, they were clearly different from the laser blasters in the film (please don’t make flippant points). All in all, lightsabers are a very simple and acceptable subject from a logical standpoint, and very enjoyable from a logical standpoint as well.

Now, if we were to have logically delved deeper into how light sabers supposedly worked in the films themselves and talked about plasma and shit like that, sure that might well have been an unsuccessful addition, artistically speaking. There’s no way for us to know though, since the films never went that route.


Originally posted by: Go-Mer-Tonic
I think the more thought provoking the Force concept has become, the better it's gotten. There is something to be said about showing both sides to any given coin, which is what the scientific perspective does for the more mystical side of the Force. Everything about this "whole saga" is about showing different sides to the same things. In the prequels we have the "Good" establishment and the "Bad" rebels (separatists). In the classic trilogy we have the "Bad" establishment, and the "Good" rebels. The prequels start out with 2 Sith Lords in hiding waiting to take the galaxy back from the Jedi, while in the classic trilogy we have 2 Jedi in hiding waiting to take the galaxy back from the Sith. Even the Jedi and the Sith are similar in almost every way... but opposite. The beauty of the full saga together is like the beauty of a yin yang. To me this is much more meaningful than either side of the coin on it's own.

To me that's the beauty and meaning I find in the "whole saga".

That is an admirable element of the prequel trilogy’s story. I too thought that the parallels and opposites found in the films were an interesting path to take. The Phantom Menace used this concept the best. Unfortunately, even in that film, a lot of the elements were generic and boring. Midichlorians, as presented in TPM, are a third-rate science fiction concept. They add nothing enjoyable to the experience of the movie, except when they helped Qui-Gon Jinn to analyze Anakin. After that, the explanation of how they are the beings that actually connect a Jedi’s mind to the force raises too many pointless questions about the force that take you out of the experience. I mean, seriously, if the force is connected to everything, then it should be automatically connected to a Jedi’s mind as well. Why can’t a Jedi’s mind know the “will” of the force without mindless bacteria telling him first?

Anyways, the yin-yang concept was executed horribly in episodes II and III. One minute you’d have a concept be identical and then the next minute it would be opposite. That and the parallels were often so simple that they insulted the audience’s intelligence. Like Obi-Wan saying “I’ll never join you,” or Anakin and “Padme” professing their love to each other while captured. Anyone could have come invented those generic and predictable copies of the OT within a few seconds.



Anyways, with all of that now said, here we now reach the most important part of my post, Go-Mer. I look forward to your response regarding the following ideas. They express the heart of why I do not enjoy the prequel trilogy films. If you can at least understand my point of view here, then at least we have gotten somewhere.

Originally posted by: Go-Mer-Tonic
Second, I really do enjoy figuring out ways apparent inconsistencies could make sense.


As do I. Yet, while I love spending the vast majority of my time on tough logical exercises, I do not like to do that in the middle of a film. A competent piece of art is supposed to focus the observer’s mind on the concepts its author intended it to communicate, and not distract the audience with needless complications or outright contradictions. In a film, that primary, communicated focus is usually the film’s story and all of the other neat concepts that are contained within a film hang off of that thread.


Originally posted by: Go-Mer-Tonic
so what are the logical inconsistencies you would have to look over to enjoy this as much as I do?


Every single, logical mess we’ve had to discuss in thread so far is what lessens my enjoyment of the prequel trilogy. Much of what CO, Scruffy, and others have mentioned for instance. These issues detract from the enjoyment of the films because they’re so convoluted, messy, and incomplete. Sure, you can explain them if you twist your reasoning around enough times, but that doesn’t make the films into good art. So much of what happens in the prequel trilogy’s story occurs for stupid reasons.

Good art is capable of standing on its own. You accept what it offers without reservation because its artistic focus is well crafted. If that artistic concept is filled with an inordinate amount of annoying questions, there is less enjoyment on the part of an observer.


Originally posted by: Go-Mer-Tonic

I'm not sure I understand, you mean you are looking for a reason for Anakin to have slaughtered the younglings?


Yes. Every time I watch Revenge of the Sith I try to grasp hold of a simple reason for this. Either Anakin is a complete, psychotic monster, concerned with his own pathetically little fears, or the Force operates in the most contradictory and stupid ways imaginable. (Maybe it’s a mixture of both, which would be even more stupid.) Either way, the fact that I’m forced to wonder so much about his crucial point means that the movie’s story, as a piece of art, is easily substandard. The entire “saga” falls apart at this point for me as well.


Originally posted by: Go-Mer-Tonic
Here is a quote from Lucas I saved from a while back about how Anakin turns to the dark side:

Lucas: The message is you can't possess things. You can't hold on to them. You have to accept change. You have to accept the fact that things transition. And so, as you try to hold on to things or you become afraid of -- that you're going to lose things, then you begin to crave the power to control those things. And then, you start to become greedy and then you turn into a bad person.

To me it's the reasons Anakin falls to the dark side. I'm no film scholar, but Lucas starts out with an almost overly virtuous Anakin in TPM, and shows how his inability to cope with the prospect of change ended up being his undoing.
Anakin: But I don't want things to change.

Shmi: But you can't stop the change, any more than you can stop the suns from setting.

It's set up by his fear of losing his mother, ratcheted up a notch with his inability to save his mother from death, and delivered by his choice to turn to the dark side in an attempt to save Padme.


Ahh, how interesting. So, you believe that the selfishness of a complete psychopath is a meaningful way to communicate the concept that a fear of change can often lead to bad things?

Sorry, Anakin’s desires don’t move me in the least. I don’t want to identify with a whiny little piece of evil scum and I wouldn’t want anyone else to do so either. That teaches the wrong message if anything.


Otherwise, do you believe that it is wrong for a child to want to be with his mother? A child is evil for fearing that change? Or a man shouldn't want to save his mother from a horrible death? Or save his wife from dying if he can? The reason I ask these questions is because Yoda seems to imply that the basic emotion of fear in those examples is wrong for some reason. That's a dumb concept for George Lucas to preach. Certainly, fear can lead to bad outcomes based on how we choose to view our fear, but fear is often a good thing.

"Now all Lucas has to do is make a cgi version of himself.  It will be better than the original and fit his original vision." - skyjedi2005

Author
Time
Tiptup,

Anakin's slaughtering of the younglings is all about driving forward to possess what he seeks. He can't go back to the Jedi because of his involvement with Mace's death. And in a way, he feels he's been used by the Jedi and Palpatine. At least Palpatine offers a way to take away his fear that he has. Yoda's words offer nothing to him.

Anakin going to that Temple has really nothing to do with the Jedi or Palpatine. It has everything to do with doing what is neccessary to gain what I needs. And the reason it works is because Anakin wants to rid the galaxy of Palpatine when we get to the end.

Whether you buy it or not, Anakin had that thought running through his mind ever since he left Palpatine's office to take care of the Jedi.

That's why the sequence works. Anakin would go this far, not thinking what Padme would think about this, because he's so fearful of loosing the one he loves. He promised his mother he wouldn't let it happen again and he meant it. It's absolutely the wrong attitude to take but this is how he feels....because he feels he's the Chosen One. The Jedi have labeled him this way. Qui-Gon believed it. When we get to Episode II, his actions and attitude suggest that Anakin believes it. Why can't he do anything?




Twisted by the Dark Side, young Skywalker has become. The boy you trained, gone he is. Consumed by Darth Vader.

-Yoda; Episode III Revenge of the Sith.
Author
Time
Originally posted by: Jumpman
Tiptup,

Anakin's slaughtering of the younglings is all about driving forward to possess what he seeks. He can't go back to the Jedi because of his involvement with Mace's death. And in a way, he feels he's been used by the Jedi and Palpatine. At least Palpatine offers a way to take away his fear that he has. Yoda's words offer nothing to him.

Anakin going to that Temple has really nothing to do with the Jedi or Palpatine. It has everything to do with doing what is neccessary to gain what I needs. And the reason it works is because Anakin wants to rid the galaxy of Palpatine when we get to the end.

Whether you buy it or not, Anakin had that thought running through his mind ever since he left Palpatine's office to take care of the Jedi.

That's why the sequence works. Anakin would go this far, not thinking what Padme would think about this, because he's so fearful of loosing the one he loves. He promised his mother he wouldn't let it happen again and he meant it. It's absolutely the wrong attitude to take but this is how he feels....because he feels he's the Chosen One. The Jedi have labeled him this way. Qui-Gon believed it. When we get to Episode II, his actions and attitude suggest that Anakin believes it. Why can't he do anything?


And so . . . Anakin is a whiny psychopath. Thank you for reiterating my point for me.

"Now all Lucas has to do is make a cgi version of himself.  It will be better than the original and fit his original vision." - skyjedi2005

Author
Time
Originally posted by: Obi Jeewhyen


Much as I contend the prequels did well financially because they were technically Star Wars, I don't think many people will want to experience all 6 as a saga, to be watched back-to-back over a week or a marathon weekend. There's only a niche audience for the 'Skywalker Father and Son' saga, and a much bigger Star Wars audience who wouldn't want to waste over 6 hours of poor entertainment to lead them into the 6 hours of glorious fun and adventure.


Further, I don't think anyone who was born before 1999 would, if they were to watch all six films, want to experience the story in its chronological order of fictional events; most will rightly want to watch them in the chronological order of creation, which presents the story to its greatest effect.

Not that there's zero effect from watching it 1 to 6, but the better story effect lies in watching the main story, then the back story.

.


This is a good point, and I think the one thing that made the OT great and still popular today is replay value of the movies. The OT are one of the few set of movies that fans can watch hundreds of times and they aren't some niche or cult fanbase, they are the masses.

Many people love movies like Shawshank Redemption, they have built a following that the fans seem to love the movie more than anything in the world, but again it is a niche fanbase. Although Shawshank is a great movie.

The OT movies have so much replay value I often wonder how I have never got sick of them? How can I watch Star Wars '77 again and again and never get sick of it, same with ESB & ROTJ. I love so many other movies, but I do need some time after I watch them or I will play them out, but the OT is different.

I believe the PT fanbase won't be as big for that reason alone, the way the trilogy is structured as GoMer says, the Sith doesn't hit the fan til Episode III, so it leaves you with 2 setup movies to get to the real story. What I am saying is the PT movies don't hold up well individually, cause they were designed as a trilogy. The OT movies hold up as a trilogy and individually cause Lucas was making them by the seed of his pants hoping the success will bring him enough money to make the next one. Sure ESB doesn't have an ending, but no one was sure in 1980 there would be a third SW movie, so Lucas had to make ESB just as great as SW, cause if it failed, the end of the SW.

The PT was made knowing he was making Episode III, and that is why every PT fan I have heard from thinks ROTS is the best of the PT movies. One reason: Whether you like the movie or not, it has every plot point a SW fan could dream of, so Lucas really threw all his marbles in Episode III.

I just can't see a huge amount of saga fans in the future, and I think that will have a trickle down effect on the OT too, as I don't see as many diehard SW fans as the generation that grew up with the OT. I still say the 1-6 newcomer will watch the OT totally out of context and will only love the second half of ESB, and the Throne Rooms scenes in ROTJ, the other stuff they will say is all exposition, meaning the Han, Luke, and Leia stuff. The sad thing is that supposed exposition that coincides with the tragedy of Anakins story is the reason I am a diehard fan.

Author
Time
Tiptup,

He's not a whiny psycho. He just feels that he can and should be able to do anything, being the Chosen One and all. If he's suppose to be this all powerful Jedi, why can't he keep things the way they are?

Life doesn't work that way. Things always change. For Anakin, it comes from a place of love but because he's a Jedi, he can't have these thoughts. Trying to figure out how to make everything and everyone around stay the same and keep things is a pathway to gain more power...and for a Jedi, that's the Darkside.
Twisted by the Dark Side, young Skywalker has become. The boy you trained, gone he is. Consumed by Darth Vader.

-Yoda; Episode III Revenge of the Sith.
Author
Time
Jumpman, that's cool about where your interests lie.

But, generally speaking, the wizards and such, the noble knights, the villains and kings ... are the background characters who are romanticized via having a hazy definition. The audiences' surrogates, those whom the viewer or reader is destined to identify with, are usually much more common folk or young folk who are thrown into amazing situations, and surrounded by such fantastical characters.

Oftentimes, the romance of the background characters derives precisely from their seeming to have fascinating histories ... but the romance can tend to disappear if those histories are nailed down too precisely.

In any event, simplistic or not, most stories have audience surrogates that are more like ... well, like members of the audience. These are the characters most people identify with.



Nothing wrong with identifying with any of the knights or kings or sorcerors. It's just less common.



(And hence, you are likely an exceptional person!)


.
Author
Time
Originally posted by: Jumpman
He just feels that he can and should be able to do anything, being the Chosen One and all. If he's suppose to be this all powerful Jedi, why can't he keep things the way they are?

For Anakin, it comes from a place of love but because he's a Jedi, he can't have these thoughts. Trying to figure out how to make everything and everyone around stay the same and keep things is a pathway to gain more power...and for a Jedi, that's the Darkside.


So, all Anakin cares about is the personal things that he loves and wants to have control over? He has no empathy for the loves and feelings of others? To hell with innocent younglings?

He's a psychopathic monster by the definition of the term.

"Now all Lucas has to do is make a cgi version of himself.  It will be better than the original and fit his original vision." - skyjedi2005

Author
Time
Obi,

You're absolutely correct in that assessment.
Twisted by the Dark Side, young Skywalker has become. The boy you trained, gone he is. Consumed by Darth Vader.

-Yoda; Episode III Revenge of the Sith.